Rally 4 Sally

[GentlemanX]

13 hours ago, E-122-Psi said:

Yeah, but the thing is with Sally, they have a tendency to flanderize these aspects of them so her straight man archetype can flourish. Sonic becomes barely able to go a single story without doing something stupidly impulsive or arrogant, Tails becomes more of a helpless kid, and Eggman needs to be purest evil. Again we need BALANCE or Sally's personality to at least compromise better so both their flaws and their strengths as characters can be demonstrated (eg. more Season One style role reversals where Sonic can be straight man to Sally's own hypocritical or busybody traits).

So this isn't the first time you called Sally a busybody and straight man in this thread, but I wanted to address this here because I think it comes to the crux of the problem we're having - I really don't agree with your view of Sally's character and I really don't agree with what you seem to think are essential components in her use. Let's talk about Sally in the context of SatAM for a second before talking about what her coming to the games would actually entail. SatAM Sonic, Tails, and Robotnik are not equivalent to Sega Sonic, Tails, and Eggman. I think pretty much everyone would agree with that, yeah? SatAM's premise is significantly different from the games and that has been the sticking point for it in the fandom since it's debut 27 years ago. Does SatAM still represent the spirit of the franchise even if it deviates so much in terms of premise? Maybe, depends who you ask. But pretty much everyone should be able to agree that regardless of what SatAM did to the Sonic formula, it adapted the characters to fit the premise it wanted to tell, at least as much as could be adapted when the only real examples of Sega Sonic were Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 at the time.

Sonic's 90s rebel attitude and hip status were exaggerated making him difficult to talk to. Robotnik's angry "the man" persona and over industrialization were exaggerated to make him a cruel, cold, and controlling with the animals being made into badniks being adapted as roboticization. Tails' child like incompetence and struggles were adapted to make him younger than everyone else and therefore needing to be protected. These are all rooted in their game portrayals but significantly altered to fit the story they were telling. Sally was not created for Sega Sonic, she was created for SatAM Sonic and her personality there and in the Archie comics reflected that role. She was meant to help direct Sonic's recklessness, she was meant to take care of Tails, and she was meant to oppose Robotnik. Sally's character did not necessitate changes for the other characters, she was meant to play off the adapted personalities used in SatAM. Straight man I can kind of see, but calling her a busybody makes no sense to me. Of course she's going to be in Sonic's business, he's an impulsive soldier that can be of great benefit to her cause but just as likely will make a mistake that could cost them everything. She struggles with trusting him to do the right thing because it's her job to worry about all the different scenarios at play. This is why you have scenes where Bunnie is helping her remember that Sonic can be reckless but he also comes through when he needs to. Sally, and all of these characters, are much more three dimensional characters in SatAM than you seem to portray them as when talking about them.

But that's all SatAM, something that is a beast all it's own. What about the actual topic? What about adding Sally to Sega Sonic? Unlike SatAM where Sonic, Tails, and Eggman were adapted to fit it's unique premise, we've got a reversal here. Sally needs to be modified to fit the universe in the Sega games. And I think Sally's inclusion is much easier to incorporate than you seem to think. In SatAM, Sally is a leader of a rebellion against a dictator. But save Forces, that premise is not present in the games. So you adapt that - she's not a leader of a rebellion but an activist pushing to help those in need. In SatAM she was meant to rein in Sonic's at times dangerously impulsive attitude. In the games, Sonic is much more focused on the plights of others and all Sally would need to do is tell him about something that needs his help. They can still banter; Sally pokes fun at how much fun Sonic's having and he laughs it off admitting as much. In SatAM you had an opposites attract kinda relationship between the two, but in Sega it'd be much more two like minded souls that feel comfortable around each other to just joke and take a quick break before getting back to business. How about Eggman? The plot of any game always involves taking down whatever plan Eggman's cooked up. The difference is that Eggman always loses in the end. He's not some unstoppable threat that they are constantly trying to overthrow, he comes up with some new scheme and has it blow up in his face. Would Sally take combating him more seriously than Sonic? Probably, and in a situation where Eggman has them cornered you might finally get a scene where Sally tells Sonic to be serious. But in general, she knows Eggman has been taken down before and can be again. She's going to be more relaxed with everyone than she was in SatAM. And Tails? In SatAM he was never allowed to leave Knothole. In the games he builds bi-planes in his spare time. They're shtick might be Sally would praising him for his work and him getting embarrassed about it. The two would also likely strategize with each other about what was the best way of accomplishing whatever was going on at the time.

I can do this with all the characters - show how Sally's natural personality would bounce off the other Sega characters, show how you would adapt the other Freedom Fighters to fit the premise of Sega Sonic - it's really not difficult to consider ways of making this stuff work.

[E-122-Psi]

Well okay, I know I'm just gonna say the same stuff that's annoying everyone here, but if you're gonna bring me back.....

 

Maybe 'busybody' might not be the right term here, but I tend to think to Sally works best when she is in-universe kind of pushy and neurotic as her defining vices. Like it's not her whole character but much like Sonic in the games isn't 100% reckless and arrogant but still has that as a key vice, Sally seemed kind of meant to oppose that to a fault initially in SatAm, not just be the voice of reason to those flaws of his, but sometimes be a bit TOO cautious and methodical, a bit of control freak who thinks she knows what's best and gets flustered when someone opposes her, which let's be fair, fits someone who has spent the decade traumatised by the loss of comrades and loved ones. She does not want to take risks she doesn't feel are necessary at face value.

It's like how many say that Sonic is way more vibrant when he's at least A LITTLE of an arrogant jerk (not Fleetway level of course, just enough to make him feel bombastic and a bit fallible), I kinda feel the same for Sally, just Sally's hubris is more defensive and generally needs foils to fluster up that side of her first, which is maybe what led to later writers seeing her as the more reasonable of the two and thus streamlined them into a more consistent instigator and straight man dynamic rather than two opposites with similar egos.

I think the reason I found Sally in later works blander and less likeable was because, not only did they not like spotlighting that ugly but necessary side of Sally (though it did still exist on some level, which only furthered issues of her feeling like a karma houdini sometimes) but adding more light hearted SEGA characterisations and premises generally led to her character being kind of diluted. As you exemplify, Sally's shtick could be done but only really  in very tame doses that don't grant as much of an agency, Sally's cautious and more fearful approach wouldn't quite fit as well against a comical plot of Eggman's, and while Sonic is still impetuous and reckless it's not as prevalent as they made it earlier. As such Sally sort of gained a more relaxed and less specific personality, no longer really needing to play straight man and feeling kind of like the standardised leader and a bit vanilla. It really felt like her and the FFs were kinda boring when not fighting a bad guy in later Archie, any time we got a look at their lives off-duty it was just extremely mundane normal stuff or expositioning for a page. If this is how Sally translates into a SEGA level environment, then the choice is either diluting HER or flanderizing the others so they bring out her character quirks better, neither choices I'm that fond of and lead me to question how much beneficial she brings.

Not to say well meaning neurotics and 'no-risks' type characters CAN NEVER be done well in light hearted works, after all straight men do appear prominently in comedies (see Twilight Sparkle whose a fair bit like a more light hearted take on early Sally) but it feels like as time passed, that side of Sally isn't even representative of her anyway, and writers and people in charge just tend to see her as a standard 'strong smart female leader' which I don't find very interesting on its own.

You can call it holding onto the past again, but the Sally generally seen as a canon to most today is what I view as the 'Theme Park Version' of Sally; the standard boring 90s female foil that is always dignified, everyone gets on with, has no in-universe called out flaws and wins nearly every argument (even when she's wrong) and only really gains chemistries that are halfway interesting to watch by having everyone else around her losing half their IQ so she can be their voice of reason. I'd love to see the original more healthily developed Sally, but the version that is more prominently seen to me isn't just pointless but outright DANGEROUS to adapt. I'm just not interested in a 'designated normal guy'.

[Kuzu]

If you don't think Sally will add anything to the series, that's perfectly fair. But you need to stop framing it like she will just overtake everything because it's happened before.

In SATAM and Archie, Sally more or less was the focal point of those mediums, with the Sega characters adapting to fit that specific universe. If you didn't care for how they did the Sega characters, fine. But SATAM/Archie's plot would not work with the Modern Sega characters, and at the time of adapting them, some of them barely had any character to begin with.

Given SATAM is no longer relevant, it makes no sense to use that as a reference point. We're not talking about adapting SATAM/Archie Sally to the games, we're talking about a brand new Sally created for the current Sega universe.

 

You need to stop framing this as "This character will overtake the series and make everyone look stupid". SATAM/Archie are NOT the games, and you need see them as two separate universes with their own established rules and changes.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, GentlemanX said:

I can do this with all the characters - show how Sally's natural personality would bounce off the other Sega characters, show how you would adapt the other Freedom Fighters to fit the premise of Sega Sonic - it's really not difficult to consider ways of making this stuff work.

In many ways, that was already done before Archie Sonic’s cancellation anyway—the reboot being more like the games pretty much guaranteed that the Freedom Fighters needed to be made as if they came from the games.

They were a heck of a lot stronger than they originally were, Rotor coming from a tribe of warriors and working as a sort of Battle Mechanic/Combat Engineer while Antoine’s swordsmanship was given more extensive use than ever despite still being the more cautious of the team—motherfucker chops badniks like butter with that thing, and he would’ve gotten a bigger one had the comic continued.

The dimension with most changes were really their backgrounds, and it’s not like you can’t make a new one without changing the whole core of the characters—in all three incarnations of the characters, be it SatAM, Pre-reboot, and Post-reboot Archie, they still retained the main traits they’re known for: Sally’s leadership, Antoine’s caution, Rotor’s inventiveness, and Bunnie’s brashness. There’s always more than one way to express these traits.

Rotor can enjoy taking apart Eggman’s Badniks, for instance—we often see Tails making his own devices rather than working with Eggman’s technology, and from that he can build other kinds of tech different from Tails, repurposing badniks and other things. That and we can have him focus on weaponry while Tails focuses on Aeronautics.

I actually liked Bunnie’s new background behind her cybernetics over her old one, being injured in one of Eggman’s attacks and forced to get new limbs as opposed to be stuck halfway in a roboticizer, but it’s not like you can’t make a million other ways that would force her to get cybernetics. Her already being a bruiser with augmentations, she could co-opt some of Eggman’s tech with her cybernetics, or with other adaptations built by techies like Rotor or Tails.

And given how even 6 year olds can be over-eager to jump in and fight death machines in this series, we don’t have a lot of characters exercise the kind of caution that Antoine displays. I’d rather not go full on coward like the cartoons did at times and instead keep the backbone he developed in the comics, but he could definitely be the kind of character that can signal when some of the characters are in way over their heads. You could also use that trait to make him sneakier—being cautious can make one favor a more stealthy approach to things, and while he wouldn’t be on par with characters like Rouge or Espio in stealth, you could still use his caution to have him do things like lie about crucial information to enemies, hide things on his person, or surprise someone with the unexpected show of bravery since no one would expect a more cautious character to go head on with something beyond the usual scope. I could honestly go on. (Actually didn’t think I could even come up with this much for Antoine, honestly.)

And after these are worked out, it’s really a matter of just giving them a new background of how they came to be who they are with these very traits. Admittedly, I’d rather keep their backgrounds in the Reboot, but with Sega being Sega, it’s not difficult to make a new one that still respects these characters if it came to it.

[E-122-Psi]

15 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

And given how even 6 year olds can be over-eager to jump in and fight death machines in this series, we don’t have a lot of characters exercise the kind of caution that Antoine displays. I’d rather not go full on coward like the cartoons did at times and instead keep the backbone he developed in the comics, but he could definitely be the kind of character that can signal when some of the characters are in way over their heads. You could also use that trait to make him sneakier—being cautious can make one favor a more stealthy approach to things, and while he wouldn’t be on par with characters like Rouge or Espio in stealth, you could still use his caution to have him do things like lie about crucial information to enemies, hide things on his person, or surprise someone with the unexpected show of bravery since no one would expect a more cautious character to go head on with something beyond the usual scope. I could honestly go on. (Actually didn’t think I could even come up with this much for Antoine, honestly.)

Truth be told it didn't feel like cowardice was just Antoine's biggest trait in the cartoons, but also his delusions of grandeur, his attempts to impress Sally and prove he was the ace instead of Sonic, just the cowardice was always something that let his bravado down. This was also something that gave him a bit more proactivity in the cartoons (besides his clumsiness of course) since he would sometimes go out of his way to prove he could do things, something that was sort of lost to him in the comics. I mean I could buy Antoine would calm down and become more sensible, but he felt like just another soldier without his bluster. I mean if Sonic could keep his ego as a vice and still be competent, why not Antoine? (Then again that 'Daffy Duck' type rival role is kind of what Knuckles does now.)

I feel like there was lost potential between him and Bunnie in that regard. Sure he had no longer any reason to court a girl since he had already scored and married, but Bunnie could have easily played into his easily wounded pride, she was a brash super powered strong girl and he, even at his best, was a normal jittery guy. I also feel like ironically, despite not being nearly as close, the cartoons had more of a back and forth with them, with Bunnie getting annoyed by his showing off or only worsening his nerves by mistake (at one point he's even screaming at her to shut up for once when they were flying in a plane). Just a LITTLE bit of cynical tension beneath all the kissy faces and lovey dovey talk every time we saw them.

[GentlemanX]

41 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

Maybe 'busybody' might not be the right term here, but I tend to think to Sally works best when she is in-universe kind of pushy and neurotic as her defining vices. Like it's not her whole character but much like Sonic in the games isn't 100% reckless and arrogant but still has that as a key vice, Sally seemed kind of meant to oppose that to a fault initially in SatAm, not just be the voice of reason to those flaws of his, but sometimes be a bit TOO cautious and methodical, a bit of control freak who thinks she knows what's best and gets flustered when someone opposes her, which let's be fair, fits someone who has spent the decade traumatised by the loss of comrades and loved ones. She does not want to take risks she doesn't feel are necessary at face value.

And I think that's where the divide happens because I DON'T really care for the "pushy and neurotic" version of Sally you mention liking. It sort of reminds me of Tails' portrayal in Lost World, during the scenes where he's yelling at Sonic and all Sonic is trying to do is apologize. I hated that and don't want Sally to fall in some similar role of coming across as snide. I don't want to move on from discussing Sally, but I want to talk about Amy and Blaze for a second as comparisons. In the IDW thread, there's been some talk about Amy's perceived character in Sega Sonic from 1998-2011 versus her personality from 2012-present, specifically whether Amy's obsession with Sonic was a good or grating part of her character. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Amy was grating a bit before, but only when she would get angry with characters like Cream when they pointed out she was blowing up. Her obsession with Sonic was never the issue, that's just what she likes doing, and like in SA1 when Sonic wasn't around her instinct was to get side tracked helping people like Birdie or Gamma. In the modern games I think she's been sanitized like you're mentioning with Sally, but not due to the conflicts she has with others, but because she's no longer displaying the positive traits I prefer she be associated with.

I mention this because of how it impacts what I want to see from Sally. If Sally were "pushy and neurotic" I'd probably find her less enjoyable to watch. "Why is Sally being so hard on Sonic? Why does he deserve that?", "wow, that's shallow of Sally to bring up when she does the same thing". Your mileage varies of course, you like seeing her faults and butting heads but to me that doesn't really speak to what I enjoy seeing about the character which is her acting on what she thinks is right and otherwise chilling with those she considers friends.

But the obvious answer to that is "But then isn't she perfect? Where are her flaws?". That's where I want to bring up Blaze. Blaze is very similar to Sally in that they're both proactive women in this series that fight against villains for the sake of others. But what are Blaze's faults? The one that has gotten the most attention in the series is her lack of ability to trust and let others in. She relies on herself so much that she can forget she doesn't have to do everything by herself. In Sonic Rush this was her whole emotional arc, while in her subsequent appearances it's been her occasionally needing reminders about that. Given Blaze is no longer in the "new character receiving arc do to hanging out with Sonic" role she occupied in Sonic Rush, her character is going to see less changes going forward and therefore usage of her reflects the character given to her in her initial appearance only simplified for continued use. Similar to Knuckles being tricked into Eggman to be one of the big bads in Sonic 3&K and then getting tricked by Eggman time and again in later appearances all in more mundane situations given the overall plots of those later appearances.

Back to Sally. I feel a similar flaw could be applied to her as it was to Blaze just so different. If Sally is an activist constantly worried about the needs of others, why can't her fault be that she tends to disregard her own needs and self care. Over the course of her initial appearance she learns from Sonic and his friends that she's overworking herself and needs to take time to enjoy herself too. Then the reoccurring role she has in the series is that she's fighting for something only for everyone to remind her not to over stress herself. Or not even that if all she's going to get is something like the supporting cast got in Generations. The point is, I think you can adapt Sally's personality and give her traits that are relatable and reusable without making her obnoxious to the player, which is what I'd see her being "pushy and neurotic" would easily fall into.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

24 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

Truth be told it didn't feel like cowardice was just Antoine's biggest trait in the cartoons, but also his delusions of grandeur, his attempts to impress Sally and prove he was the ace instead of Sonic, just the cowardice was always something that let his bravado down.

Well for the most part, I was really focusing on just singular traits that stuck out the most and how to keep that intact in the off-chance they were to be adapted into the games and had to be set apart from their Post-Reboot incarnations—which is a waste, since that was my favorite take (that I ironically didn’t even want when they were set to be rebooted).

There’s always more to each character, and that goes especially for Antoine who’s had as much development as Shadow and Knuckles if we’re being honest.

[E-122-Psi]

55 minutes ago, GentlemanX said:

And I think that's where the divide happens because I DON'T really care for the "pushy and neurotic" version of Sally you mention liking. It sort of reminds me of Tails' portrayal in Lost World, during the scenes where he's yelling at Sonic and all Sonic is trying to do is apologize. I hated that and don't want Sally to fall in some similar role of coming across as snide. I don't want to move on from discussing Sally, but I want to talk about Amy and Blaze for a second as comparisons. In the IDW thread, there's been some talk about Amy's perceived character in Sega Sonic from 1998-2011 versus her personality from 2012-present, specifically whether Amy's obsession with Sonic was a good or grating part of her character. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Amy was grating a bit before, but only when she would get angry with characters like Cream when they pointed out she was blowing up. Her obsession with Sonic was never the issue, that's just what she likes doing, and like in SA1 when Sonic wasn't around her instinct was to get side tracked helping people like Birdie or Gamma. In the modern games I think she's been sanitized like you're mentioning with Sally, but not due to the conflicts she has with others, but because she's no longer displaying the positive traits I prefer she be associated with.

I mention this because of how it impacts what I want to see from Sally. If Sally were "pushy and neurotic" I'd probably find her less enjoyable to watch. "Why is Sally being so hard on Sonic? Why does he deserve that?", "wow, that's shallow of Sally to bring up when she does the same thing". Your mileage varies of course, you like seeing her faults and butting heads but to me that doesn't really speak to what I enjoy seeing about the character which is her acting on what she thinks is right and otherwise chilling with those she considers friends.

But the obvious answer to that is "But then isn't she perfect? Where are her flaws?". That's where I want to bring up Blaze. Blaze is very similar to Sally in that they're both proactive women in this series that fight against villains for the sake of others. But what are Blaze's faults? The one that has gotten the most attention in the series is her lack of ability to trust and let others in. She relies on herself so much that she can forget she doesn't have to do everything by herself. In Sonic Rush this was her whole emotional arc, while in her subsequent appearances it's been her occasionally needing reminders about that. Given Blaze is no longer in the "new character receiving arc do to hanging out with Sonic" role she occupied in Sonic Rush, her character is going to see less changes going forward and therefore usage of her reflects the character given to her in her initial appearance only simplified for continued use. Similar to Knuckles being tricked into Eggman to be one of the big bads in Sonic 3&K and then getting tricked by Eggman time and again in later appearances all in more mundane situations given the overall plots of those later appearances.

Back to Sally. I feel a similar flaw could be applied to her as it was to Blaze just so different. If Sally is an activist constantly worried about the needs of others, why can't her fault be that she tends to disregard her own needs and self care. Over the course of her initial appearance she learns from Sonic and his friends that she's overworking herself and needs to take time to enjoy herself too. Then the reoccurring role she has in the series is that she's fighting for something only for everyone to remind her not to over stress herself. Or not even that if all she's going to get is something like the supporting cast got in Generations. The point is, I think you can adapt Sally's personality and give her traits that are relatable and reusable without making her obnoxious to the player, which is what I'd see her being "pushy and neurotic" would easily fall into.

I feel like the reason I'm so persistent about Sally's 'pushy' side is that, like I said, it never REALLY got disposed of, just they stopped calling it out in-universe. A recurring tendency for Sally in Archie was for her to be hypocritical, overbearing or insistent HER way is better, even if it wasn't the traits the writers WANTED to demonstrate with her, those weak wills always kept perking up. They tried to hide it and pretend it didn't exist, that moments like 'the slap' were just her pushed to her worst and most OOC, but ultimately this trait was just inherent to how everyone wrote her, Sally's biggest vice was her self righteousness, right down to her final moments in Archie. Self righteousness is admittedly a rather odious characteristic when written too overbearingly, but often when called out in universe and balanced with sympathetic intent, it can be moderated into something that gives a character flavour. Again Twilight Sparkle is Sally with the self righteousness and neuroses punctuated, but it's balanced with her redeeming aspects, and most of her worst moments being called out or leading to her being remorseful. They show Twilight as someone who can be quite humble and sorry when she realises she is wrong or has crossed the line, and make clear she was only trying to help. Sally was NEVER called out for her self righteousness (or only was by a designated 'bad guy'), even in the times they tried to make her a more flawed character, that side of her was always enabled and ignored, which if anything I think made that trait MORE insufferable in the later years, despite it not really being designed to colour her personality anymore. She felt a bit like a bit of glue keeping her personality together was gone.

Now with that in mind, NO, I don't want Sally to be a one note condescending control freak, that was early comedic Archie issues done and she was pretty unlikeable there. Season One Sally undermined Sally's hubris a lot more, but they also humanized her a lot to go with it, they made clear her well intents and what was needed to PUSH her to her most overbearing. Season One Sally was still very sweet towards characters that didn't push her buttons (even Sonic when he wasn't acting up) and even when her flaws were 'on' they were usually kept to a limit to keep her likeable (even if they REALLY loved showcasing her banter with Sonic). It wasn't just Sally screaming or insulting people for not doing everything she wanted and giving them the silent treatment, it was frustration at wanting them to LISTEN to her, because she worried there would be genuine repercussions if they didn't. There was always that sympathetic pivot, even if it was sometimes undermined.

This is the same deal with Amy's temperament for example, to answer your above example personally, Amy to me is actually blander without her brattiness, it's just during the X era, it got Flanderized to obnoxious levels. She flew off the handle over the drop of a pin, and even the nicest least provocative characters faced her nasty temper. It also exagerrated her chemistries with other characters to a one dimension as well with her sort of that being that friend no really liked but was too afraid of to defy. Thus this trait got turned over from something that kept Amy human but humorous when balanced with her more likeable qualities to something that simplified her and if anything turned her into an unlikeable cartoonish psychopath. This was true even in the Archie rendition for a while, just by contrast, the comics decided to make Cream the defining point she became more human again instead of just simplifying her even worse to differentiate them.

This isn't just true of the X era Amy, take say Boom Amy, whose temprament kinda got shifted the other way into making her more of a curmudgeon. She also maybe suffered something linked to your qualms with Sally's pushiness. See in the show Amy is sort of in that pushy self righteous role, but it gets undermined and they are generally careful to show that there is always good intent with her. She THINKS she's helping and is to some degree still genuinely the heart of the group, just there's a lot of bull headedness to it. The Boom comics however tended to convey Amy as just a one note catty superficial bitch at times, take the first arc where she just has no patience for Knuckles at all and insults him constantly. This is taking the negative trait and simplifying it without the pivots and positive qualities that balance it. She's no longer a well meaning control freak and just a catty pushy jerk. I feel like maybe this is why the same writers tried in vain to avoid pinpointing Sally's pushy traits, like they thought this was just what that archetype was all about and didn't really get the sympathetic depths holding it together (hell Sally kind of already became that sort of character in earlier Archie, just being catty for no reason).

This is where having a defining foible is a delicate dance, since while one is necessary to keep the character whole, you have to make sure to keep it on a leech and not let it take over the rest of the character, which is harder with stories on a restriction according to what the rest of the media requires like video games do, or when given to writers who just don't have a passion or proper understanding for that sort of character.

[Kuzu]

Balancing character traits is always going to be difficult. It honestly is going to depend on the story. A balanced character depends on what the story needs.

 

[E-122-Psi]

6 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Balancing character traits is always going to be difficult. It honestly is going to depend on the story. A balanced character depends on what the story needs.

 

Yeah, like this is what I mean with Sonic. He's not brilliantly done right now, but I think they have that balance of his negatives and positives, while with a straight man like Sally, they'd likely have to lean more into his negatives to set their dynamic about, which risks making him more one note and less likeable. The choice is to dilute that side of Sally or again, balance it with her own flawed side, but I feel like that side to her is lost to writers and people familiar with the character, that Sally is just meant to be 'the strong leader' and 'the sane one' who doesn't cause problems herself, and if you asked for a more haughty Sally like earlier you'd just get a one note catty jerk like she was in earlier Archie or Boom comics Amy. Sally, whose key role is as a foil, needs more careful balance.

[Kuzu]

2 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

Yeah, like this is what I mean with Sonic. He's not brilliantly done right now, but I think they have that balance of his negatives and positives, while with a straight man like Sally, they'd likely have to lean more into his negatives to set their dynamic about, which risks making him more one note and less likeable. The choice is to dilute that side of Sally or again, balance it with her own flawed side, but I feel like that side to her is lost to writers and people familiar with the character, that Sally is just meant to be 'the strong leader' and 'the sane one' who doesn't cause problems herself.

I'd argue they're doing that with Sonic and Tails right now, given I don't really like either of them now.

[E-122-Psi]

21 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I'd argue they're doing that with Sonic and Tails right now, given I don't really like either of them now.

Tails is a weird ass one right now really. I feel like he's just someone they have no idea what his actual personality is. Lost Worlds Tails didn't really feel like a 'sitcom wife' just erratic and like them throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Forces Tails isn't really many of the characteristics seen there, but what we get isn't much better.

Boom Tails I think was a good example of his characterisation written well within the modern more humorous angle, but of course that is Boom. If I remember correctly  the comics just wrote him in the same slightly dull characterisation he often has in the mainstream ones.

I feel like writing flawed and whimsical 'smart' characters is a more difficult process for some writers, like it's quite easy to make a dumb or at least simple character flawed but likeable because they don't know any better, but with a smart character you generally have to go with attitude problems (which isn't necessarily true, since a smart character can still be a total dunce outside their specialty). You have to work with more dimensions to make a smart character interesting or for their flaws to feel properly driven (one interesting theory I once heard for example is that smart people can make just as stupid mistakes as simple people because they possess a better ability to perform mental gymnastics and analyse a situation to have the outcome they want, but of course it's one thing knowing this and another conveying it in believable detail in a fictional work).

[Kuzu]

Here's the thing, the characters need to be likable. I fully understand the need for a character to be flawed, but it shouldn't come at the expense at them being likable, unless that's the point. Tails and Sally, more often than not, need a baseline level of likability to retain audience sympathy. It doesn't matter if they're smart or not. Certain characters have certain expectations upon them. 

Characters like Shadow, Eggman and even Antoine to bring this back to SATAM; can get away with having more negative traits, since those are what those characters are built on. Especially since they're meant to be foils to the much more traditionally heroic Sonic. Now unless you want Tails and Sally to be more antagonistic towards Sonic and the heroes, they're flaws are going to have to be toned down a tad.  This is why Amy got so much shit for so many years, because despite being a heroic character she spent more times than not antagonizing the heroes and like you said, that's not likable. 

Now if you prefer certain characters to be more flawed (and therefore relatable) that's fine, and I actually agree with that. But that kind of needs to be balanced with certain likable traits to balance things out. Sally being a pushy, bossy shrew only works if there is a character that is worse than her, hence why Sonic is usually written to be more reckless than usual when paired with her. If he wasn't, and he was say, his more laidback Sega counterpart, Sally would come off as extremely unlikable for antagonizing a character that doesn't really deserve it. 

 

You can't just have an entire cast of assholes, otherwise nobody is likable. Someone has to retain more audience sympathy than others for the dynamic to work. This is why Sonic & Tails` dynamic doesn't work for me now, because they're both snarky and arrogant assholes with nothing to really balance it out. Whereas generally, Sonic should be the reckless one but with a much more bold and charismatic personality to make it work, while Tails is more cautious but lacks the initiative to take action like Sonic. Sally, at least to me, can be somewhere in between; being much more cautious and aware than Sonic, but has enough of a backbone to challenge Sonic's authority unlike Tails.  And you can just write the story from there. 

[E-122-Psi]

36 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Now if you prefer certain characters to be more flawed (and therefore relatable) that's fine, and I actually agree with that. But that kind of needs to be balanced with certain likable traits to balance things out. Sally being a pushy, bossy shrew only works if there is a character that is worse than her, hence why Sonic is usually written to be more reckless than usual when paired with her. If he wasn't, and he was say, his more laidback Sega counterpart, Sally would come off as extremely unlikable for antagonizing a character that doesn't really deserve it. 

That's a debatable contrast because generally making a character always worse than Sally often felt like enabling and going 'hey check out this guy instead'. Sure something usually motivated or riled her up, but that shouldn't be the decider. Sally wasn't just a bossy shrew in early SatAm, they managed her flaws and likeable qualities together nicely and built up REASONS she is flawed. Early Archie Sally for example was a bossy shrew because they Flanderized her to just her catty traits without the balancing well intentions and competent moments, they also had a bad habit of never having her face repercussions or get called out for them. Of course a character's flaws will be insufferable if they never face consequences for them or never show remorse. Sally was still a karma houdini in later Archie so that insufferability was still there, just her 'jerk' traits weren't at face value any more.

Same reason you say for Amy, Amy wasn't unlikeable JUST because she had a temper. She was perfectly likeable in the Adventure games despite having a brattiness in those. The 2000 era Flanderized her temper into her defining consistent trait and downplayed her likeable qualities as well, not to mention that similarly she rarely ever suffer a comeuppance for any of them. Nothing was reeling her worst habits back anymore.

Antoine was also not just automatically put on a lower expectance just because he was flawed from the start either. He could have VERY easily turned into the Scrappy if he got away with his flaws non-stop or they got Flanderized to the point he was the next Peter Griffin or something, but generally whenever Antoine acted like a blowhard he either got his comeuppance or shown some degree of humility. Even in later SatAm they made a point he wasn't just all selfish ego as well.

The fault there doesn't lie with the flaw itself but the handling and dilution of the characters' other qualities. Tails for example was if anything just as flawed a character in Boom as in Lost World, just better writing and story handling meant that Boom Tails' likeable traits still prevailed and his flaws were treated as something he tried to amend or keep in line, which if anything just made him more sympathetic and dynamic.

A flaw can be just as vital to making a character likeable since without one they tend to be bland. Fans aren't much for unlikeable or mean characters but they don't take much more towards a boring one.

[GentlemanX]

2 hours ago, E-122-Psi said:

I feel like the reason I'm so persistent about Sally's 'pushy' side is that, like I said, it never REALLY got disposed of, just they stopped calling it out in-universe. A recurring tendency for Sally in Archie was for her to be hypocritical, overbearing or insistent HER way is better, even if it wasn't the traits the writers WANTED to demonstrate with her, those weak wills always kept perking up. They tried to hide it and pretend it didn't exist, that moments like 'the slap' were just her pushed to her worst and most OOC, but ultimately this trait was just inherent to how everyone wrote her, Sally's biggest vice was her self righteousness, right down to her final moments in Archie. Self righteousness is admittedly a rather odious characteristic when written too overbearingly, but often when called out in universe and balanced with sympathetic intent, it can be moderated into something that gives a character flavour. Again Twilight Sparkle is Sally with the self righteousness and neuroses punctuated, but it's balanced with her redeeming aspects, and most of her worst moments being called out or leading to her being remorseful. They show Twilight as someone who can be quite humble and sorry when she realises she is wrong or has crossed the line, and make clear she was only trying to help. Sally was NEVER called out for her self righteousness (or only was by a designated 'bad guy'), even in the times they tried to make her a more flawed character, that side of her was always enabled and ignored, which if anything I think made that trait MORE insufferable in the later years, despite it not really being designed to colour her personality anymore. She felt a bit like a bit of glue keeping her personality together was gone.

Now with that in mind, NO, I don't want Sally to be a one note condescending control freak, that was early comedic Archie issues done and she was pretty unlikeable there. Season One Sally undermined Sally's hubris a lot more, but they also humanized her a lot to go with it, they made clear her well intents and what was needed to PUSH her to her most overbearing. Season One Sally was still very sweet towards characters that didn't push her buttons (even Sonic when he wasn't acting up) and even when her flaws were 'on' they were usually kept to a limit to keep her likeable (even if they REALLY loved showcasing her banter with Sonic). It wasn't just Sally screaming or insulting people for not doing everything she wanted and giving them the silent treatment, it was frustration at wanting them to LISTEN to her, because she worried there would be genuine repercussions if they didn't. There was always that sympathetic pivot, even if it was sometimes undermined.

I'm honestly trying to think of an instance where Sally is trying to win an argument out of ego in SatAM or Archie that isn't her playfully flirting with Sonic until they don't find it fun anymore and I'm not coming up with anything that really stands out, or at least nothing that isn't treated by the community at large like a major misstep for the character such as in STH 134. Maybe this is meant to play into you considering the characters IQ dropping to accommodate for that, but I really don't think so. I think a lot of this stems from my absolute love of the Archie comics' portrayal of her, especially pre-reboot, and the dislike for them I'm inferring from your posts. I *don't* have a problem with a lot of the things you're referencing as "odious" or "insufferable" about her character creating a divide over what should or should not be done with the character. The same can be said of Boom which you've referenced a couple of times in terms of better writing for characters with flaws, and I hate watching Boom because I don't find any of the cast likable. It's one of the few things in this franchise I have never geled with on any level (besides some character designs).

2 hours ago, E-122-Psi said:

This is where having a defining foible is a delicate dance, since while one is necessary to keep the character whole, you have to make sure to keep it on a leech and not let it take over the rest of the character, which is harder with stories on a restriction according to what the rest of the media requires like video games do, or when given to writers who just don't have a passion or proper understanding for that sort of character.

Okay, but this is true in any circumstance, for any character. I don't like the way Tails has been portrayed in the franchise since 2013, does that mean I shouldn't want Tails to appear for fear his character will be flanderized? Should I want to wait until another writer gets a chance to write him, if another writer gets a chance to write him, in the hopes that his characteristics from the stories I liked be recreated without issue? Can Sally not be attempted until a writer comes along who does meet the criteria of producing consistently good material for the other characters? Does the fact you found one element of her character in the first half of the the series that aired 27 years ago to be satisfactory and all appearances of her thereafter in other media for the next 24 years never scratched the same itch mean a new version of the character should be beholden to that one aspect from 1993 you specifically liked? An aspect that you yourself admit does not work well enough with the main cast  as they are portrayed in the games and therefore in your mind makes her unusable outside of with versions of the characters only found when adapted in the SatAM premise? I know I might be coming off a bit cross here, but I repeat - this element does not feel to me as essential to her as you're making it sound like.

[Kuzu]

@E-122-Psi   There's many nuances to that though; one it depends on the type of story the writers want to tell, and what Tvtropes generally calls Good flaws ,and bad flaws.  Some flaws are good for retaining audience sympathy while others are not. 

It's up to the writers to figure out how to write those flaws while retaining the character's sympathy. Which admitelly, is a lot easier said than done. If a character is too unlikable, nobody is going to care about their heroic deeds at all. 

I suppose it depends on if those flaws are justified or not. I don't think Sally really falls into that, because generally her less than stellar moments have some justification to them, and she tends to make some gesture to earn some good will back (though not all of it obviously). Now if you feel the opposite, then it's just a difference of opinion at that point. You feel like Sally wasn't sympathetic enough to justify her more unlikable moments.

But the bottom line is, you can work around that; it's really not as impossible of a task as you're making it seem. Just because it might not be done well all of the time doesn't mean it's not possible. Lord knows Sally is not the only victim of inconsistent character writing in this series as it affects EVERYONE, some more than others obviously but you get the idea. 

[E-122-Psi]

27 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I suppose it depends on if those flaws are justified or not. I don't think Sally really falls into that, because generally her less than stellar moments have some justification to them, and she tends to make some gesture to earn some good will back (though not all of it obviously). Now if you feel the opposite, then it's just a difference of opinion at that point. You feel like Sally wasn't sympathetic enough to justify her more unlikable moments.

But the bottom line is, you can work around that; it's really not as impossible of a task as you're making it seem. Just because it might not be done well all of the time doesn't mean it's not possible. Lord knows Sally is not the only victim of inconsistent character writing in this series as it affects EVERYONE, some more than others obviously but you get the idea. 

Oh no no. I get that there is usually grounding to WHY Sally acts up most of the time. The motive is there. It is more the writers' refusal to treat it as a flaw AT ALL. Sympathetic reasoning or not, a flaw is still a flaw and should be called out or face consequences. The fact Sally was always enabled and never had her flaws developed into proper foibles that she faces consequences for was something that turned even her more tolerable negative qualities into insufferable ones and prevented her character from fleshing out properly. Twenty years of being even just mildly condescending and hypocritical for well intentioned reasons can still become unbearable if she ALWAYS gets away with it scot free.

That is generally my issue with Sally, that in over two decades and multiple changes of writers, they could never fix this issue with her, even when they TRIED to fix her, that she was always streamlined into this designated 'sane one' role and often stories and dynamics suffered because of it. This is a recurrent problem with her archetype in general really, it is usually the rule that the no nonsense female win every argument, even if they are somewhat smarmy or hypocritical or outright wrong, they tend to default to this because their archetype makes more sense as the dignified voice of reason while some other more boorish character is Flanderised into the 'always wrong' butt monkey, and that is the element that leaves me really wary about adapting her into another media, not just that there might be translation issues but we might get stuck with THAT, because it's an insufferable writing quality and the most infuriating thing I found about Sally that sadly also seems to be VERY easy to make. People complained about Tails in Lost World, imagine that dynamic in EVERY game.

[Kuzu]

That's why I said its a difference of opinion. Obviously you feel like she was this unlikable bitch who got away with murder while I personally think that's an extreme exaggeration. But that's neither here or there.

The bottom line, just because you feel they constantly mishandled Sally doesn't mean she should bared from appearing. Otherwise, you have to hold that same reservation for the Sega cast. You brought up Amy being unlikable, does that mean she shouldn't appear anymore because they misused her in the past?

[E-122-Psi]

49 minutes ago, GentlemanX said:

I'm honestly trying to think of an instance where Sally is trying to win an argument out of ego in SatAM or Archie that isn't her playfully flirting with Sonic until they don't find it fun anymore and I'm not coming up with anything that really stands out, or at least nothing that isn't treated by the community at large like a major misstep for the character such as in STH 134. Maybe this is meant to play into you considering the characters IQ dropping to accommodate for that, but I really don't think so. I think a lot of this stems from my absolute love of the Archie comics' portrayal of her, especially pre-reboot, and the dislike for them I'm inferring from your posts. I *don't* have a problem with a lot of the things you're referencing as "odious" or "insufferable" about her character creating a divide over what should or should not be done with the character. The same can be said of Boom which you've referenced a couple of times in terms of better writing for characters with flaws, and I hate watching Boom because I don't find any of the cast likable. It's one of the few things in this franchise I have never geled with on any level (besides some character designs).

Okay, but this is true in any circumstance, for any character. I don't like the way Tails has been portrayed in the franchise since 2013, does that mean I shouldn't want Tails to appear for fear his character will be flanderized? Should I want to wait until another writer gets a chance to write him, if another writer gets a chance to write him, in the hopes that his characteristics from the stories I liked be recreated without issue? Can Sally not be attempted until a writer comes along who does meet the criteria of producing consistently good material for the other characters? Does the fact you found one element of her character in the first half of the the series that aired 27 years ago to be satisfactory and all appearances of her thereafter in other media for the next 24 years never scratched the same itch mean a new version of the character should be beholden to that one aspect from 1993 you specifically liked? An aspect that you yourself admit does not work well enough with the main cast  as they are portrayed in the games and therefore in your mind makes her unusable outside of with versions of the characters only found when adapted in the SatAM premise? I know I might be coming off a bit cross here, but I repeat - this element does not feel to me as essential to her as you're making it sound like.

I admit this is where subjective characterisation preference comes in, but I guess the thing with me is that Sally, unlike Tails, has been defined by the same characterisation for years with no writer showing ability to round her out properly, even when they TRIED to appease the complaints towards her, they failed to see the problem. I point out Sally's hubris here because as mentioned, writers still kept drifting almost instinctively to this aspect of her, that she still couldn't practice what she preached. She's be as reckless as Sonic, as temperamental as Khan, and conflict with several characters who had similar qualms as her, but they NEVER NEVER NEVER made link to this, she never once was made to acknowledge this and I think it was just WAY to prevalent about her to just ignore without it making her insufferable and feeling like she had a cog missing in her core character and dynamic, especially when these moments had actual long term consequences in the plot and she wouldn't be made to face up to them.

16 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

That's why I said its a difference of opinion. Obviously you feel like she was this unlikable bitch who got away with murder while I personally think that's an extreme exaggeration. But that's neither here or there.

The bottom line, just because you feel they constantly mishandled Sally doesn't mean she should bared from appearing. Otherwise, you have to hold that same reservation for the Sega cast. You brought up Amy being unlikable, does that mean she shouldn't appear anymore because they misused her in the past?

I don't find her an 'unlikeable bitch' I just find that twenty years of bad handling really made her frustrating.

And no but I tend to find Amy's handling varied enough to suggest there's a higher likeliness they can get her right one day. Even in Sonic X, arguably her at her most flanderized, she did have moments of being handled quite well and vibrantly, while with Sally I just get the same vibes from every take on her that just suggests she will never ditch this stance and if anything just gets worse throughout the years. Again in over two decades, never ONCE called out for being a hypocrite to Sonic's recklessness, not even in a joking 'look who's talking' sort of way? Within multiple writers and some even trying to figure out what's wrong with her, it just suggests that people in charge tend to be closely attached to one same role and just will never fathom the roadblocks with her or even that there actually ARE roadblocks at all. It's also a very common archetype so I can see any new writer just assuming to stick to that as the crutch.

If they CAN prove me wrong, I will gladly eat crow, but ehhhh, I just never saw signs of hope with her.

[Kuzu]

18 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

 

I don't find her an 'unlikeable bitch' I just find that twenty years of bad handling really made her frustrating.

Welcome to how pretty much the entire fanbase has felt for over 20 years; this is the risk you take when following this series. Maybe the writers will do these characters justice and maybe they won't. The only other alternative is to simply leave the series if you aren't willing to put up with it. 

18 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

And no but I tend to find Amy's handling varied enough to suggest there's a higher likeliness they can get her right one day. Even in Sonic X, arguably her at her most flanderized, she did have moments of being handled quite well and vibrantly, while with Sally I just get the same vibes from every take on her that just suggests she will never ditch this stance and if anything just gets worse throughout the years. Again in over two decades, never ONCE called out for being a hypocrite to Sonic's recklessness, not even in a joking 'look who's talking' sort of way? Within multiple writers and some even trying to figure out what's wrong with her, it just suggests that people in charge tend to be closely attached to one same role and just will never fathom the roadblocks with her or even that there actually ARE roadblocks at all. It's also a very common archetype so I can see any new writer just assuming to stick to that as the crutch.

If they CAN prove me wrong, I will gladly eat crow, but ehhhh, I just never saw signs of hope with her.

 

I'm starting to notice this trend where people either think Sally is the best character ever or this insufferable bitch and there's no real in-between. And this is especially true depending on which version of the series you're a fan of. Don't think I forgot about the Sega Forums and all the Sally mud-slinging that went on in there. 

Sega fans seem to have it out for her more than anyone else, while her fans just downplay every potential flaw she has. I feel this disconnect is because I have no particular feelings either way. Evidently you lean heavily  towards Sally being written as unlikable, but I'm being perfectly honest when I say that I really just don't see it or understand WHY so many hate her so much (besides the obvious of some of them being Amy fans :V).

I don't think she's this great amazing or inspirational character either; I'm so heavily neutral on this character, so it kind of amuses me that she causes this causes this much strife over literally existing. 

 

At least with Shadow, I can understand why he's divisive but with Sally, I'm so fucking lost. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up on SATAM or because I never felt this particular for SATAM/Archie because "It's not my Sonic".

[E-122-Psi]

Personally I feel the divisive reaction towards her is because character so often feels like one different from what the writers want to perceive her as. Again writers give her a free pass for her hubris and tend to focus solely on her leadership and insecure qualities. Those who don't notice this either think she is positive and likeable, or think she is a bit TOO such and kinda dull, while those that do notice this think she is a designated hero or 'jerk sue'. As such it also leaves her character leaning two rather contrasting ways without them trying to tie them together.

Outside personal opinion however, I think it's just the general way of base breaking characters. Again people, both fans and writers, can perceive a character and their personality in different ways and that can affect how they are treated, and the Sonic cast in all their different depictions are no strangers to that. One man's bold and confident is another's reckless and arrogant for example.

Also remember that, unlike Shadow, Sally is defined a lot more as a foil for other characters, so her character has more effect on other beloved elements. You can not give a damn about Sally but like or dislike the SatAm/Archie version of Sonic and trace elements of that back down to Sally for example.

[Kuzu]

I can generally understand why a character is divisive; usually they embody a trait that will just divide a fandom. The only real divisive trait Sally posses in my book...is being Sonic's girlfriend. There's really nothing else about her that I find so damn offensive. 

[E-122-Psi]

34 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I can generally understand why a character is divisive; usually they embody a trait that will just divide a fandom. The only real divisive trait Sally posses in my book...is being Sonic's girlfriend. There's really nothing else about her that I find so damn offensive. 

Again it's face value personality vs accidental by-product personality. She's not written intentionally offensively but that's as much the issue because writers keep letting all these small offences slowly pile up unresolved and become more and more annoying. For someone whose dynamic with Sonic is so prominent she should have been called out for being as reckless as him AT LEAST ONCE, especially with how often it happened by the end.

Also the slap. Every time Sally's divisiveness is discussed the slap HAS to mentioned.

 

ALSO understand that well, some fans like me are anal retentive, we see every little detail and undertone and it niggles on our brain forever. Obviously not everyone is like that, but us, we go mad in our own little way....

[Ryannumber1gamer]

6 hours ago, E-122-Psi said:

Also the slap. Every time Sally's divisiveness is discussed the slap HAS to mentioned.

The slap happened nearly two decades ago, and was called out on and apologised for on multiple occasions. 

If you're going to use that as the absolute bottom point to claim Sally as insufferable, you might as well also use Lost World's portrayal of Tails as being an arrogant little shit, Shadow's portrayal in his game as an insufferable edgelord 90% of the time, or Knuckles for nearly a decade of Penders' horrific history and crappy "Chosen One" lore for him. Using one writer's subpar portrayal as a character to define them is not only something you could literally apply to a massive array of characters, but using it as a basis for why they should never appear again under a new writer is silly.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

Using one writer's subpar portrayal as a character to define them is not only something you could literally apply to a massive array of characters, but using it as a basis for why they should never appear again under a new writer is silly.

To be fair, I don’t think he’s using the slap as a basis for why she shouldn’t appear again—although, I haven’t fully followed the debate as much over the past few days, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

I do want to add that even considering the slap, Sally was given a complete blank slate come the reboot. Everything about her was much different while still retaining the core of who she is, so the slap no longer applies. I say this because that’s the idea I think people should gather towards when considering the idea of her reappearing—that characters can still recognized even with changes to their character.

People often think of Sally as Sonic’s love interest, yet the reboot showed she can work without any romantic attention toward Sonic; where she wasn’t as much of a fighter and more of a saboteur in certain cases, the reboot kept that trait and expanded her ability to fight with ring-blades; where people who don’t read Archie Sonic love to use the messy background with Penders’s run as a testament to bad characterization (hypocritical given that the games aren’t any better, if not worse in this area), the reboot wiped all that away and showed she can work with a whole new background without changing the fundamental parts of her character (as much as I wanted it kept when Ian actually made them good). That last part is noteworthy when people act like there’s no place she can fit—not only is that not true, but they can very easily find a place for Sally, especially given how much material she already has.