184 replies to this topic

[LaserX5]

If worse came to worse, and if she is really killed off I will probably get to the point where I will consider Sonic Sat a.m. the only legitimate Sonic universe.

Same here.

Archie and Sega have tainted this comic far too much for this move to pass without backlash.

If Sally is no longer part of the comic, neither will I, as part of its fanbase.

[Vampfox]

The biggest problem that I have is that if Sally is dead then she got a terrible send-off.
If you are going to kill a popular character like Sally off then you need to give them a good send-off.
If Sally's going to die she deserves a heroic send-off.

[LaserX5]

The biggest problem that I have is that if Sally is dead then she got a terrible send-off.
If you are going to kill a popular character like Sally off then you need to give them a good send-off.
If Sally's going to die she deserves a heroic send-off.

Agreed.

Even then, I would hate it, but if it was done with dignity and respect, I suppose I could somehow accept it eventually, though my interest in the comic would greatly diminish in the process.

[Nique]

So Sally died... again?... how many does this make for her? This has happened at least twice right? or am I remembering wrong?

[Morgan]

If she were a cat, one could say she has seven lives left.

[saber16]

Yeah, I guess it's safe to say she's dead.

... But their restarting the whole thing with the next few issues so... I don't...get it.

[PuffinGrandeur]

They're not restarting. Genesis may change some things, but it's only four issues in the past. Afterwards, it goes right back to the story at hand (and there's really a lot of hints that Genesis is PART OF the story at hand.)

[LaserX5]

Yeah, I guess it's safe to say she's dead.

... But their restarting the whole thing with the next few issues so... I don't...get it.

I don't either.

I almost wonder if this is a ploy by Ian deus ex machine style to bring Sally back.

Then again, we don't know if she's gravely injured, dead, or just knocked out cold. The images in that video were not conclusive.

[RedAuthar]

Yeah, I guess it's safe to say she's dead.

... But their restarting the whole thing with the next few issues so... I don't...get it.

It's a flash back. Sonic's life is supposed to be flashing before his eyes, remembering how it all began and such.

[Mega]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Genesis is just a temporary reboot caused by the Death Egg, rather than a flashback... since that'd contradict a million things and be another huge retcon. Note that the summary for the third issue of Genesis mentions old memories resurfacing.

[bwrosas]

Just listing between 7:00-8:45 on this Linkara vid, you may be surprised at what he says:

[LaserX5]

Just listing between 7:00-8:45 on this Linkara vid, you may be surprised at what he says:

Interesting commentary...

But, I have to admit, he is right.

Killing off characters, unless they can prove it was for the best usually is a big waste of time.

Fans do get attached to certain characters. *cough* Sally for example. But hey, Sega and Ian think they know better than us, so they throw out this ridiculous cliffhanger crap, "Oh, is Sally really dead? Find out later this year! It's one issue you won't want to miss!" What a bunch of crap.

Seriously, what was the point in this issue? Was it really just to get more people to buy the upcoming comics because of this controversial situation?

[John Roberts]

Fans do get attached to certain characters.

Which is exactly why the killing of characters is such a wonderfully sad thing to do in a story. Of course if the writers suck then it was all for nothing.

Far be it for me to side with the creative minds behind Archie (or UNcreative, whatever tickles your fancy), but I have to say the writers do know better than us silly fans, or at least they're suppose to. That's why they get paid and we don't.

I'm certain Ian cares about what he is doing (he's the lowest form of writer if he doesn't), and I'm equally sure he wants fans to enjoy the stories he is ultimately telling - I seriously doubt he sits in a Skype call with SEGA, planning and plotting the many ways they are to royally piss of the fandom (though I'm fairly confident that was Sonic Team's mandate when they developed Sonic Heroes). Overall though, no, fans have no place dictating how a story is to be told. Fans are there to criticize, judge, love, hate and whatnot a story, by all means, yes. But no two fans ever want the same thing, and so you can't base stories around that.

Seriously, what was the point in this issue? Was it really just to get more people to buy the upcoming comics because of this controversial situation?

Short answer: Absolutely.

Long answer: Absofuckinglutely! That's what a cliffhanger is. An emotional, unfinished moment in a story that makes readers/viewers/listeners want to jump onto the next act to see how it concludes. Depending on how you use that cliffhanger though will depend on it's purpose, and of course weight, to the story. If the writers suck then the cliffhanger will be a complete waste of everyone's time, and becomes a cheap ploy to get people to 'tune in next time!' I have a love/hate relationship with cliffhangers, personally. I think they're a bloody marvellous device to pull off between acts, episodes, issues etc, but I get a little pissy when they do season finale cliffhangers, or as is the case here, wait-and-see-what-happens-later-in-the-year-while-we-tell-a-different-story crap. This right here smells like the bad kind of cliffhanger, and if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... well, we'll just have to wait and see won't we?

[furrykef]

The problem is, the "death" of Sally has no credibility for me. Obviously, they have two choices: go through with it, or not. If they do, the fandom erupts with torches and pitchforks. If they don't, then they're taking the easy way out. It's like, "Superman dies!" "What, again?"

People like Ian aren't artists. They're businessmen. Sure, they employ creativity and there may be a large degree of art to what they do, but their concerns first and foremost are bringing in money. People who place other concerns above money don't last long in positions where they can do damage. So Archie isn't going to do what's "artistically correct", they're going to do what makes them money, and that will undoubtedly be keeping Sally alive. It's hard for this situation to have any impact for me when analyzed in this manner.

[LaserX5]

but I have to say the writers do know better than us silly fans, or at least they're suppose to. That's why they get paid and we don't.

You're right about the fact they're supposed to know better. Whether they do or not, I don't know.

I'm certain Ian cares about what he is doing (he's the lowest form of writer if he doesn't), and I'm equally sure he wants fans to enjoy the stories he is ultimately telling - I seriously doubt he sits in a Skype call with SEGA, planning and plotting the many ways they are to royally piss of the fandom

I really hope that's the case. Some of his stories though, it's like he wants to get a reaction out of the fanbase.

I have a love/hate relationship with cliffhangers, personally. I think they're a bloody marvelous device to pull off between acts, episodes, issues etc, but I get a little pissy when they do season finale cliffhangers, or as is the case here, wait-and-see-what-happens-later-in-the-year-while-we-tell-a-different-story crap.

My thoughts exactly. I don't want to read about some silly reboot story until after I know the circumstances regarding Sally. I mean, it's like they want us to stir in our juices, talking about this constantly while it all sorts out, or not.

This right here smells like the bad kind of cliffhanger, and if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... well, we'll just have to wait and see won't we?

Sad, but true unfortunately. I know Ian isn't going to be giving any hints anytime soon.

The problem is, the "death" of Sally has no credibility for me. Obviously, they have two choices: go through with it, or not. If they do, the fandom erupts with torches and pitchforks. If they don't, then they're taking the easy way out. It's like, "Superman dies!" "What, again?"

Well said.

Either way, this move will make Ian, Sega and Archie comics lose credibility. There was no need for this whatsoever.

People like Ian aren't artists. They're businessmen. Sure, they employ creativity and there may be a large degree of art to what they do, but their concerns first and foremost are bringing in money.

Another valid point.

Money should never be the main objective when making a product for consumers to enjoy.

[randomizer]

Money should never be the main objective when making a product for consumers to enjoy.

Few companies make products for consumers to enjoy without thinking first about how much money it will make them. Money is and always will be the main objective. A product that is not financially viable will not survive even if it has a small group of hardcore fans. There is more than one way to tackle this problem though. You can make dodgy junk that costs little to make but hopefully pulls in some cash, or you can make something that people truly enjoy and that pulls in cash because people really want it. The latter is a riskier route because you stand to lose more if you don't do your market research well (read: more upfront $$$), so more often than not we get marketed junk.

[RedAuthar]

Money should never be the main objective when making a product for consumers to enjoy.

Few companies make products for consumers to enjoy without thinking first about how much money it will make them. Money is and always will be the main objective. A product that is not financially viable will not survive even if it has a small group of hardcore fans. There is more than one way to tackle this problem though. You can make dodgy junk that costs little to make but hopefully pulls in some cash, or you can make something that people truly enjoy and that pulls in cash because people really want it. The latter is a riskier route because you stand to lose more if you don't do your market research well (read: more upfront $$$), so more often than not we get marketed junk.

That and if it is based on some other media that people like (example action figures made based on comics, movies, or videogames) people will buy it anyways.

[LaserX5]

Few companies make products for consumers to enjoy without thinking first about how much money it will make them. Money is and always will be the main objective. A product that is not financially viable will not survive even if it has a small group of hardcore fans. There is more than one way to tackle this problem though. You can make dodgy junk that costs little to make but hopefully pulls in some cash, or you can make something that people truly enjoy and that pulls in cash because people really want it. The latter is a riskier route because you stand to lose more if you don't do your market research well (read: more upfront $$$), so more often than not we get marketed junk.

Can't argue with this sadly. This is probably the main reason why animated TV shows in the 21st Century compared to the 90's are mostly junk. Money is the only reason they even produce it.

[PuffinGrandeur]

SPOILER ALERT: It was that way in the 90's too.

[Bakuda]

SPOILER ALERT: It was that way in the 90's too.

True...but with new technology and computer animation it is easier to put out something with less quality and save money than it is to go the extra mile and spent the extra money to put out a nice product...which makes the money issue more evident today.