Ok i was just browsing the web and I found a very interesting comment in the forums at Sonic Pros:
http://www.sonicpros...gen-sonic-games
Someone said that Sally was supposed to be in Sonic 06 but Archie refused to sign her over so they made Elise instead. This is very shocking seeing how I thought Sega just completely hated Sally but it sort of makes sense when you think about it. Sonic carries elise the same way he does Sally. They are both princesses. yada. yada. It really seems as they tried to implement Sally or at least an irritating worthless knockoff into Sonic 06. But if the game ended the way it did and Sally was in it that would be a way for Sega to avoid using Sally ever again by making it so they never met. Also wasn't it the same year that Ken was replaced with Ian? And now Ian is getting rid of Sally or partially getting rid of her where Sega might have tried to do that in this one game. This seems all too coincidental for me. I was wondering what yall thought of it.
Toggle shoutbox
Shoutbox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sally Was Supposed To Be In 06?
Started by TheDemon, Aug 02 2011 12:52 PM
12 replies to this topic
#1
TheDemon
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 41 posts
Wasn't alive when SatAm was great but It still was the best
- Gender:Male
- Location:Texas
Posted 02 August 2011 - 12:52 PM
#2
LaserX5
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 1,188 posts
Sonic Satam Purist
- Gender:Male
- Location:Confidential
Posted 02 August 2011 - 02:39 PM
I blame Sega more than Archie in this matter.
I think if Sega really wanted Sally bad enough, they could force Archie's hand about having her in a game.
But the fact of the matter is, Sega wants no part of her in their games, as well as any of the other Satam Freedom Fighters.
Why they have this antagonistic attitude towards them is completely beyond me. Since they have a pretty big fanbase, it makes absolutely no sense for Sega not to give them a chance.
I think if Sega really wanted Sally bad enough, they could force Archie's hand about having her in a game.
But the fact of the matter is, Sega wants no part of her in their games, as well as any of the other Satam Freedom Fighters.
Why they have this antagonistic attitude towards them is completely beyond me. Since they have a pretty big fanbase, it makes absolutely no sense for Sega not to give them a chance.
#3
Prime
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 497 posts
Shuffle up the Wildcards! And deal 'em!
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 August 2011 - 02:49 PM
I doubt that since Archie didn't create Sally.
Sally and the rest of the freedom fighters were the creation of DiC. Sure the Archie comic came first, but the comic based itself off of an early bible to the animated series. So in November 1992 when issue #0 of the Archie mini-series was released, it was working off an unused SatAM bible. Again, just because the Archie book came first, doesn't mean Archie created that character, just like Nate Morgan, he was in an early SatAM bible.
Besides, wouldn't those characters effectively be the property of Sega now anyway and they can do with them as they wish?
Sally and the rest of the freedom fighters were the creation of DiC. Sure the Archie comic came first, but the comic based itself off of an early bible to the animated series. So in November 1992 when issue #0 of the Archie mini-series was released, it was working off an unused SatAM bible. Again, just because the Archie book came first, doesn't mean Archie created that character, just like Nate Morgan, he was in an early SatAM bible.
Besides, wouldn't those characters effectively be the property of Sega now anyway and they can do with them as they wish?
'Star Wars' is my story, just like my house is my house. So if I wanna paint my house green, even if everyone else thinks it should be red, guess what? I'm gonna paint it Jar Jar! - George Lucas
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
#4
TheDemon
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 41 posts
Wasn't alive when SatAm was great but It still was the best
- Gender:Male
- Location:Texas
Posted 02 August 2011 - 02:59 PM
I doubt that since Archie didn't create Sally.
Sally and the rest of the freedom fighters were the creation of DiC. Sure the Archie comic came first, but the comic based itself off of an early bible to the animated series. So in November 1992 when issue #0 of the Archie mini-series was released, it was working off an unused SatAM bible. Again, just because the Archie book came first, doesn't mean Archie created that character, just like Nate Morgan, he was in an early SatAM bible.
Besides, wouldn't those characters effectively be the property of Sega now anyway and they can do with them as they wish?
I know that Archie didn't create Sally, if I didn't I wouldn't be commenting on a forum that is based off of SatAM. Does SEGA actually own Sally and the Freedom Fighters. It seems to me that Archie has complete control over them unless they interact with a SegaSonic charecter in a way that displeases the dictators in Japan. Who does own the freedom fighters anyways? Is it Archie or Sega?
#5
Prime
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 497 posts
Shuffle up the Wildcards! And deal 'em!
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 August 2011 - 03:19 PM
I know that Archie didn't create Sally, if I didn't I wouldn't be commenting on a forum that is based off of SatAM. Does SEGA actually own Sally and the Freedom Fighters. It seems to me that Archie has complete control over them unless they interact with a SegaSonic charecter in a way that displeases the dictators in Japan. Who does own the freedom fighters anyways? Is it Archie or Sega?
No need to get snappy.
It's more then likely that Sega owns all characters to some degree that originate from spin-off material, so SatAM, Archie, Underground, etc. An example of when this doesn't count? There was a character created by Andrew Wildman called "Death's Head" which he owns the rights too and this character has crossed paths with Marvel characters, the Trasnformers and even Doctor Who...
However, back to the main topic... it's very likely that Sega don't give two shits about those characters at all, since they aren't game characters, hence why they don't care if they kill of comic characters, but they'll step in for a game character. Effectively, Archie has free reign to do what they want with Sally and co, but I really doubt they can object to Sega wanting to use any character. Afterall, it was Sega that stepped in and wanted Sally to stay alive during the whole Endgame storyline.
It's not uncommon for something along the lines of a fan to say "Sega wanted to use Sally but Archie wouldn't let them!" without no proof to back up said claim and people just go with it because they want to believe it. I remember far back when Sonic Heroes was released and a rumor was flying around saying "Sega of America wanted a team with Princess Sally and some other SatAM/Archie characters, but Sonic Team wouldn't allow it", again, with no proof to back it up, yet alot of people believed it.
'Star Wars' is my story, just like my house is my house. So if I wanna paint my house green, even if everyone else thinks it should be red, guess what? I'm gonna paint it Jar Jar! - George Lucas
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
#7
TheDemon
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 41 posts
Wasn't alive when SatAm was great but It still was the best
- Gender:Male
- Location:Texas
Posted 02 August 2011 - 03:49 PM
I know that Archie didn't create Sally, if I didn't I wouldn't be commenting on a forum that is based off of SatAM. Does SEGA actually own Sally and the Freedom Fighters. It seems to me that Archie has complete control over them unless they interact with a SegaSonic charecter in a way that displeases the dictators in Japan. Who does own the freedom fighters anyways? Is it Archie or Sega?
No need to get snappy.
It's more then likely that Sega owns all characters to some degree that originate from spin-off material, so SatAM, Archie, Underground, etc. An example of when this doesn't count? There was a character created by Andrew Wildman called "Death's Head" which he owns the rights too and this character has crossed paths with Marvel characters, the Trasnformers and even Doctor Who...
However, back to the main topic... it's very likely that Sega don't give two shits about those characters at all, since they aren't game characters, hence why they don't care if they kill of comic characters, but they'll step in for a game character. Effectively, Archie has free reign to do what they want with Sally and co, but I really doubt they can object to Sega wanting to use any character. Afterall, it was Sega that stepped in and wanted Sally to stay alive during the whole Endgame storyline.
It's not uncommon for something along the lines of a fan to say "Sega wanted to use Sally but Archie wouldn't let them!" without no proof to back up said claim and people just go with it because they want to believe it. I remember far back when Sonic Heroes was released and a rumor was flying around saying "Sega of America wanted a team with Princess Sally and some other SatAM/Archie characters, but Sonic Team wouldn't allow it", again, with no proof to back it up, yet alot of people believed it.
Sorry for seeming "snappy" I didn't mean to be and I also thought it was just something that fan just thought up. But that fans thought has some connections to it. I personally disagree with what the fan on the forum said about Sally was supposed to take the place of Ellise but I do believe that Sega made Elise like Sally on purpose. You can argue with me with this or not but I think Sega is losing their creativity for their games so they rip off story patterns from other. I havn't played Unleashed or The Seven Rings but on this forums I heard that they were rip offs from other games and Sonic Colors was sort of a rip off from Mario Galaxy. I may be going on a rant here but to me it seems like imitating Sally by creating Ellise would be something that Sega would do.
You're probably right on the Endgame deal Sega could have just bullied Archie into doing what they wanted
And anyways on the Sonic Heroes thing I don't have much to say but even if that was true I don't know how the Archie charecters would fit if they were implemented into the game. Bunnie could be the power charecter.... Dulcy would be the only one I could think of for the flying charecter and personally she was my least favorite of the SatAM/Archie crew..... Speed would be..... Sally? Antione? I don't think SatAm charecters would fit into Sonic Heroes like Sally would have in Sonic 06. Still I wouldn't want Sally in 06 only because how bad it was compared to the first two Sonic Adventure type games.
#8
Prime
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 497 posts
Shuffle up the Wildcards! And deal 'em!
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 August 2011 - 04:00 PM
Chip was gonna be a fairy Sally Acorn, but Penders wouldn't sign over the rights to her.
Boy, you best be trolling.
'Star Wars' is my story, just like my house is my house. So if I wanna paint my house green, even if everyone else thinks it should be red, guess what? I'm gonna paint it Jar Jar! - George Lucas
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
"The Devil Inside is the new scam from director William Something Something. The movie stars actors and was edited on a computer. Somewhere. This movie is the latest film in a series of very low budget films designed to look like real movies! And be released in theaters to make a quick buck via a horribly off kilter budget to profit ratio that the general public seem to be stupidly unaware of! These films use to be called 'direct to video' but now they are called 'first run features'. These films then vanish from the theaters, like a rapist leaving the scene of a crime." - Mike Stoklasa of RedLetterMedia
#9
furrykef
-
- Tech Guy
- 3,983 posts
Fellow FUSer
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 August 2011 - 06:15 PM
Probably is trolling, but I'll just note that Penders has no rights to anything he did for Archie. He thinks he does, and he's wrong.
#10
TheDemon
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 41 posts
Wasn't alive when SatAm was great but It still was the best
- Gender:Male
- Location:Texas
Posted 02 August 2011 - 07:59 PM
hahaha Sally as a fairy! I bet many fans would probably be pissed about that even if she is in the game
#11
Vampfox
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 200 posts
Fellow FUSer
- Gender:Male
- Location:In my coffin waiting for the sun to go down
Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:13 PM
I'm very skeptical about this information.
Anyway from what I'll heard Sega owns everything related to Sonic. So there's no chance that Archie refused to let Sega use Sally. If Archie ever did something like that, Sega would have cancelled the book.
Anyway from what I'll heard Sega owns everything related to Sonic. So there's no chance that Archie refused to let Sega use Sally. If Archie ever did something like that, Sega would have cancelled the book.
#12
LaserX5
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 1,188 posts
Sonic Satam Purist
- Gender:Male
- Location:Confidential
Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:18 PM
I'm very skeptical about this information.
Anyway from what I'll heard Sega owns everything related to Sonic. So there's no chance that Archie refused to let Sega use Sally. If Archie ever did something like that, Sega would have cancelled the book.
Agreed.
Archie is in no position to tell Sega they can't use any of their comic characters.
#13
PuffinGrandeur
-
- Fellow FUSer
-
- 472 posts
Fellow FUSer
Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:35 PM
Seriously, just to emphasize this one more time. Sega can do whatever the hell they want with Sally because she's owned by them, not Archie. Sally is only alive because Sega told Archie to keep her so during Endgame, when they were considering using her in the games. People mistake Sega not enforcing control over the DiC-Archie cast with not having control, but if they wished they could mandate or drop or apply just about anything with those characters.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
