23 replies to this topic

[Uncle Ben]

So of course we all know that the Ken Penders' "Disputed Characters" were removed recently in the comic and now their return seems to be up in the air right now. We have been told that it was Archie who pulled them not Penders. So i was talking to a friend of mine last week about this and he brought up an interesting theory on WHY they did that.

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

Now at first i thought he was a bit crazy but now after thinking about it for a few days he actually does have a point. I mean Penders never wanted his characters removed from the comics but wanted some compensation for their usage (honestly is that so hard to do Archie? Just appease the man so we can end this mess let him produce whatever crap he's making so it can fail like we know it probably will). But with the lawsuit going on some of the fan base was split down the center on both sides. So Archie hoping to draw more people onto their side they remove the characters so the fans would hate Penders and hopefully Penders would balk. It does sound legit if you think about it a bit.

They were removed to get us to hate Penders more so he would balk and it worked... partially (I'm trying to stay neutral in all of this because both sides have a case against one another) but it would make sense you know? So now we have more fuel against both sides in a way

[ILOVEVHS]

My god.

They're brainwashing us!

[furrykef]

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

This would be a brilliant plan if it weren't for that "somehow". Reminds me of, "1) Collect underpants 2) ??? 3) Profit!"

The only way I could see that working is if making everyone turn against Penders would convince Penders to drop the matter. I don't think Archie would try that angle because if Penders were even capable of grasping the fans' alienation, he wouldn't have started this shit.

[Uncle Ben]

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

This would be a brilliant plan if it weren't for that "somehow". Reminds me of, "1) Collect underpants 2) ??? 3) Profit!"

The underpants Gnomes? (i thought it was Step 2 is return to base, Step 3.... Step 4 profit)

The only way I could see that working is if making everyone turn against Penders would convince Penders to drop the matter. I don't think Archie would try that angle because if Penders were even capable of grasping the fans' alienation, he wouldn't have started this shit.

Well the lawsuit started on Archie's end but there has been bad blood between both sides for a while correct?

[furrykef]

Well, the current lawsuit was started by Archie, yes, but it started with either Penders suing them or being about to sue them. It's been long (and confusing) enough that the details escape me.

[RedAuthar]

Honestly I think it's more along the lines of Archie Denying Penders victory. By their own choice the pulled his characters from the line-up. Basically saying that they want to win the case but saying that they don't need his characters.

[Uncle Ben]

thats also a good theory

[Janus]

So of course we all know that the Ken Penders' "Disputed Characters" were removed recently in the comic and now their return seems to be up in the air right now. We have been told that it was Archie who pulled them not Penders. So i was talking to a friend of mine last week about this and he brought up an interesting theory on WHY they did that.

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

Now at first i thought he was a bit crazy but now after thinking about it for a few days he actually does have a point. I mean Penders never wanted his characters removed from the comics but wanted some compensation for their usage (honestly is that so hard to do Archie? Just appease the man so we can end this mess let him produce whatever crap he's making so it can fail like we know it probably will). But with the lawsuit going on some of the fan base was split down the center on both sides. So Archie hoping to draw more people onto their side they remove the characters so the fans would hate Penders and hopefully Penders would balk. It does sound legit if you think about it a bit.

They were removed to get us to hate Penders more so he would balk and it worked... partially (I'm trying to stay neutral in all of this because both sides have a case against one another) but it would make sense you know? So now we have more fuel against both sides in a way

While an interesting theory, I hope it's not true. If it is, I'm sure I'll have to direct some of my hate towards Archie as well.

[LogiTeeka]

So of course we all know that the Ken Penders' "Disputed Characters" were removed recently in the comic and now their return seems to be up in the air right now. We have been told that it was Archie who pulled them not Penders. So i was talking to a friend of mine last week about this and he brought up an interesting theory on WHY they did that.

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

Now at first i thought he was a bit crazy but now after thinking about it for a few days he actually does have a point. I mean Penders never wanted his characters removed from the comics but wanted some compensation for their usage (honestly is that so hard to do Archie? Just appease the man so we can end this mess let him produce whatever crap he's making so it can fail like we know it probably will). But with the lawsuit going on some of the fan base was split down the center on both sides. So Archie hoping to draw more people onto their side they remove the characters so the fans would hate Penders and hopefully Penders would balk. It does sound legit if you think about it a bit.

They were removed to get us to hate Penders more so he would balk and it worked... partially (I'm trying to stay neutral in all of this because both sides have a case against one another) but it would make sense you know? So now we have more fuel against both sides in a way

I don't really think that's the case. It's likely that Archie's legal council advised them to stop using Penders' characters to insure that Archie doesn't add to potential fines they may get should the court rule in Penders' favor.

Until a settlement or court ruling has been finalized, Penders' characters won't be appearing until Archie is certain they can freely use them.

[RedAuthar]

Actually that makes a lot of sense. If Penders's case is all about them using "his" characters, if Archie stops using them at least temporarily, Penders has no reason to complain.

That puts the focus on the actual case and Penders can't make demands about the comic. It's actually a pretty clever move if it works. Also if Archie loses the case, they already got rid of the characters so no great loss.

[comic321]

I just want this case to be over with. Although...Once it's over, what happends to the characters?

[Skylar]

I would hope that those designs don't go into the grave of no return. (IE: Dynamite Duck, Fang the Sniper, Mighty, etc...) because, like the name implies, if the designs go in there, they aren't coming back. Luckily, only that design would be scrapped if Archie loses the case (not likely) but the characters would be saved.
If Archie wins the case, that's Archie's decision whether or not they want to move the designs to the grave of no return... it's pretty much a gamble now...

[furrykef]

They got rid of Nack?

[Prime]

They got rid of Nack?

I think he means in the sense of those characters haven't been seen in the games for ages. They still appear in the comic, just not the games.

[LogiTeeka]

I would hope that those designs don't go into the grave of no return. (IE: Dynamite Duck, Fang the Sniper, Mighty, etc...) because, like the name implies, if the designs go in there, they aren't coming back. Luckily, only that design would be scrapped if Archie loses the case (not likely) but the characters would be saved.
If Archie wins the case, that's Archie's decision whether or not they want to move the designs to the grave of no return... it's pretty much a gamble now...

I doubt that's gonna happen. They might not be in the current games, but they appeared in the offical series and are still part of the Sonic franchise, so they belong to Sega. Besides, there are other Sonic characters that Sega still own despite them no longer appearing in recent games: like Tikal the Echidna, Chip, and Illumina.

Also, since Bean and Bark are gonna star in the upcoming "Sonic Universe" story arc after the crossover and both Naugus and Sally are mentioned in the main issue's description, I doubt they're going to be disappearing from the series.

[Skylar]

Well then, zombies it is.

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Holy Shit...
This Stuff is getting dumber & dumber...

[House42]

So of course we all know that the Ken Penders' "Disputed Characters" were removed recently in the comic and now their return seems to be up in the air right now. We have been told that it was Archie who pulled them not Penders. So i was talking to a friend of mine last week about this and he brought up an interesting theory on WHY they did that.

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

Now at first i thought he was a bit crazy but now after thinking about it for a few days he actually does have a point. I mean Penders never wanted his characters removed from the comics but wanted some compensation for their usage (honestly is that so hard to do Archie? Just appease the man so we can end this mess let him produce whatever crap he's making so it can fail like we know it probably will). But with the lawsuit going on some of the fan base was split down the center on both sides. So Archie hoping to draw more people onto their side they remove the characters so the fans would hate Penders and hopefully Penders would balk. It does sound legit if you think about it a bit.

They were removed to get us to hate Penders more so he would balk and it worked... partially (I'm trying to stay neutral in all of this because both sides have a case against one another) but it would make sense you know? So now we have more fuel against both sides in a way

I don't really think that's the case. It's likely that Archie's legal council advised them to stop using Penders' characters to insure that Archie doesn't add to potential fines they may get should the court rule in Penders' favor.

Until a settlement or court ruling has been finalized, Penders' characters won't be appearing until Archie is certain they can freely use them.

If it is, is that really surprising? Lawyers, blood-sucking parasites the lot of them...

Actually that makes a lot of sense. If Penders's case is all about them using "his" characters, if Archie stops using them at least temporarily, Penders has no reason to complain.

That puts the focus on the actual case and Penders can't make demands about the comic. It's actually a pretty clever move if it works. Also if Archie loses the case, they already got rid of the characters so no great loss.

I thought the usage of his characters was by-the-by. The main issue was that Archie were doing reprints of the old comics, and Ken wanted sit down and discuss his royalties civilly (which he is entitled to do, since he rightfully co-owns the characters with SEGA). Instead Archie set a lawsuit to get those rights and never pay Ken a penny. It didn't work. So it would have just been simpler to give the guy his money.

[RedAuthar]

So of course we all know that the Ken Penders' "Disputed Characters" were removed recently in the comic and now their return seems to be up in the air right now. We have been told that it was Archie who pulled them not Penders. So i was talking to a friend of mine last week about this and he brought up an interesting theory on WHY they did that.

He claims it wasn't "a move for good measure" as we have been told. Not even close. His theory is that Archie did that so the whole fan base would turn on Penders, more than they already have. He cites that they were losing the case against him so Archie thought that by removing the characters they would hope the fan base would turn on Penders even more so they can somehow gain the upper hand in this and hopefully win the case.

Now at first i thought he was a bit crazy but now after thinking about it for a few days he actually does have a point. I mean Penders never wanted his characters removed from the comics but wanted some compensation for their usage (honestly is that so hard to do Archie? Just appease the man so we can end this mess let him produce whatever crap he's making so it can fail like we know it probably will). But with the lawsuit going on some of the fan base was split down the center on both sides. So Archie hoping to draw more people onto their side they remove the characters so the fans would hate Penders and hopefully Penders would balk. It does sound legit if you think about it a bit.

They were removed to get us to hate Penders more so he would balk and it worked... partially (I'm trying to stay neutral in all of this because both sides have a case against one another) but it would make sense you know? So now we have more fuel against both sides in a way

I don't really think that's the case. It's likely that Archie's legal council advised them to stop using Penders' characters to insure that Archie doesn't add to potential fines they may get should the court rule in Penders' favor.

Until a settlement or court ruling has been finalized, Penders' characters won't be appearing until Archie is certain they can freely use them.

If it is, is that really surprising? Lawyers, blood-sucking parasites the lot of them...

Actually that makes a lot of sense. If Penders's case is all about them using "his" characters, if Archie stops using them at least temporarily, Penders has no reason to complain.

That puts the focus on the actual case and Penders can't make demands about the comic. It's actually a pretty clever move if it works. Also if Archie loses the case, they already got rid of the characters so no great loss.

I thought the usage of his characters was by-the-by. The main issue was that Archie were doing reprints of the old comics, and Ken wanted sit down and discuss his royalties civilly (which he is entitled to do, since he rightfully co-owns the characters with SEGA). Instead Archie set a lawsuit to get those rights and never pay Ken a penny. It didn't work. So it would have just been simpler to give the guy his money.

Not at all. The issue is that BioWare's Sonic Chronicles used characters and concepts similar to the Archie Comics, concepts he came up with. He was upset at that. He doesn't like where the comic is going and decided that he wants the rights to the characters back. It has actually very little to do with the Ken trying to get royalties. Though that was one of his initial claims he mostly wants his characters back.

[furrykef]

Ken wanted sit down and discuss his royalties civilly (which he is entitled to do, since he rightfully co-owns the characters with SEGA). Instead Archie set a lawsuit to get those rights and never pay Ken a penny. It didn't work. So it would have just been simpler to give the guy his money.

 

"Rightfully co-owns"? If we're talking about what's "rightful", Ken doesn't own shit. When you write for a comic book company, all the stuff you create for the book goes to the company. This is called a "work-for-hire" agreement and it is the standard arrangement. This is common knowledge, and Ken either knew this or was a complete moron.