81 replies to this topic

[E122Psi]

So, then you would want to see Sonic change and be more like how Sally has been wanting him to be, but just not as pedantic as her?

Yes and no, I don't want Sonic to learn to completely change who he is, but I still want him to grow and accept sometimes his way isn't always the best, but Sally should do the same with her's to an equal level. Basically both characters learning from the other that there's a time and place for either strategy, or for a compromise of both, rather than one being more consistently stable than the other.

 

Again this seems to be assuming the idea that any spontaneous approach is reckless and suicidal, and the moment he goes about things in a clever manner he is suddenly meticulous like Sally, which I think is oversimplifying it. He can go by his heart but still be clever about it. As said in other medias he is shown to be rather collected and resourceful, aspects that help him go through the motions when other more tactical characters may panic. It would actually make more sense if he shown these aspects more since it give more justification as to why he overestimates how often it would work.

 

I think Sonic comes off as reckless because he represents spontaneousness to a much greater extreme than Sally does, taking STUPID risks he should know could be hard to evade if they fail, not to mention conveying all the traditional flaws of a character holding the Idiot Ball, being arrogant, childish and refusing to listen to anyone until it's too late. Sally was meticulous, but rarely in a situation that it could be a hinderance, and in most cases it had the potential to be she was far more rational and flexible than Sonic and so avoided the same moments of stupidity. Be it merely the circumstance or her greater lucidity she was never meticulous to a flawed extreme, so we never really saw the downsides of her methods.

 

One could argue if Sally had even a couple similar screw ups as Sonic earlier on and thus grown into this disposition, this would have came off as effective character development, and make their unity in the final points of the show all the more meaningful.

 

As it is however Sonic was the only one who needed to learn to prioritize his ways, to the point that in Archie's future he will just depose of his 'like the wind' ethics and become Sonic's king and follow standards exactly as Sally wanted things. Supposedly Sally never had to make the same sacrifices and compromises in life because the story skews her way to look more stable than his. As such it is not equal development, it's too much for Sonic and too little for Sally.

[E122Psi]

I do think that works but as said it would have been more effective if Sally had the same development as Sonic and shown coming to accept that sometimes she needed his support too. In this sense, both approaches learning to work together than against each other, rather than just one learning to co operate with the more reasonable one.

 

It might just be down to the fact that as you said, Sonic's moments were a lot more conspicuous than Sally's, being a full display of his key flaws and how detrimental they could be (complete with a standard episode Aesop), and so generally ended up with him looking like a bumbling fool. Sally's errors were more subtle, so she never really undignified herself like that or was made to face the same degree of humility concerning her shortcomings, and so lacked the same vulnerability as him. I think that's what some mean by the whole 'perfect' thing, even when she is flawed she never falls flat on her ass like Sonic does. As said before though, it's not as if any of the other Freedom Fighters went through this either (par Antoine, but he rarely ever learned from it).

[E122Psi]

I don't think the comic ever got Sally right, par maybe the early ones that kept her more fussy, temperamental personality. She just seems kinda boring. Ian's a fan, but that doesn't mean he understands her at all, if anything it makes him more likely to glorify his preferred characters and make dream scenarios with them. His attempts to make the fanbase like her and accept she's actually flawed despite this just make me cringe too.

 

I never really liked the 'better half' archetype, I don't think one sided chemistries where one is always the positive to a negative are depthful at all. Satam Sal was an otherwise likable character tainted by this aspect, Archie Sal seems to only have this part of her remaining.

 

 

 

Funny enough, you can see in SatAM that in actuality Sally appears to find his chaotic ways charming in some manner, almost like he's a breath of fresh air to her. Most of the times she nagged him I interpreted it as more "playful" rather than bossy; almost as if she was thanking him in a roundabout manner. To me that's one of their relationship's quirks. 

You have to remember she was brought up to be the way she is: to lead and "rule with honour" as a princess. And like Robotnik said as he weaponized her, Sonic was her WMD, and she aimed him.

 

It's not that I don't find Sally's attitude and approach sympathetic, it's just she never got the humanization from suffering humility over it like Sonic did, it's really the one thing she really needed to be fully rounded. The only times she's ever made to regret is ironically when she becomes a 'Sonic lite' which doesn't have the same catharsis because that not her accepting her OWN defining shortcomings but someone else's she's randomly taken on.

 

Understand I do actually like Sally, I think she's adorable (in Satam at least). I whine and moan in excess about things I like A LOT more often than things I hate, because it means a great concept is tainted rather than an already doomed one being made worse.

 

The only time I think I kinda loathed Sal in Satam was 'Sonic Boom' due to her apathy towards Cat and indirectly leading to his supposed demise (though again this stems from she fact she wasn't called out or made to feel bad about any of it. Losing Cat seemingly wasn't a consequence for them). It wasn't exactly the best written episode of the series anyway.

[TheRedStranger]

 

I do think that works but as said it would have been more effective if Sally had the same development as Sonic and shown coming to accept that sometimes she needed his support too. In this sense, both approaches learning to work together than against each other, rather than just one learning to co operate with the more reasonable one.

 

It might just be down to the fact that as you said, Sonic's moments were a lot more conspicuous than Sally's, being a full display of his key flaws and how detrimental they could be (complete with a standard episode Aesop), and so generally ended up with him looking like a bumbling fool. Sally's errors were more subtle, so she never really undignified herself like that or was made to face the same degree of humility concerning her shortcomings, and so lacked the same vulnerability as him. I think that's what some mean by the whole 'perfect' thing, even when she is flawed she never falls flat on her ass like Sonic does. As said before though, it's not as if any of the other Freedom Fighters went through this either (par Antoine, but he rarely ever learned from it).

 

In my opinion the writers at Archie during the Mobius 25 Years Later time were doing the fans and characters a disservice. For me the best "future version" was in issue #20 I believe; we saw Sonic and Sally essentially like they are in SatAM, but now have two little ones to care for, and I can guarantee with those two as parents they would be cared for.

I completely agree: their relationship in whole M25YL arc is psychologically flawed; as they say in the business: "A man marries a woman in hopes she will never change, and a woman marries a man in hopes that she can change him, but neither one will happen." That's kind of an over-simplistic way of looking at, but it does fit the majority of the time.

 

 

A big flaw in the Sonic comics that can't be helped is the lack of ultimate character progression. Ian has admitted that nowadays he can't write "Sonic crying" or "retreating" he has to be a AAA-Bad-butt  all the time, extra Swartzsenager hold the humanity please. Every time Sonic gets a genuine moment of character growth (which does sometimes happen), SEGA flips out and bites sharply at Ian's typing fingers. I hate that for him. Archie/Satam Sonic is an actual character people care for, not a card board cut out like his SEGA's counterpart. He actually has wants and fears, and is not some flower-sniffing mary-sue like in '06 and Sonic X. He isn't bound by the monster of the weak formula (*cough* Sonic X *cough*) and is a giant one-liner spewing Deus Ex Machina for the world.

 

 Sega's thinking is as fallacious in this regard as it was with constantly upgrading hardware in the 90's. Tell me, when a person  that you care for has been hurt or setback, do you abandon him and swear fealty fickly to another franchise? Sonic is no woobie Anakin Skywalker, we know he can kick it in overdrive well enough, but if he doesn't actually have something to gain and something loose personally, we shouldn't really care. For that matter I love the way Sonic is portrayed in STC, arrogant, brash, and sometimes an egocentric jerk that was blessed with great power that inflated his ego as well as his sense of righteoussness and heroism. After being humbled by his own lack of control (super sonic is a psycho in that) and losing people he cared for he began to grow up a bit and gradually learn of consequence. What a great lesson for kids! To me that is the best progression you could give the character through out the series.

 

 Now let's bring that back to Sally. One great thing about Sally is that she can have these moments, especally because she's very relatable to us thus open to more sympathy, which makes her likeable, which makes her profitable for Sega. However SEGA is a boiling, festering crap-caked crock-pot of bad decision makers (if they just heeded the wisdom of Sega of America, we would probably be soon playing Sonic Adventure Four on our Dreamcast 3's).  Sally is as human as us on the inside, she has no powers but has a strong will and prowess to contend for what she wants. She is an underdog that we want to root for.  Look when she breaks down in frustration in front of "Ken" (Khan) after Sonic saves her in Journey to The East. She is miffed at herself for becoming a hostage and we she doesn't want to be a damsel (*cough* SegaAmy *cough*). Again, great lesson for young women. We later get a jolt of satisfaction when she goes all choleric on Fiona and takes her frustrations out on her gut with a swift fist. She won't be walked on, and she won't let others walk upon people she cares for (this instance Tails). At that moment we empathize with her. She's got flaws like us and wants some stability in a flawed world, and she is willing to go through hell to get it. We care for her and learn from her. And we care for characters like STC Sonic who trip over their own huburis despite their heroism. Because we have all been there one way or another and sometimes these stories make lightbulb go on as see similar things play out in our lives.  A good character gives the reader something to learn and apply to their own lives from the stories given. If you can pull that, the entertaiment becomes edifying to the reader. SEGA, give your audiences something they can keep with them. Give that something they can relate to and learn from. Progress video games as an art form and stop breeding these sicophantic SonAmy fans with your memetic junk-food and give them Sally, and that doesn't even have to be a romance, a close friendship with the overtones of that possibilty would do perfectly.   

[Robthe1st]

Sally can also be a kick-ass girl!

 

 

 

 

 

I'll never forgot about that   And I agree with you, Red Stranger. Sally will always the true spiritual human being

[E122Psi]

I don't see any depth in the comic characters AT ALL. The mandates don't cut it for me because even very recent arcs have shown Ian has a lot more flexibility with Sonic than he let's on, he is allowed to angst and have clear bouts of temper. The only mandate for him crying was that he couldn't outright bawl his eyes out, which is a genuine breach of character, it's not their fault he made a completely over the top arc where Sonic's family is erased from existance. Most of the times Ian takes Sonic out of his comfort zone he actually goes too far and converts him into an unlikable douchebag (even the games have shown ability to make Sonic flawed without making me want to punch his lights out). And don't get me started on the STC version.

 

Characters can feel emotions, but it means very little if they don't have a unique personality to vent it through. No one in the comics has quirks or distinctive defects, they're just soldiers or everymen going through the motions. Those that aren't get 'developed' until their personalities are redundant and they become the same (eg. Antoine and Monkey Khan). Most of the time the plot moves the characters rather than vise versa, while exposition and generic angst forms their 'development'. I can personally see SEGA's reasoning in limiting the characters treatment, since the comics go to such ridiculous lengths concerning shock value and taking their characters completely out of context. That's cheap development at best.

 

Sally can show emotion, but otherwise her personality feels non descript, similar to Satam Sal, most of her flawed moments don't really seem to stem from any consistent personality, she has an oversight or takes on some compressed vice and it has no affect on how she acts after that one story. Ian constantly makes her do something 'kickass' or is said to have done something wrong, which comes off as a really forced and desperate attempt by Ian to make her haters love her as much as he does, but it fails because she feels empty as an actual character.

 

Ian can't write flawed characters, at least not in a way that's very sympathetic, hense most of his best characters are villains. Most of his heroes are either bland, odious or both.

 

I really wish people wouldn't undermine 'quirks' just because they aren't serious and 'epic'. Satam could be dramatic but it still understood it was working with cartoon characters and tried to give them recurring defects and traits that makes them stand out to me, the problem stemmed more from not expanding on them enough and some ending up rather one note (especially in Season Two) but even then I identify with them more than their Archie versions. I don't relate to a serious and 'normal' character.

 

I actually remember feeling more character depth from light hearted kids shows like Friendship Is Magic and Thomas and Friends than I do serious complex arcs we see in Archie.

[RedAuthar]

 

I don't see any depth in the comic characters AT ALL. The mandates don't cut it for me because even very recent arcs have shown Ian has a lot more flexibility with Sonic than he let's on, he is allowed to angst and have clear bouts of temper. The only mandate for him crying was that he couldn't outright bawl his eyes out, which is a genuine breach of character, it's not their fault he made a completely over the top arc where Sonic's family is erased from existance. Most of the times Ian takes Sonic out of his comfort zone he actually goes too far and converts him into an unlikable douchebag (even the games have shown ability to make Sonic flawed without making me want to punch his lights out). And don't get me started on the STC version.

 

Characters can feel emotions, but it means very little if they don't have a unique personality to vent it through. No one in the comics has quirks or distinctive defects, they're just soldiers or everymen going through the motions. Those that aren't get 'developed' until their personalities are redundant and they become the same (eg. Antoine and Monkey Khan). Most of the time the plot moves the characters rather than vise versa, while exposition and generic angst forms their 'development'. I can personally see SEGA's reasoning in limiting the characters treatment, since the comics go to such ridiculous lengths concerning shock value and taking their characters completely out of context. That's cheap development at best.

You forget that this is a Monthly comic.  Storylines can't go too deep otherwise you waste too much time in one area.  Storylines can't last forever because fans lose interest waiting month after month for stuff to happen.  In a cartoon that updates weekly, you have less gaps between chapters/episodes.  Stories last longer because they stay with the viewer longer.  

 

On top of that Characters have to grow.  Antoine started as a coward, but grew out of it as the story progressed because he became useless on the team.  Now Antoine still shows a bit of his cowardice at times but for the most part he's a lot braver.  Khan is the opposite.  Khan is a rather rambunctious and bravado character with no second thoughts (more like Sonic than Antoine) however as he grows he's become more deep character discovering that this method usually brings him trouble. 

 

And lastly, Sonic was more unlikable in SatAM than in Archie Comics.  Heck in SatAM Sonic rarely ever learns from his mistakes.  

 

 

I actually remember feeling more character depth from light hearted kids shows like Friendship Is Magic and Thomas and Friends than I do serious complex arcs we see in Archie.

Because Rotor, Bunnie, and Antoine, heck even Tails had so much panel time in the cartoon that they got real development.  

 

Again in it's a monthly comic, certain things that work well on a weekly cartoon show don't work the same in the comic. 

 

Also, don't get me started on how Underdeveloped and wastes of space over have the cast of Thomas and Friends are.  The only real characters are Thomas, Gordon, James, and Henry.  Everyone else is just fudging those four's personalities.  

[TheRedStranger]

 

 

I don't see any depth in the comic characters AT ALL. The mandates don't cut it for me because even very recent arcs have shown Ian has a lot more flexibility with Sonic than he let's on, he is allowed to angst and have clear bouts of temper. The only mandate for him crying was that he couldn't outright bawl his eyes out, which is a genuine breach of character, it's not their fault he made a completely over the top arc where Sonic's family is erased from existance. Most of the times Ian takes Sonic out of his comfort zone he actually goes too far and converts him into an unlikable douchebag (even the games have shown ability to make Sonic flawed without making me want to punch his lights out). And don't get me started on the STC version.

 

Characters can feel emotions, but it means very little if they don't have a unique personality to vent it through. No one in the comics has quirks or distinctive defects, they're just soldiers or everymen going through the motions. Those that aren't get 'developed' until their personalities are redundant and they become the same (eg. Antoine and Monkey Khan). Most of the time the plot moves the characters rather than vise versa, while exposition and generic angst forms their 'development'. I can personally see SEGA's reasoning in limiting the characters treatment, since the comics go to such ridiculous lengths concerning shock value and taking their characters completely out of context. That's cheap development at best.

You forget that this is a Monthly comic.  Storylines can't go too deep otherwise you waste too much time in one area.  Storylines can't last forever because fans lose interest waiting month after month for stuff to happen.  In a cartoon that updates weekly, you have less gaps between chapters/episodes.  Stories last longer because they stay with the viewer longer.  

 

On top of that Characters have to grow.  Antoine started as a coward, but grew out of it as the story progressed because he became useless on the team.  Now Antoine still shows a bit of his cowardice at times but for the most part he's a lot braver.  Khan is the opposite.  Khan is a rather rambunctious and bravado character with no second thoughts (more like Sonic than Antoine) however as he grows he's become more deep character discovering that this method usually brings him trouble. 

 

And lastly, Sonic was more unlikable in SatAM than in Archie Comics.  Heck in SatAM Sonic rarely ever learns from his mistakes.  

 

 

I actually remember feeling more character depth from light hearted kids shows like Friendship Is Magic and Thomas and Friends than I do serious complex arcs we see in Archie.

Because Rotor, Bunnie, and Antoine, heck even Tails had so much panel time in the cartoon that they got real development.  

 

Again in it's a monthly comic, certain things that work well on a weekly cartoon show don't work the same in the comic. 

 

Also, don't get me started on how Underdeveloped and wastes of space over have the cast of Thomas and Friends are.  The only real characters are Thomas, Gordon, James, and Henry.  Everyone else is just fudging those four's personalities.  

 

 

You stole the words right out of my minty-scented face-hole. Indeed we got limits on what we can do with a monthly comic.

 

It's called making an "Expy". Or an export. Segasonic is notorious for this. 

 

And let's remember to give examples and sources to our arguments now guys... Write with a Missouri mentality, "show me yo' moves!" Show me. You can't make accusations like that witout evidence, I assume you have some?

 

 Go ahead, get started on STC Sonic. Just be prepared for Mike to sweep in the thread and to swoop down on you with all the fury of a thousand fans. 

[E122Psi]

 

Also, don't get me started on how Underdeveloped and wastes of space over have the cast of Thomas and Friends are.  The only real characters are Thomas, Gordon, James, and Henry.  Everyone else is just fudging those four's personalities.  

 

 

 

Watch it buddy, you're messing with childhood nostalgia there.

 

What I mean is that Thomas and Friends and other similar kids shows at least know to follow the basic idea of a character driving a story and making the events happen, and usually learning to better themselves from it.

 

Archie Sonic seems rather generic and not much less formulaic a lot of the time. A baddie appears and Sonic and co stop it, Satam at least had moments the heroes actions have some involvement in how the plot works, hell comical works such as AoSth do it in spades as well. Archie struggles to make any of the heroes' personalities matter, and when it does, it usually comes out inconsistent and pretentious. It's bad when you have to exposition to tell us what a character is like.

 

Development is not the same as diluting traits. Antoine's 'maturing' basically led to him losing pretty much all of his key personality traits par the odd very subtle gag or one liner which has no effect on the story. Satam Antoine was one note, but at least he could hold a plot, Archie Ant is now so bland he's mostly relegated to background scenes. Monkey Khan basically had the evolution they want to give Sonic, taming and 'correcting' all his abrasiveness to fit Sally's way of doing things. That to me isn't natural development. You don't just grow out of your flaws, you can mature and gain positive aspects to better handle them, but you don't realistically become a Purity Sue.

 

Admittedly I wasn't big on Satam Sonic either, even outside aforementioned problems with Sally (for all people complain about Japanese Sonic, I tend to find Western versions to over the top obnoxious and vindictive), but Archie is worse, they too often overdo his flawed qualities or give him new Compressed Vices and Flanderize them to odious degrees (House of Cards anyone). He doesn't have many consistent positive aspects anymore and it's only punctuated by the rest of the Freedom Fighters being blandly competent and level headed now. He's like a spoiled manchild within a bunch of boring old sages.

 

Story length doesn't cut it. You can make a short story and still make the characters matter. The problem isn't always the payoff or length but that the stories don't require much character involvement outside 'stop the bad guy' to begin with. Hell Ian actually did a better job with the cast of the Sonic X comic, and that was just simple comedic one issue stories. Screentime isn't the key, making what they have matter is. They gave Sally limitless screentime prior to her robotocization and I still think she was as bland as cardboard.

[RedAuthar]

 

 

Also, don't get me started on how Underdeveloped and wastes of space over have the cast of Thomas and Friends are.  The only real characters are Thomas, Gordon, James, and Henry.  Everyone else is just fudging those four's personalities.  

 

 

 

Watch it buddy, you're messing with childhood nostalgia there.

Mine too.  I have so many episodes it's not funny.

 

 

 

 

 

What I mean is that Thomas and Friends and other similar kids shows at least know to follow the basic idea of a character driving a story and making the events happen.

 

Archie Sonic seems rather generic and not much less formulaic a lot of the time. A baddie appears and Sonic and co stop it, Satam at least had moments the heroes actions have some involvement in how the plot works, hell comical works such as AoSth do it in spades as well. Archie struggles to make any of the heroes' personalities matter, and when it does, it usually comes out inconsistent and pretentious. It's bad when you have to exposition to tell us what a character is like.

 

Development is not the same as diluting traits. Antoine's 'maturing' basically led to him losing pretty much all of his key personality traits par the odd very subtle gag or one liner. Satam Antoine was one note, but at least he could hold a plot, Archie Ant is now so bland he's mostly relegated to background scenes. Monkey Khan basically had the evolution they want to give Sonic, taming and 'correcting' all his abrasiveness to fit Sally's way of doing things. That to me isn't natural development. You don't just grow out of your flaws, you can mature and gain positive aspects to better handle them, but you don't realistically become a Purity Sue.

 

Admittedly I wasn't big on Satam Sonic either, even outside aforementioned problems with Sally (for all people complain about Japanese Sonic, I tend to find Western versions to over the top obnoxious and jerkish), but Archie is worse, they too often overdo his flawed qualities or give him new Compressed Vices and Flanderize them to odious degrees (House of Cards anyone). He doesn't have many consistent positive aspects anymore and it's only punctuated by the rest of the Freedom Fighters being blandly competent and level headed now.

 

Story length doesn't cut it. You can make a short story and still make the characters matter. The problem isn't always the payoff or length but that the stories don't require much character involvement outside 'stop the bad guy' to begin with. Hell Ian actually did a better job with the cast of the Sonic X comic, and that was just simple comedic one issue stories.

 

And that's where the problem lies.  One issue stories. 

 

Every Episode of SatAM (save Blast to the Past and the shorts) were One Episode Stories.  

A lot of the previous Issues of Archie Sonic were One issue stories.

 

However Fans felt more invested in the multi-issue stories, so Archie made more of those.

It's not Ian Can't write for these characters, but rather he stretches the stories to fit multiple issues when they don't need to.  Honestly if we shortened a lot of the story arcs characters go really deep in development.  But because they seem to go on and on and on, that development becomes 6 months worth of weight for something that could have been finished up rather quickly. 

 

Actually go back and read the issues in a row rather than monthly and you notice a lot gets done, more than you thought, but it's spread out so long it seems like nothing is happening. 

[E122Psi]

Truthfully the more I relook the stories, the more I notice how repetitive and bland they are. I don't see how that stops Ian from making any large steps in how the characters work into the story. Most of the time he just expos and adds a cheesy nod to how they USED to be, but otherwise they almost seem interchangeable soldiers too bland to uniquely change the plot around, you could switch dialogue boxes between them most of the time and it wouldn't break character that's how empty they are. It's even more insufferable the instances he tries to insist through narrative that the characters DID do something pivotal through their personalities (eg. Sally's 'definitely flawed so shut up about being a Mary Sue' moments). It's hardly something that started with Ian, the comics sacrificed 'childish' quirks and story pivoting personalities defects the moment they started aiming for more serious stories (Sally was already a pretty boring lead by the time of her mini series), but you'd think SOME signs of life would be made by now.

 

I think this analysis pretty much pinpoints my key complaint with the comics:

 

http://laviarray.dev...lysis-391725689

 

This one also pretty much nails my theory on sympathetic characters:

 

http://johnkstuff.bl...ick-pathos.html

 

"I have felt more sorrow for Daffy Duck losing at the end of "Duck,Rabbit,Duck" or Ralph Cramden missing the first question on "The $99,000 Answer" then Bambi's mother getting shot or Mufasa being killed. I can't feel sorry for characters who don't have a single shred of personality.."

[RedAuthar]

That's where I'm reversed.

 

I can feel for the nameless faceless Stormtroopers who get killed off one by one just doing their job.

 

I can feel bad for the unimportant yet adorable enemies I have to level grind through so I can beat Dhoulmagus is Dragon Quest 8.

 

You give a character some form of Identification, I can feel for them.  

 

 

Besides, you don't need to feel sad for Bambi's Mom getting killed, that's not the point.  What you're supposed to be feeling is sadness for Bambi, a young child who we've seen his personality (albeit not a very complex one) who just lost his mom.  

The point isn't she died, but rather that Bambi lost her.  

 

You don't need to feel sad for Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru in Star Wars when they die (though I do).  You are supposed to feel bad for Luke as his whole world is now crashing down around him and the only thing that kept him alive was because he lied to his guardians that he was taking the droids down to get worked on to hide the fact he lost one, after getting into a fight with his Uncle. 

 

You don't need to feel sad that Uncle Ben (no Ben...not you) died.  You are supposed to feel bad that Uncle Ben was shot after trying to teach Peter Parker a lesson that he shoved back into his Uncle's face because he didn't want to deal with it, and now never will have a chance to make up for it.

 

Honestly that may be me because I've been there.  I got into a fight with one of my cousins because he was teasing me (him being quite a few years older than me) and never apologized when he was just trying to play with me but I was a dumb kid.  He died before the next chance I had to see him.  So my opinion may be biased on what you're supposed to feeling in these situations.  However if you don't feel sad when these personality-lacking characters die, you must not feel a whole lot in movies.  Honestly how many nameless people die in movies such as Dante's Peak or Jurassic Park?  If you can't feel for the generics, there isn't a whole lot of movies that you're getting.  

[TheRedStranger]

That's where I'm reversed.

 

I can feel for the nameless faceless Stormtroopers who get killed off one by one just doing their job.

 

I can feel bad for the unimportant yet adorable enemies I have to level grind through so I can beat Dhoulmagus is Dragon Quest 8.

 

You give a character some form of Identification, I can feel for them.  

 

 

Besides, you don't need to feel sad for Bambi's Mom getting killed, that's not the point.  What you're supposed to be feeling is sadness for Bambi, a young child who we've seen his personality (albeit not a very complex one) who just lost his mom.  

The point isn't she died, but rather that Bambi lost her.  

 

You don't need to feel sad for Uncle Owen or Aunt Beru in Star Wars when they die (though I do).  You are supposed to feel bad for Luke as his whole world is now crashing down around him and the only thing that kept him alive was because he lied to his guardians that he was taking the droids down to get worked on to hide the fact he lost one, after getting into a fight with his Uncle. 

 

You don't need to feel sad that Uncle Ben (no Ben...not you) died.  You are supposed to feel bad that Uncle Ben was shot after trying to teach Peter Parker a lesson that he shoved back into his Uncle's face because he didn't want to deal with it, and now never will have a chance to make up for it.

 

Honestly that may be me because I've been there.  I got into a fight with one of my cousins because he was teasing me (him being quite a few years older than me) and never apologized when he was just trying to play with me but I was a dumb kid.  He died before the next chance I had to see him.  So my opinion may be biased on what you're supposed to feeling in these situations.  However if you don't feel sad when these personality-lacking characters die, you must not feel a whole lot in movies.  Honestly how many nameless people die in movies such as Dante's Peak or Jurassic Park?  If you can't feel for the generics, there isn't a whole lot of movies that you're getting.  

 

 Red speaks wisely. Drama (and don't confuse this with it's contrivance melodrama) is not just what the character's feel objectivly, but what you feel subjectivily as well. Indeed you have a valid point when bringing up your personal issue. This is why we make character's relateable and how it empowers the subtext. The morals of the story transfer via character by person in an organic way. It could be that people don't relate with the character because they can't see how other's could. For example when I criticize Amy's depicition in SegaSonic I mention not just what I don't like about her, I mention how she is a bad role-model for girls( chasing and obsessing over a man to be her idolatrous panacea for all her woes, ignoring all their faults: codependancy on overdrive). 

 

 If you ever need to talk about such things Red...my door is open, amigo.

[RedAuthar]

 

 

 If you ever need to talk about such things Red...my door is open, amigo.

 

Years ago man.  I was like 7 at the time. 

[TheRedStranger]

 

 

 

 If you ever need to talk about such things Red...my door is open, amigo.

 

Years ago man.  I was like 7 at the time. 

 

 

Just making sure. My best friend that had similar event happen in his life, he bottled it down for years. Didn't quite get over it until I took the time to talk to him about it. Thought I'd offer you the same shot if you thought you needed it.

[RedAuthar]

Naw it's cool.  He left me his comic books so I know he didn't mind too much. 

[E122Psi]

I can relate to that approach, I do feel bad for faceless masses getting screwed over (eg. the team's apathy towards Cat in 'Sonic Boom', hero characters' self righteousness towards dying mooks in medias such as Star Wars and The Dreamstone, Meg being bullied by everyone in Family Guy), but there's a difference between hindsight induced pity and pathos induced pity. It doesn't change that most of the these characters are blank slates and the feeling is more frustration towards the fact no in the media DOES feel pity. Of course you'll feel sorry for a bland character if the treatment they get is so gratuitously cruel.

 

This is the key problem with Archie, it's method of development is shock drama, characters losing loved ones or just generally going through a ridiculous load of crap which leads to an excess amount of angst. They don't succeed in 'developing' from it though, or even emitting genuine pathos. Ian tries to do the routine with Sonic mentioned with Ralph Cramden in that previous article, having him act like a tool and then being forgiven because his remorse is so earnest. It isn't however, the redeeming scenes always fall flat and so Sonic just ends up looking like a jerk (and don't give me the whole 'SEGA won't let him' routine because he seems perfectly free to emit Sonic to all sorts of cheap melodrama as well as giving him other high emotions such as vindictive rage that usually only leave looking more like an utter asshole).

 

I am sorry to hear about your situation with your cousin however Red Authar, and I am very sorry if I opened up old wounds with this. I was truthfully a vindictive brat when I was a kid, and I cringe thinking back to some of things I said or did to people.

 

 

 

The morals of the story transfer via character by person in an organic way. It could be that people don't relate with the character because they can't see how other's could. For example when I criticize Amy's depicition in SegaSonic I mention not just what I don't like about her, I mention how she is a bad role-model for girls( chasing and obsessing over a man to be her idolatrous panacea for all her woes, ignoring all their faults: codependancy on overdrive). 

 

 If you ever need to talk about such things Red...my door is open, amigo.

 

But there are few morals in Archie (one could argue a similar problem with Satam since it had some but they were all pretty much directed to Sonic and only Sonic). The characters don't grow, they don't have their personalities challenged because they aren't the basis of the plot. They're just soldiers who do their job as blandly and swiftly as possible,

 

I find it funny how people criticize Amy as bland, since while she may be one note about it, she at least has a distinctive personality that has affect on the plot in both a negative and positive way (eg. Sonic Adventure 1). Her character is important. Interpretations such as STC and Archie derive from the point of this, since they are vehement on making her 'badass' and matured, they take away the elements that make her personality distinct and vibrant and make her another bland set of hands with no motives or purpose. Same for Antoine, Satam Antoine was a one note embodiment of negative aspects, but he had genuine pathos, he had ambitions and most importantly he had a personality that changed the plot significantly. Archie Antoine grew out of all those silly goofy aspects and now is just another generic character we're lucky to see in battle scenes.

 

I don't care if they're bad role models. Giving them redeeming aspects and growth is important, but not as important as making their personality stand out, and for that you need key flaws. Sally's entire personality got screwed over because they were so vehement on making her a good role model. Why does a character need to lack any distinguishing flaws to be a good role model? More importantly, why do you WANT a cartoon character to be a realistic role model?

[RedAuthar]

 

I am sorry to hear about your situation with your cousin however Red Authar, and I am very sorry if I opened up old wounds with this. I was truthfully a vindictive brat when I was a kid, and I cringe thinking back to some of things I said or did to people.

 

Naw it's cool.  I was just stating what was my bias for these things.  

 

 

I don't care if they're bad role models. Giving them redeeming aspects and growth is important, but not as important as making their personality stand out, and for that you need key flaws. Sally's entire personality got screwed over because they were so vehement on making her a good role model. Why does a character need to lack any distinguishing flaws to be a good role model? More importantly, why do you WANT a cartoon character to be a realistic role model?

I agree that a character should be a character first and a role model later.

 

However this is where you have to take things with a dash of salt.  Sally's flaw is that if she ISN'T perfect in her planning and action, someone dies or worse.  Sally has been prone to have mental break downs when things start falling apart around her.  

 

The problem is this is when we get things like the infamous slap scene.  In the situation, which is totally in her character as I've said before many a time if you consider all that's going on with her life, angered so many fans, Archie is afraid to have her break down again.  

 

Same with many of the characters, they're afraid that backlash will be huge if characters deviate from the path they currently are on. 

[E122Psi]

Okay then. Glad you're okay. I know I really go overboard with ranting and can sometimes offend, and that's not really a good way to start my run around here.

 

Said flaw isn't really an actual personality defect but one bought by her role and position. The same however could be said for all the other characters, how many times has Sonic's recklessness almost got the whole team killed before one of them bailed him out (eg. No Brainer)? The whole point of depicting a flaw is showing it has the potential to have terrible consequences if not controlled properly.

 

I do agree that the slap had some characteristics that fit Sal (about the one time her overcautiousness and obsession with order caused a legitimate problem), I think the problem was execution, similar to Sonic's many flawed moments in the comic, it was based around pretentious teen melodrama and having Sal act over the top angsty and vindictive in a deadly serious fashion. This is personally why I don't the series being too serious and down to earth. At least in more comical stories there's more room for suspension of disbelief.

 

I still think characters such as Twilight Sparkle and Rebecca Cunningham are very much in the same archetype as Sal, albeit with much more freedom to act flawed and 'quirky', usually becoming the butt monkey to all the potential defects of their meticulous approach (eg. being controlling, OCD and self righteous to anyone who contradicts them), while still usually moderating it so they remain rather sympathetic and endearing (especially since they don't avoid the consequences and moments of repetence for it). The shows have the ability to make endless gags and situations based on their actual personality, Archie is unable to do that with Sal.

[furrykef]

The problem is this is when we get things like the infamous slap scene.  In the situation, which is totally in her character as I've said before many a time

The slap was in character? If it were in character, we wouldn't be seeing so many people complaining about it. I think the slap was antithetical to her character, even considering a mental breakdown (I don't think the breakdown itself was OOC, just The Slap). Claiming that Sonic was being selfish didn't even make the slightest bit of sense (which Sonic called her out on, but that didn't make the fact she did it any more believable), especially considering he was acting the way she'd always acted and the way she'd always want him to act, putting his country's needs above his own. Seriously, where did this idea even come from?