Tom
Ex-Hume
Hume-who-used-to-think-he-was-in-charge
Posts: 3,786
|
Post by Tom on Jul 16, 2013 11:00:20 GMT
If Nigel Kitching declared his intent to create a comic starring all the STC characters he created tomorrow, entirely divorced from any Sega involvement, I wonder what proportion of STC fans would feel upset by that. If anyone would call it some kind of betrayal. As far as I can see he's perfectly within his rights to do that. But I can't imagine any heads exploding over it.
But my long-standing inability to understand Archie fans has reached a whole new level of bafflement. Today, they simultaneously hate Penders' work and yet also wish he wouldn't take any of it away from them. The only kind of sense it makes is as some form of sado-masochism.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2013 11:23:10 GMT
The reason people are upset is because whether or not they liked Penders' stories, it's impossible to deny that he had a huge impact on the universe. The stories they enjoy now are reliant on his established canon to work. It's basically like Spider-Man's One More Day: nobody liked it, but Dan Slott wrote some excellent stories off the back of it. They're enjoying Slott's stuff BASED on the guff that was One More Day.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Jul 16, 2013 13:44:03 GMT
If Nigel Kitching declared his intent to create a comic starring all the STC characters he created tomorrow, entirely divorced from any Sega involvement, I wonder what proportion of STC fans would feel upset by that. If anyone would call it some kind of betrayal. As far as I can see he's perfectly within his rights to do that. But I can't imagine any heads exploding over it. He is within his rights to do, and I can safely say at the moment doing so would not cause an uproar since STC isn't currently an ongoing comic books series, unless you count STC-O. Judging from posts on the Bumbleking forum they don't like his work because he never used the characters as anything but exposition tools or plot gimmicks, the majority of them don't care about 95 percent of it if I guess right. No, the real problem lies with the remaining 5 percent which they do like and who were heavily involved in the currently ongoing storylines.
|
|
Tom
Ex-Hume
Hume-who-used-to-think-he-was-in-charge
Posts: 3,786
|
Post by Tom on Jul 16, 2013 14:19:52 GMT
The reason people are upset is because whether or not they liked Penders' stories, it's impossible to deny that he had a huge impact on the universe. The stories they enjoy now are reliant on his established canon to work. It's basically like Spider-Man's One More Day: nobody liked it, but Dan Slott wrote some excellent stories off the back of it. They're enjoying Slott's stuff BASED on the guff that was One More Day. Dan Slott's Spider-Man stories utilise exactly zero creative properties introduced in "One More Day". (Unless you count the epilogue which was based on material he'd already written.) It is never referred to, indeed the events that take place in it are wiped from the characters' memories at the end of it. Not that such a thing matters as pretty much everything at Marvel is done under watertight contracts these days so the company owns everything lock, stock and barrel - creators go into it knowing this. (Granted, some of the older properties are contested for similar reasons to this one - either a lack of a contract or one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.) Even Archie does that now.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2013 14:32:19 GMT
The reason people are upset is because whether or not they liked Penders' stories, it's impossible to deny that he had a huge impact on the universe. The stories they enjoy now are reliant on his established canon to work. It's basically like Spider-Man's One More Day: nobody liked it, but Dan Slott wrote some excellent stories off the back of it. They're enjoying Slott's stuff BASED on the guff that was One More Day. Dan Slott's Spider-Man stories utilise exactly zero creative properties introduced in "One More Day". (Unless you count the epilogue which was based on material he'd already written.) It is never referred to, indeed the events that take place in it are wiped from the characters' memories at the end of it. It's kinda based on it, otherwise everyone would know who Spider-Man was. It also helps with his relationship with Mary-Jane. Also, at the end of Spider Island there's a bit where Peter realises that people can discover who he is, after he semi-outs himself on live television, telling everyone he has Spider powers. It's not a perfect example, but what I mean is someone can use the established canon and characters, no matter how crap, and make it good. That's what's happened with Penders and Flynn: people don't like Penders' writing, but like his characters under Flynn. It's not insane.
|
|
Tom
Ex-Hume
Hume-who-used-to-think-he-was-in-charge
Posts: 3,786
|
Post by Tom on Jul 16, 2013 15:28:41 GMT
Dan Slott's Spider-Man stories utilise exactly zero creative properties introduced in "One More Day". (Unless you count the epilogue which was based on material he'd already written.) It is never referred to, indeed the events that take place in it are wiped from the characters' memories at the end of it. It's kinda based on it, otherwise everyone would know who Spider-Man was. It also helps with his relationship with Mary-Jane. Also, at the end of Spider Island there's a bit where Peter realises that people can discover who he is, after he semi-outs himself on live television, telling everyone he has Spider powers. It's not a perfect example, but what I mean is someone can use the established canon and characters, no matter how crap, and make it good. That's what's happened with Penders and Flynn: people don't like Penders' writing, but like his characters under Flynn. It's not insane. "Spider-Man has a secret identity", as a concept, wasn't invented in "One More Day". All that story did was revert much of the status quo back to what it was in the early 1980s. If Flynn apparently is the only reason Archie fans liked the Penders characters in the first place then why do they lack faith that he can create new characters who are equally compelling?
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2013 15:55:57 GMT
Of course it wasn't invented in One More Day. It's obvious we both know what I mean, though. Here it is again, in no uncertain terms: People, overall, did not like One More Day. However, they enjoyed Dan Slott's work, which had a status quo following on from One More Day. This is similar to the Archie situation as people, overall, did not enjoy Penders' work. However, they enjoy Ian Flynn's work, which has a status quo following on from Penders' work, including a huge amount of the characters and lore.
As to your second point, Penders' characters have had years' worth of stories and on-going character arcs that are now having to be dropped without warning. Flynn obviously could create new characters, but people are disappointed that they are being robbed of the stories about the characters they're already invested in. A huge amount of the series' universe has been lopped off with no closure.
|
|
Tom
Ex-Hume
Hume-who-used-to-think-he-was-in-charge
Posts: 3,786
|
Post by Tom on Jul 16, 2013 16:57:41 GMT
Well it's not "without warning" is it, the legal case has been going on for a year or two. Nor is it "without closure" given their stories will apparently be resumed by the guy who created them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2013 17:20:34 GMT
Well it's not "without warning" is it, the legal case has been going on for a year or two. Nor is it "without closure" given their stories will apparently be resumed by the guy who created them in the first place. For those who don't keep up with the legal wranglings or the goings on at Archie (like the entirety of its children's audience) these changes are both jarring and unexpected. Archie never expected to even come close to losing until recently. Also, they'll go back to the guy who created them... ignoring over 100 issues of development and changes to their character. Because yes, he will be ignoring it.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 16, 2013 17:37:15 GMT
What a charming man. If Nigel Kitching declared his intent to create a comic starring all the STC characters he created tomorrow, entirely divorced from any Sega involvement, I wonder what proportion of STC fans would feel upset by that. Now, none of them because STC isn't running anymore and it won't effect anything. If he'd done this during the original run, probably quite a few but Lew Stringer's stories wouldn't be too badly affected because he didn't use most of Nigel's characters. If he'd done this during the original after being fired, and after a new writer has come on and been really popular with fans, and when ongoing stories were using characters Nigel had created, then fans might get a bit upset because the ongoing storylines got crapped up and because he only said "I own these really" when another writer was doing popular stuff with them. (The timing always smacked of sour grapes) For those who don't keep up with the legal wranglings or the goings on at Archie (like the entirety of its children's audience) these changes are both jarring and unexpected. Even if you did know, the changes to Endangered Species are jarring as hell. It's obvious that things were changed at the eleventh hour (and thank god for the Megaman crossover, giving the next batch of stories a breather).
|
|
Tom
Ex-Hume
Hume-who-used-to-think-he-was-in-charge
Posts: 3,786
|
Post by Tom on Jul 16, 2013 17:55:09 GMT
Well it's not "without warning" is it, the legal case has been going on for a year or two. Nor is it "without closure" given their stories will apparently be resumed by the guy who created them in the first place. For those who don't keep up with the legal wranglings or the goings on at Archie (like the entirety of its children's audience) these changes are both jarring and unexpected. Archie never expected to even come close to losing until recently. Also, they'll go back to the guy who created them... ignoring over 100 issues of development and changes to their character. Because yes, he will be ignoring it. He's said he won't ignore it. "Live and let live", in his words. And I mean "without warning" to the people making the comics. They've had plenty of time to wrap things up so that nobody feels cheated.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 16, 2013 18:23:25 GMT
He's said he won't ignore it. "Live and let live", in his words. He's said before that he'd ignore anyone else's work on those characters. With his current stuff, he's following the ending of an alternate future story with a massive timeline reset so he might say he's not ignoring anything but that's clearly what he's going to do.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Jul 20, 2013 19:24:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chigs! on Jul 20, 2013 23:30:56 GMT
Can somebody explain to me the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book again... I'm not as clear on this as I thought I was... Penders is in the same boat too it would seem... :S
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on Jul 21, 2013 2:00:22 GMT
Can somebody explain to me the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book again... I'm not as clear on this as I thought I was... Penders is in the same boat too it would seem... :S Generally, a graphic novel is a complete, done in one story, bigger and typically more "mature." Killing Joke, No Way Back, and so on. A comic is a single issue, about 22 pages. Essentially a pamphlet. Then you get into the arguments about collected editions vs graphic novels. Mostly it's the page count and the completeness, but it's all bleh. Very few professionals would draw that line, it's mostly a marketing thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chigs! on Jul 21, 2013 8:42:09 GMT
In that case then I think he's somwhat misunderstood about the phrase "who would want to read a julie sue comic?"
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 21, 2013 12:55:14 GMT
Can somebody explain to me the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book again... Well, you remember the Only Fools And Horses gag where Mike at the Nag's Head sells someone their stew, then sells a yuppie "your beef bourguignon" for twice as much?
|
|
|
Post by Devo DrakeFox on Jul 21, 2013 13:49:21 GMT
"What could possibly go wrong" indeed. Answer: EVERYTHING. Well, probably. I guess we'll find out soon. The con's on today, isn't it? So tomorrow we can all read about the mess Penders probably made as he defecated directly into the fan, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 21, 2013 16:27:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Juliett. Bravo. Alfa. on Jul 21, 2013 18:21:16 GMT
Anyone got this feeling from that work? You know whenever a celebrity popped up on Arthur?
|
|
TheFatPanda
New Boomer
Bulging out of his t-shirt like a boss
Posts: 41
|
Post by TheFatPanda on Jul 21, 2013 20:13:13 GMT
EDIT: Nothing to see here. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jul 21, 2013 20:35:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Juliett. Bravo. Alfa. on Jul 21, 2013 20:50:02 GMT
Matt... Damon.
So yeah... I was right then.
(I kinda said on a different site that Ken's "excellent" attempt at Sonic style would mean that he wont be sued by The Sega, i:e: enough visual differences)
|
|