Characters who may not show up again

Forum devoted to Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic Universe and the entire Sonic line by Archie Comics.

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Matt7325 » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:15 am

TheFatPanda wrote:So, remind me why Angelo Decesare's characters can't be used anymore, even though he still works for Archie?


Could just be none of his characters are really worth reviving. I liked Larry and the Arctic FFs, but they only really became relevant again right before the reboot. We're not really losing a lot there (compared to, say, Mogul or Mina).

That being said there's an Arctic Eggboss, so surely there's some FF presence up there...
User avatar
Matt7325
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:17 am

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Tonberry2k » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:20 pm

I think Larry is a decent enough character. It gives Knothole some more character, and by extension, makes us care about their home. So we want it safe.

I'd really like to see Mogul, Fin, and the Iron duo again. But... doesn't look good.
Tonberry2k
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Azul » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:50 pm

TurboTailz wrote:I just assume Ian doesn't have a spot for them yet until he finished up whatever story he's on. I have faith some may reoccur while others won't.

Trust me I would love to see Fiona, Dr. Finitevus, Arctic Freedom Fighters and many others that have been listed come back to the story. However I would like their return done in a smooth way where their character blends right into the story whatever arc it's on.

There's a list of returning characters? I require sources in abundance. :twisted:
User avatar
Azul
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: Somewhere, USA

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Tonberry2k » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:41 pm

There's a list of characters who HAVE returned here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7105
As for those who may be, we don't know. Nobody on the staff is allowed to talk about who is/isn't officially returning, partially because they go on a case-by-case basis (from what I've seen Ian say) and partially do to legal precautions.
Tonberry2k
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:21 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby hyperrush » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:05 pm

The problem is that we are not paying attention, according to Geoffrey. :mrgreen:
hyperrush
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:33 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby jawsisra » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:39 am

Spectre the Hechidnat wrote:Rosy the Rascal



Of all the Anti-Heros she is the one I can not understand the most of Ken did not create her yet he claim he owns her in many post.

I know he says he owns all Anti-Version of Heros now do to his owning the concept (which is still kind of weird given what he is claiming he owns is a general concept not something orignal)

I would think she would fall under ownership of SEGA/Archie given Ian is under a work for hire contract just they can not use her in less they find a neat way of making her diffirent then the old one But Ken Penders has made claim ownership of her a few times. So I just confused on how he can own a character he never created. He did not even create the backstory for her yet he claims ownership a few times. I just can not understand that one.


Personal I hope when the court cases are finally over SEGA wins. I know Penders is still trying to get his case with Sega heard. Once its all overwith I hope Sega wins because we might see some old concepts come back then and maybe characters like Shade can come back then.
jawsisra
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:16 am

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Azul » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:02 am

jawsisra wrote:
Spectre the Hechidnat wrote:Rosy the Rascal



Of all the Anti-Heros she is the one I can not understand the most of Ken did not create her yet he claim he owns her in many post.

I know he says he owns all Anti-Version of Heros now do to his owning the concept (which is still kind of weird given what he is claiming he owns is a general concept not something orignal)

I would think she would fall under ownership of SEGA/Archie given Ian is under a work for hire contract just they can not use her in less they find a neat way of making her diffirent then the old one But Ken Penders has made claim ownership of her a few times. So I just confused on how he can own a character he never created. He did not even create the backstory for her yet he claims ownership a few times. I just can not understand that one.


Personal I hope when the court cases are finally over SEGA wins. I know Penders is still trying to get his case with Sega heard. Once its all overwith I hope Sega wins because we might see some old concepts come back then and maybe characters like Shade can come back then.


What I don't get is why Penders wants ownership for those characters in the first place. He did make them but they were for Sonic mythos. He can't even use them outside of a Sonic story, which he can't even publish since he doesn't have the right. Let's not even discuss how terrible the Lara-Su chronicles are. He sounds like a glorified fan fic writer.
Last edited by Azul on Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Azul
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: Somewhere, USA

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby DabigRG » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:41 am

jawsisra wrote:
Spectre the Hechidnat wrote:Rosy the Rascal



Of all the Anti-Heros she is the one I can not understand the most of Ken did not create her yet he claim he owns her in many post.

I know he says he owns all Anti-Version of Heros now do to his owning the concept (which is still kind of weird given what he is claiming he owns is a general concept not something orignal)

He did? :?
User avatar
DabigRG
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby Meliden » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:08 am

He didn't.

But he did claim the anti-verse as his. If that goes Rosy goes with as she's not really going to fit as anymore than Anti-Amy.

Plus SEGA might have gotten stricter with the classic mandates around Genesis and eventually objected to the use of classic Amy's image, but that's just pure conjecture from me.
User avatar
Meliden
BumbleCult
 
Posts: 6019
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: ベクエス

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby linebyline » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:12 pm

jawsisra wrote:I know he says he owns all Anti-Version of Heros now do to his owning the concept (which is still kind of weird given what he is claiming he owns is a general concept not something orignal)

Ken Penders wrote the stories introducing the Anti-Mobius and its Freedom Fighters. (Because they fight against freedom, get it? Ha ha.) That means any story derived from those characters and that universe would be derived from his work, which means he has a partial claim of ownership over it. That includes Rosy.

That's not the same thing as claiming to own the entire concept, especially since the concept was a well-worn cliché long before Penders used it.

The big problem, according to my best (read: not especially good) guess, is that Penders' anti-Mobius was so generic that it would be hard to invoke the trope in a way that would give us straight-up evil twins without looking an awful lot like Penders' version. Now if the post-reboot version didn't reference any of Penders' work and was strictly an invocation of the "Evil alternate universe" trope, then Archie would probably win if Penders sued. The thing is, lawsuits cost money even if you win. Worse yet, Penders already won one case that, according to Archie's lawyers, he couldn't possibly win.

At this point, if Penders said he owned the word "hedgehog," Archie would probably settle with him just to avoid another drawn-out legal battle, on the off chance they couldn't figure out a way to just never use the word again. That doesn't mean his claim of ownership would be legitimate. And Archie having that paranoid attitude doesn't mean that Penders is actually going around claiming stuff. (Though he has managed to acquire a reputation for saying pretty much anything that he thinks will get him attention. I don't know how well- or poorly-deserved that reputation is.)
User avatar
linebyline
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby LBD_Nytetrayn » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:48 am

linebyline wrote:The thing is, lawsuits cost money even if you win. Worse yet, Penders already won one case that, according to Archie's lawyers, he couldn't possibly win.


Did he? I thought they settled...

--LBD "Nytetrayn"
User avatar
LBD_Nytetrayn
BumbleElite
 
Posts: 10987
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:19 pm
Location: Balloon Fight Arena

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby hyperrush » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:01 pm

hyperrush
BumbleFan
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:33 am
Location: Portugal

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby linebyline » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:05 pm

LBD_Nytetrayn wrote:
linebyline wrote:The thing is, lawsuits cost money even if you win. Worse yet, Penders already won one case that, according to Archie's lawyers, he couldn't possibly win.


Did he? I thought they settled...

--LBD "Nytetrayn"

Sorry about that, I was a little loose with my word choice. The lawsuit was settled, as you say. But he did "win" in the sense that he got what he wanted out of it, namely the rights to his material.

And the whole process cost Archie a lot of money and headaches, not to mention lots of content they thought was theirs to use. So either way, Archie lost. And they lost in spite of their lawyers telling them Penders had no case.
User avatar
linebyline
BumbleKnight
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby akessel92 » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:30 pm

linebyline wrote:
LBD_Nytetrayn wrote:
linebyline wrote:The thing is, lawsuits cost money even if you win. Worse yet, Penders already won one case that, according to Archie's lawyers, he couldn't possibly win.


Did he? I thought they settled...

--LBD "Nytetrayn"

Sorry about that, I was a little loose with my word choice. The lawsuit was settled, as you say. But he did "win" in the sense that he got what he wanted out of it, namely the rights to his material.

And the whole process cost Archie a lot of money and headaches, not to mention lots of content they thought was theirs to use. So either way, Archie lost. And they lost in spite of their lawyers telling them Penders had no case.

And the fans lost cause these characters that had been created whether through bollers or.... Penders, but at the time they were starting to have a new lease on life in the comics. They were becoming more relatable and likable under Ian's pen. However, no it just seems all that hard work on them no longer matters, especially in the eyes of those darned lawyers. (Sorry I have grown a distaste in lawyers, but I digress). Wicked waste.
akessel92
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:52 am
Location: in my home made of trash gets drafty in the winter

Re: Characters who may not show up again

Postby TurboTailz » Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:40 pm

You know it does sucks what has happen, but in a long run we might be somewhat thankful it did.
Spoiler: show
What if Sega starts to acknowledged how much recognition the comic has gotten over years after the reboot they eventually start to consider making a game or animation based on the comics? If they even add Sonic Chronicles to the list this will definitely be a rub on KP's face
User avatar
TurboTailz
BumbleNoble
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to This Side of Mobius



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests