He's right you know. It doesn't look anything like something Naoto and Yuji would've created, because they wouldn't (or at least I hope they wouldn't) bastardize their own characters like that.
Changing lines is not changing the character. If he really thinks this, he should just quit now and go live a life on fur affinity. As a professional, he's done. What a crackpot.
To be fair, that wasn't Ken who said that. It was just one of his fans. Edit to avoid double-posting: It just occurred to me that the Lara-Su picture says she's copyright 1993-2011 (Was this just added? I don't remember it being there before), even though she didn't first appear until 2002. I'm sure he has a reason, but it still just feels weird. It might have something to do with Ken's first story in the comic appearing in early 1994, meaning it was probably written in 1993. Though that raises the question of why he'd group all of his copyrights in the Archie thing under his first year working there if he claims the work there wasn't work-for-hire, since if it wasn't there'd be no reason to group it together like that, as her creation would just be a random work rather than part of an employment since 1993.
Okay, to try and avoid cluttering up the main Archie thread, I figured I should post this over here. First off, for those of you who weren't following that one, Penders recently showed off a redesigned Julie-Su which wasn't as bad as Lara-Su, but had him acting a bit more crazy than usual. A few days ago, he showed a redesigned Lien-Da who pretty much everyone hated completely. But now for something new from his forum. First quote is a random poster. Second is Ken. Bold emphasis by me. Who the hell does he think he's fooling?
Seriously, what the hell, man. Every god damn Echidna that ever appeared in the comics, to my knowledge, was Knuckles with extra hair and clothes. Talk about delusional. Can't he, like, go back to write new DS9 comics or something isntead? =B
Okay I'm getting confused over here, so is Penders even allowed to do this, or did Archie lose the rights to Julie-Su and any other character he came up with? Also while I don't mind the idea of Julie-Su having her own story and all the way Penders has acted for the past several months is just unprofessional, not to mention with such actions I'm sure he's lost a LOT of fans in the process because of this. I don't see why he couldn't work with Archie again, but after all this I'll be surprised if Penders will ever get hired by them or anyone ever again.
Basically, Penders is doing this because he believes he will win the case and have nothing to worry about.
This guy is one helluva piece of work. Reminds me a lot of Chris-chan, but slightly more intelligent and somewhat capable of some semblance of function.
What? What the Penders thinking here!? I mean if he got permission from Archie to do this I'd be as cool as a penguin but really? So from HIS logic, everyone who made a character in a comic is his/her property. That is the biggest amount of bull I've ever heard, now if that said person got credit for making the character (example:Stan Lee created Spiderman, nuff said) that makes sence. But this? This is just stupid, the only thing I'd tell Ken is fix your profession relationship with Archie and make a public apology on your website because not only are you going up with one of the most well known comic book publishers of all time, but you're also going up against Sega, This is more one sided then racing a car on foot! There is no way in hell he's gonna win.
Ah right theres a thread dedicated to this retard, I forgot. Heres the full quote from him: But one of pender's lackys said this: Hes either trolling what little fanbase he has left or hes off his rocker. you decide.
Okay, either Ken was really, really bad at wording that post that basically said his Echidnas had nothing to do with Archie or Sega, or he's now completely pulling things from his ass to try to cover his mistakes: I'll give him the benefit of the doubt this time that he just screwed up his wording. EDIT: Also, something in there that made me roll my eyes: Ken, have you already forgotten that the reason that doesn't happen is because of Sega? And was that a "My characters can beat that guy; I know it because I made them!" ? Really?
wow just...wow. I'm right now either amazed at how stupid this guy can be, and how things can get out of context. I don't really know. Mixed feelings everywhere. And wtf...not echidnas? really?...do we need a new pair of glasses or what? :/ because I don't really see resemblance to anything else but echidnas there...
I can understand having personal stake in characters you created. I can also understand becoming attached to a story and cast of characters you developed with basically no restrictions, but really? Turning it into my villain can beat up your villain thing? Just a liiiiiiiitle bit petty. Additionally, what the heck is drawing him to these characters as opposed to creating new ones not based on an existing IP? Lone protector of a magic maguffin pulled into a long standing family feud between magic and technology is a pretty broad premise that can be applied to non-anthropomorphic insectivores. Heck, Penders may even be able to pull it off so long as he keeps away from nonsense sayings and stupid slang that is in almost all of his Sonic writing.
So, why doesn't he approach Paramount or IDW or someone about his idea with the Klingons, considering there IS a huge market for them nowadays?
I like how he says this: And then turns right around and shows he doesn't have a "clear understanding" of Eggman at all. It also shows that he's totally not been keeping up with things and how the DL being Eggman's pawns makes complete sense.
What and ruin all this fun hes having being laughed at by the Sonic fanbase and waiting for his legal ass kicking by SEGA?!
