To this day Iizuka will say as much. I just think if you leave too much up to interpretation there isn't much left for you to actually latch onto, emotionally. Some things need to just be.
I think this is one of the fundamental issues with this franchise tbh. It very much feels like Iizuka is actively afraid of establishing anything concrete about this series, because he doesn't want to feel restricted in his ideas and just do whatever comes to mind. That's an admirable trait and I'm not gonna fault him for it, because as a creator, you shouldn't feel restricted in making art. But at the same time, this franchise always wants to advertise itself as more narratively dense than it actually is, and it never feels like they ever want to commit to anything that would actually be emotionally resonant. Frontiers is such an obvious attempt at trying to tell an emotionally rich story, but never wants to put in the effort to get the audience to care. It's not like any of its ideas are inherently bad, they're just undercooked and underdeveloped, but still pretend like its emotional moments are earned. There's a reason that scene with Sage is endlessly mocked (you know the one) and rightfully so. I dunno, it always felt like the creators were more interested in certain ideas as opposed to actually developing those idea.s
The emotional Sage flashback scene showing "all" of the moments between her and Eggman, but which has too little material to actually show due to them only having shared about two scenes together.
hmmm IMO it's kind of refreshing, because these days a lot of writers and properties are struck with the desire (or badgered by fans) to establish canon for each and every little thing. "glup shitto" is a Star Wars meme for a reason hahahaha
I completely understand that and kind of respect it. But the reason that happens is because fans want a reason to be invested in the product. Rewarding long term investment is the key to serialized media. Sonic doesn't really do that, although it sure as hell pretends it does. It's kind of just hard to invest in this series beyond a surface level if you care at all about anything beyond the concept of something. Because you know anything potentially interesting in the series isn't going to go anywhere, despite the series telling you otherwise. If nothing else, using the spectacle to hide that fact is a good way to cover that up and makes me understand better why the 2000s are so loved. If you looked past the surface, things didn't really progress, but the scale was so huge that it sure as hell felt like it. Combine that with introducing a new character per game with a fresh story.
My problem with the writing style is that it's basically flawed twofold right now. I agree with the general point regarding Frontiers' storytelling, and how whoever was behind the structure of that game's premise applied it; it just feels amateur in how it went about it to a degree. The general direction can work for strong storytelling, but if you don't know how to properly resolve that ambiguity and mystery with at least some satisfying answers that the game is begging you to ask, then what good is the mystery as a premise for the entire game? If you're going to make use of it, actually knowing how to balance it is more important than the ideal of incorporating it itself, and might as well be a waste of time otherwise. The other is that, if they are taking the approach of leaving details out intentionally, (TTo50YA) leaving plot details or even characterization vague to encourage alternative perspectives and theories... that's great! A lot of the series' and characters' appeal seems to have succeeded at that, and the vast sea of different takes regarding this shows that it drives interest in the stories. But then if you actually are writing those details that you left out intentionally, and if you care about your character enough that you want to maintain certain aspects of him because that is what you set out to write all along... that's just going to come in direct conflict with that appeal that you created to begin with? No matter what you do at that point, you will be deconfirming beliefs that fans will have held for a long long time, or even a short period of time, and they might even feel viscerally opposed to being "proven" wrong. (see: Ian talking about his intention with The End's speech and its fate) You can't really placate that without allowing a whole host of interpretations to spring up from the side as sort of elseworlds style plots and ignore a single canon, just taking the stories that started them to be the starting point for them all... but Sonic Team doesn't want to do that, they want to stick with their own interpretation, at least for Shadow. So why even lean on it that hard if you're just going to betray the very thing you once intended to be a selling point of your style? And that's not even getting into the issue of conveying those rules to parties who are not a part of the active roundtable, and the resulting confusion surrounding that. Again, the selling point is actively harming the style of storytelling in the long run, so why be so insistent on it with a contradictory intention of sticking with one direction to begin with? Edit: Actually can we throw Chaos being a mutant chao in there alongside TTo50YA, because why the hell was that left out of adventure when it fed into exactly this kind of thing?
I am fine with loose canon for lore and logistical things. There might be a slam dunk explanation for Shadow looking like a hedgehog, but if they never explain that I won't exactly be bothered. My problem is more how they float between "we will never explain this" and "we will over-explain this" arbitrarily. I don't think Sonic Adventure's story is enhanced any by any of the wrinkles Frontiers added and while I don't much mind Black Doom these days the question of what he even added by being introduced is still a valid one. I never cared much about Sonic's constantly changing world state, but they tried, for a few years, to explain that anyway with the two worlds thing. Etc etc. For character relationships in this character driven series I think the practice is a bit more questionable. I don't think it's impossible to do it well( Wander and Mono manage to tug at the heartstrings despite the exact nature of their relationship never being revealed) but it puts you in a tough position, perhaps unnecessarily so vs just giving yourself more cushion when it comes to that stuff. I don't think the Maria example is as destructive as the Sage one, but I wouldn't say Sage is an example of being deliberately obfuscating anyway. It just seems like they fucked up and lowballed the game's most important emotional beat. It happens.
At least with Shadow, I do think they kind of want to have their cake and eat it too with him. They want him to stay the mysterious and stoic badass rival to Sonic by intentionally obfuscating his motives and character relationships (hence the whole "Team Dark aren't friends" thing) for the sake of marketability , but also establish that Shadow isn't heartless and capable of kindness, empathy and forming positive relationships. The latter is pretty much the logical conclusion of Shadow's character arc and where manys fans interpret his character (including Ian Flynn, hence why his version of Shadow from Archie is much more emotionally vulnerable and empathetic) but at the cost of many of the traits that gravitated fans to him to begin with. A Shadow without his edge just isn't that entertaining, even if its narratively gratifying for his fans. This is why we get these contradictory statements and actions; Sega knows how marketable Shadow is, and they're not going to get rid of that just for the sake of a story.
It's not SEGA themselves though, it's the original writers all together agreeing on that: https://x.com/mizuhano/status/878123409472856065 Maekawa isn't even at the company anymore, yet here he is hoping for Sonic and Shadow to continue having fights with each other for SA2's 16th anniversary, 7 years ago
I'm not a fan of nothing being properly established. Makes sense, this is a corporate mascot that has a face to maintain so everything should be loose, but this works against this franchise trying to have genuine moments that connect with the audience. "Sonic Should not have dark and edgy themes" has always been a bad argument against the sensibilities of the series, but there's a compelling reason for it, the status of this series as a corporate mascot works against it. Edit: Adding another opinion, just cause i don't wanna double comment. This is not a Sonic exclusive opinion. I hate how discussions online are more so centered around who's right and who's wrong, like there's a competition to see who's the truest, bestest fan with the correct opinions. Folks will have certain opinions, and people will come up to them starting arguments, "why do you feel like that?", and they have to justify their own experiences in arguments, and if they get some facts wrong, it automatically renders their opinion as incorrect and disposable, not to be taken seriously. Like there's a correct way to exist in fandom spaces and there's hard science to it. This happens with both positive and negative opinions. Somewhat related to the "canon" subject, and other topics such as artstyle, original intent, adaptations, direction of the series and etc. , I hate when people use knowledge, to shut down anything they don't like to see. To stop some "deviant derivative" that is going to ruin their favorite thing. It has made enjoying certain things and being introspective about it extremely frustrating and isolating. Basically gatekeeping sucks. Edit 2 :UNLESS, the gatekeeping involves genuinely dangerous and immoral people. Bigots, abusers, predators, etc.
This is what I've been saying for years. In my opinion, opposing a piece of media simply because it doesn't adhere to some arbitrary "canon" or "lore" signals a lack of imagination at best, and complete and utter hatred of art and creativity at worst.
It's all art at the end of the day, and art is subjective. Combine that with just how long this franchise has existed, and it's inevitable that people are going to come out of it with different conclusions than you or me. To stay on topic, I'm kind of the opinion that "being a corporate mascot" is one of the worst arguments I've seen for shutting down any potential this series could have. Because it almost always boils down to what the series can't or shouldn't be, almost always in reference to adhering to someone's vision of the series' perceived glory days. This series literally wouldn't exist if it they didn't take risks, and it's kind of sad that a lot of fans have so become so set in their ways that they'd rather the series cut off its potential at the feet than see it drift from what they liked. If I had my way, I'd come up with all sorts of weird ideas, corporate overlords and nostalgia merchants be damned.
It has always been frustrating, especially when people bring up serious Sonic stories as an example of ludonarrative dissonance ("there are cartoon characters on my screen, how can this be meaningful in any way?"), but you have to imagine what it takes to actually be consistent with your own series. It's an issue we see recently with something like the current IDW run, and the whole moral dilemma Ian Flynn has introduced, "Why can't Sonic can just kill Eggman?". It's a very compelling idea for a story, but that's never going to happen, Eggman is as recognizable as Sonic and Sega would never allow you to do that (at least, not again) + can you imagine how that would piss people off? all the current discourse going on with IDW would worsen 10 times fold. the status of the series being a corporate mascot is a compelling argument in my opinion, it inherently limits what ideas you can work with.
I'm gonna be real with you, I don't think many fans are making either of those arguments. It seems pretty rare to me that I see someone bring up canon status of something as a dismissal to anything...other than how its story could impact the canon series, where yeah, that makes sense. Similarly, "Sonic is a corporate mascot" is an explanation for SEGA's behavior, not a defense of their decisions. It's easy to also defend their decisions, all you need is a pseudo-rational reasoning as to how SEGA came to the conclusions they did. In the case of, for example, "nothing being properly established", there's more to it than just SEGA's brand image. Sonic's character is based in his freedom, his unpredictability, his well-rounded usefulness in just about any situation. His character speaks for itself, right? So to tie him down to a backstory is to make a statement about his personality and how it was formed that may not be accurate to how Sonic himself is supposed to act, or indeed may simply suck in general. Movie Sonic having a parental figure that died saving him informs his movie personality, his desire for family etc. and it makes that version of Sonic fundamentally different from the games canon. Myself, I don't necessarily mind Sonic having something, but it's important to me that Sonic formed his worldview out of his own desires and enjoyment, rather than having some tragic upbringing or just motivation for being a hero. Part of what makes Sonic fun is that he has just as much fun beating the snot out of Eggman as you are, and that needs to be why he does it. With this in mind, writers would actually be advised to make Sonic's backstory more boring. He had a normal childhood, normal parents, and just decided he'd run off at some point. He's fast enough, he could go home if he needed to. But at this point, you've made a story that isn't actually that worth telling, and so SEGA doesn't. It's not just because he's a corporate mascot. This obviously doesn't mean every decision they make is right, or that you can't disagree with me, but I think it's a cogent argument and I think saying things like "they're just defending SEGA's corporate rationale" or "all they care about is what aligns with canon" is generally speaking past whatever arguments are being made towards you. Sonic doesn't stray too far into dark themes because it's meant to be fun. You don't get fun when you're sitting around watching tragedies play out all day. Dower tones are not inherently compelling on their own, and plenty of the best Sonic stories are not edgy in any way. The idea that this is some mistake is either a childish misunderstanding that darkness equals maturity, or not being able to articulate properly that what you actually want is compelling stakes and tension, and whatever tone is necessary to bring that across. Sonic does not need to be more adult to do any of this. Sonic doesn't kill Eggman because it's a corporate mascot? Sonic doesn't kill Eggman because it's for kids? No, Sonic doesn't kill Eggman because Sonic is not a fucking cop. Sonic doesn't kill Eggman because the series is about these two dudes beefing with each other. Sonic doesn't kill Eggman because you don't kill off the charismatic villain in your damn episodic cartoon series, which is what Sonic is. All Flynn did was his best effort to articulate Sonic's personal in-universe philosophy for this, and it's not even without precedent in tons of prior material. Sonic saves Eggman all the damn time. He saves Eggman from GUN in Sonic X! All of this makes me deeply skeptical of what exactly allows a person to get this deep into the series and want such a bizarre, tone-deaf status quo change in the first place.
I never argued for Sonic having a backstory, the idea of being consistent doesn't mean that. some folks are just the way they are and don't need a compelling reason for it, it's why i love Sonic. He's just some guy who's decent and can do things others can't. BUT, if we were to take any of the things that has happened across the canon seriously, it requires asking why are we just going with the cat and mouse relationship between Sonic and Eggman, cause Eggman has doen diabolical things, at that point he's not just a goofy cartoon villain. Why does this massive world only revolves around these two? IDK, I find it uncompelling, that this world is filled with all these characters with their own stories and relationships, and other groups and entities and dynamics, but also it all boils down to some Hedgehog and Evil scientist beefing. Edit: also regarding Sonic being a cop, this kinda serves my point, this series has no capacity to explore such questions of morality with the current approach of SEGA, in a compelling way. It's not The last airbender. Cause that would invite a lot of political and philosophical arguments and drama. So a lot of great idea and opportunities of the series can only exist as ideas. Something for the fans to explore. (A lot of edits, sorry) Final edit hopefully lol: I feel like i've done a really bad job explaining what my opinion really is, so maybe this clarifies things up. You can have compelling stories and a consistent continuity in this series, and it can work, i think folks who say otherwise are in the wrong, but there's a reason they think like that. some folks understanding of Sonic is still "cool in your face 90's mascot", and not, you know, "The Sonic cast contemplate about their own mortality in a barren island straight out of the Stalker movie". It feels like Sega wants to have both, and I don't think that's gonna work. For both fans, and outsiders. Best they can do is to keep everything loose and vague.
This is a foundational thing isn't it? It's simple and effective, but allows you for you to build bigger and better things.
The other reason why the "Why can't Sonic just kill Eggman?" argument doesn't work for me is because, at least in the games, most of their conflicts tend to be life-or-death situations. From choosing to blow up Eggman's Egg Mobile in Sonic 1, or destroying his mechs in space in Sonic 2 and 3&K, to his kamikaze attack at the end of Sonic's story in Adventure and getting swallowed by a black hole in Colors, etc., etc., their fights generally come down to only one getting out alive. Sure, Sonic isn't actively out there hunting Eggman to stop or kill him. But at the end of these conflicts, he's not really looking to save him either, aside from a few exceptions. Sonic isn't in the same mindset as, say, Batman, with his "no-kill, save everyone even if they are causing harm" rule. And at least within the game's continuity, there tends to be a break between games and their stories. Is Eggman alive? Who knows?! Find out in the next game. So bringing up this question doesn’t quite work because Sonic can say, "Well, I don't want to kill him, but he's put me in situations where I definitely tried." It's not that deeper dilemmas can't be explored. I do think the comic team has something special with Lanolin and what she brings to the table. The issue is that these dilemmas don't really work with what the games show. The comics still take cues from other American comics. Instead of the Justice League/Avengers/Freedom Fighters, we have the Resistance. The world is still reeling from Eggman's invasion in Forces, even though the new games after that (TSR, Frontiers, Dream Team) have moved on and everything is back to normal. But in IDW, Eggman still feels like he has more power and territory, as he did in previous comics. So, the dilemmas the comics bring up lose their grounding because they exist in the world of the games, which have a different style of storytelling and focus. I do think they could achieve more by returning to what the series is fundamentally about in order to address these deeper themes. We're on the verge of society facing the biggest consequences of climate change. For example, environmentalism is one of the core themes the series is known for. We know Eggman wants to build his vision on top of the world and its natural resources. But in many ways, this theme has sometimes been in the background of the games rather than the foreground. We've reached the point where even Eggman's mechs don't always have critters inside them anymore. Eggman wants to level Green Hill or another iconic location to build Eggmanland or pursue another plan. Okay, cool, but what does that really mean? It could be beneficial to see how Eggman's actions have negative—and even permanent—effects on the environment in the games. (Kind of like how the Metal Virus had consequences on the local flora in the Forest Ridge Zone Campground.) You could even add that there might be some support for Eggman and his actions from other civilians in Sonic's world. Of course, these are just ideas off the top of my head, but I do think the series hasn't explored more themes or storylines that play more into its strengths.
Sonic always had a bit more going for him than the other guys. That's why we're having this discussion. It's more entertaining that way. The crux is that Sonic was created for your entertainment. If it's to grounded in reality, then some will find it boring. If it's too unreal, it won't make sense to some people. There is no black and white, and fans need to understand that. Do we need to know where Eggman had his first chop suey? No, but what we do know is he likes delicious dishes, and that adds to his character, which is fun! It's in character for him to have an acquired taste. Meanwhile, Sonic being the most powerful being in the universe doesn't make sense. Unless you add a reason to that. But, what if the gods just decided that a blue hedgehog would save the day? That would be just a deus ex machina, wouldn't it. I think they're doing their bestest to excel beyond your run-of-the-mill mascot, and that's why we should keep an eye on them.
