Megathread Archie Sonic Main Discussion

[Mauro Fonseca]

1 hour ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

I don't get why everyone makes such a big deal from this Paralyze.

Is "two people daring to say it feels off for them" really "everyone"?

[MetalSkulkBane]

1 hour ago, The KKM said:

Is "two people daring to say it feels off for them" really "everyone"?

Okay, geez.

Ahem, ahem,,, I don't see why some people see it as a such a big deal.

[Heckboy]

10 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Eggman being the same guy who builds amusement parks in space is also the guy who uses it to suck the lifeforce of cute alien beings and warps them into odd abominations to power his new mind control device.

Except sucking some vague "life-force" out of cutesy aliens to power a giant mind control cannon is a fantasy scenario compared to paralyzing some random soldier for disobeying a direct order or whatever. The former is done with levity, we don't get told the specifics of it. Just, "Uh oh, the poor Wisps are being drained, we need to save them!" followed by, "Yay, they're all back to normal now!" 

10 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

He also happens to be the same guy who tried to nuke a city when his plans went awry, then later blew up half the moon to make a point as he threatened to wipe out countries if he wasn't declared ruler.

In all fairness, Eggman was a slightly more ruthless (and thus out-of-character) in general in the Adventures. You also had the thing with Eggman holding a child at gunpoint, and then Sonic actually acknowledges how out-of-character Eggman is, with the whole "You've turned into a big time villain" line. Not saying that they’re completely invalid, but using them as examples alongside an example like Colors doesn’t really work, since the Adventures feel more like exceptions when it comes to how Eggman is handled in the grand scheme of things. Even then, I don't feel like giant space cannons and blowing up the moon are that dark compared to this -- they're over-the-top fantasy things.

10 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Like, I can't follow that whole train of thought - I get it's more shocking and disturbing than how it was previously done, that's just a matter of fact here cuz even I didn't expect that. But I can't see how this is odd considering that even Game!Eggman has done some pretty horrible and disturbing shit himself. Heck, if you want to be technical about it, he practically does the same thing as he did to Tassel Boy to Sonic's friends at the start of Generations when he uses Time Eater, except by turning them to stone. The guy is an all around, psychopathic lunatic.

It's different from Eggman using some alien spacetime monster that freezes everyone in some limbo world. Even when Tails acknowledges how unsettling it was, it's just a quick little thing and everyone's fine for the remainder of the game. It's not meant to horrify anyone, and it's not like Tails has some mental breakdown and we're shown the full consequences of being "turned to stone." Ultra-happy music plays, they do a little pose, and everything's fine. They're rewards for beating levels. 

Instead it's directly shown that Tassel Boy is now paralyzed. You even said it -- it's more shocking and disturbing than before. The whole point of the scene is to disturb and shock the Egg Bosses (in-universe) and the readers. The tone here is meant to be, "big scary dictator, he’s using this guy as a warning, don’t end up like that guy!" which is different from a game as lighthearted as Generations where your aim is to save the others. It probably seems even worse since Tassel Boy already appeared -- he's some poor guy we're somewhat familiar with now in a living death scenario, and nobody is going to save him. He's not going to be saved. There's less levity to it.

10 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

And honestly, I doubt they're moving away from things that were relatively dark in the old continuity. They're more moving away from parts of the old continuity they can't salvage into this one for obvious reasons, otherwise anything they're allowed to present is fair game to be in this one provided they have a place for it. Might explain why they did away with the explosives, because whoever was higher up thought the opposite between that and paralyzing someone for decades.

I'd argue that they shouldn't have even salvaged the concept of Eggman the tyrant with cyborg slaves, since it honestly feels dated and out of sync with the games (which is what the reboot is using as a background). It's like this weird combination of SatAM/Archie Robotnik and SEGA Eggman that I don't think works very well. But then this would get even further off-track with more arguments about how Archie!Eggman should be handled and how the comic should be written and blah blah blah that have no doubt happened here a million times before, and I really don't feel like getting into that over this.

TL;DR: Game!Eggman doesn't really have a comparison because usually when he's done anything horrible it was done in a vague way where we don't get shown the direct consequences of his actions, thus maintaining a feeling of levity. Here we're shown exactly what happens and we're meant to be terrified of it, and it's not like something done in a generally cartoony fantasy -- straight-up paralysis has a much darker and even realistic (see Psi’s first comment) tone than using giant laser cannons on moon-sized space stations. I like dark elements in stories, but having things like this in a Sonic comic is a bit unnecessary and jarring in my opinion, even compared to the game example you gave.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, Mister X said:

Except sucking some vague "life-force" out of cutesy aliens to power a giant mind control cannon is a fantasy scenario compared to paralyzing some random soldier for disobeying a direct order or whatever. The former is done with levity, we don't get told the specifics of it. Just, "Uh oh, the poor Wisps are being drained, we need to save them!" followed by, "Yay, they're all back to normal now!" 

It's still a bastard thing to do to anyone all around, and while not as dark as other examples, it was far from funny in how they went about showing what happened to the wisps. And it's far from vague in the sense that we're shown Eggman rounds up wisps, puts them into capsules, and sends them into a machine that drains their life, which I don't think the ones that suffered were actually back to normal.

Quote

In all fairness, Eggman was a slightly more ruthless (and thus out-of-character) in general in the Adventures. You also had the thing with Eggman holding a child at gunpoint, and then Sonic actually acknowledges how out-of-character Eggman is, with the whole "You've turned into a big time villain" line. Not saying that they’re completely invalid, but using them as examples alongside an example like Colors doesn’t really work, since the Adventures feel more like exceptions when it comes to how Eggman is handled in the grand scheme of things. Even then, I don't feel like giant space cannons and blowing up the moon are that dark compared to this -- they're over-the-top fantasy things.

It's different from Eggman using some alien spacetime monster that freezes everyone in some limbo world. Even when Tails acknowledges how unsettling it was, it's just a quick little thing and everyone's fine for the remainder of the game. It's not meant to horrify anyone, and it's not like Tails has some mental breakdown and we're shown the full consequences of being "turned to stone." Ultra-happy music plays, they do a little pose, and everything's fine. They're rewards for beating levels. 

Instead it's directly shown that Tassel Boy is now paralyzed. You even said it -- it's more shocking and disturbing than before. The whole point of the scene is to disturb and shock the Egg Bosses (in-universe) and the readers. The tone here is meant to be, "big scary dictator, he’s using this guy as a warning, don’t end up like that guy!" which is different from a game as lighthearted as Generations where your aim is to save the others. It probably seems even worse since Tassel Boy already appeared -- he's some poor guy we're somewhat familiar with now in a living death scenario, and nobody is going to save him. He's not going to be saved. There's less levity to it.

"Out of character"? Really? That's more revisionist and moving the goal posts of his character given the Adventures came right after the Classics and further developed what trace of characterization he had into that a decade before Colors. So if anything it's Colors that's out of character since he's not ruthless enough, and that Colors doesn't work as an example for how he's handled -- this game comes right after the game where he blows up the damn world and laughs about it as he releases Dark Gaia at the beginning of Unleashed. You know, kinda like he threatened to do in SA2? But we're given a few games after that where he's not as ruthless and dangerous, and somehow his darker portrayals a decade before are out of character?

And you conveniently disregarded my example where he tries to nuke Station Square -- not an over-the-top fantasy. Nobody's arguing that there's less levity to what happened to Tassel Boy, but that given the myriad of evil things Eggman has already done even in the games, this isn't exactly hard to think of him doing to disobedient soldiers.

Quote

I'd argue that they shouldn't have even salvaged the concept of Eggman the tyrant with cyborg slaves, since it honestly feels dated and out of sync with the games (which is what the reboot is using as a background). It's like this weird combination of SatAM/Archie Robotnik and SEGA Eggman that I don't think works very well. But then this would get even further off-track with more arguments about how Archie!Eggman should be handled and how the comic should be written and blah blah blah that have no doubt happened here a million times before, and I really don't feel like getting into that over this.

Well considering the whole point of the entire setting is a mixture of the games and cartoons, that's kinda obvious that this Eggman is a combination of his Archie and Sega selves. But whatever.

Quote

TL;DR: Game!Eggman doesn't really have a comparison because usually when he's done anything horrible it was done in a vague way where we don't get shown the direct consequences of his actions, thus maintaining a feeling of levity. Here we're shown exactly what happens and we're meant to be terrified of it, and it's not like something done in a generally cartoony fantasy -- straight-up paralysis has a much darker and even realistic (see Psi’s first comment) tone than using giant laser cannons on moon-sized space stations. I like dark elements in stories, but having things like this in a Sonic comic is a bit unnecessary and jarring in my opinion, even compared to the game example you gave.

How are Game!Eggman's horrible actions vague with no direct consequences? We see those consequences a lot in those game examples and are shown implications of what he will do. Either way it goes, such darker and realistic elements like this isn't exactly unknown to cartoony fantasies.

And honestly, given how you argued against some of the darker portrayals of his Game counterpart, I find it incredibly difficult to believe you like dark elements in stories, whether they're realistic or otherwise, at least in rather cartoony works like Sonic.

[Your Vest Friend]

Oh yeah, and what I neglected to say is that Mordred also says that the bloodline of the six noble houses is wearing thin as to part of his justification for going to Eggman. So it seems he's taken that bit of backstory from Conquering Storm (and Espio). Couldn't she just take it back physically?

 

[MetalSkulkBane]

Mister X, let me put it straight: the behaviors in the comic is bad just because it doesn't fit with behavior from games?

There is PLENTY that I disagree here, but Chaos Supreme is already covering those.

But  answer me this: why on Mobius would you say that going beyond games is bad thing?

Cassia's backstory would never fit into Pontac/Graff stories, do you want that too? How about we make Knuckles stupid to match games? Or what if Adventure 3 will came out, will Eggman magically become ruthless again? Personally I appreciate that Flynn tries to keep things consistent

[Mauro Fonseca]

 

19 minutes ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

Mister X, let me put it straight: the behaviors in the comic is bad just because it doesn't fit with behavior from games?

There is PLENTY that I disagree here, but Chaos Supreme is already covering those.

But  answer me this: why on Mobius would you say that going beyond games is bad thing?

Cassia's backstory would never fit into Pontac/Graff stories, do you want that too? How about we make Knuckles stupid to match games? Or what if Adventure 3 will came out, will Eggman magically become ruthless again? Personally I appreciate that Flynn tries to keep things consistent

There's "going beyond games" and "going beyond games". It's obviously fine and expected for the comics to do things the game don't, but it's also fine and expected to want limits on that. After all, the games don't include spousal abuse. Was it fine then when the comic "gone beyond games"?

[MetalSkulkBane]

4 minutes ago, The KKM said:

There's "going beyond games" and "going beyond games". It's obviously fine and expected for the comics to do things the game don't, but it's also fine and expected to want limits on that. After all, the games don't include spousal abuse. Was it fine then when the comic "gone beyond games"?

I wouldn't be surprised if competent writer could do that scenario fitting, but for sake of argument let's say you're right.

So "making Eggman as ruthless as in older games" is as bad as "using topic that no one even considered to put in games".

Also, my brother gave me an interesting point: roboticisation exist in this world, right? In that case Eggman can NEVER become a goofy not-so ruthless guy, not when he robbed people from their free wills by doing crimes against nature itself.

(I still don't think that Paralise Scene was that scary, or that Lost World Eggman is that nice, but whatever)

[Mauro Fonseca]

No, but it does establish that it's perfectly acceptable to both allow the comic to do its own thing while wanting it to have limits on how much it diverges from the games.

From there, it's a question of agreeing to disagree that you just have a different tolerance than others have. I, and apparently Mister X, find that the more realistic "evil" of Eggman presented in the Adventures is an outlier that nudges almost into out-of-character when taking the character's 25 years of existence, and that thus accepting any push into "dark and gritty" using those as justification is in the same logic as, say, "it's perfectly acceptable for Bomberman to be hardcore manly and violent- he did it once in one game!".

You'll obviously disagree, but that's the point- we're just in completely different opinions, here. You bring up roboticisation as if to justify anything, I tell you the reboot should've canned roboticisation entirely, for an example. CSS brings "Archie Sonic is supposed to be a mix of the games and other media" and I say "the mix is off-balance, this cake has too much of this ingredient, the comics need in some regards much less of what isn't the games because it's confusing the whole thing". And he'll probably disagree, and that's fine, it's his deal to do so.

[Crazy_Diamond]

51 minutes ago, The KKM said:

No, but it does establish that it's perfectly acceptable to both allow the comic to do its own thing while wanting it to have limits on how much it diverges from the games.

From there, it's a question of agreeing to disagree that you just have a different tolerance than others have. I, and apparently Mister X, find that the more realistic "evil" of Eggman presented in the Adventures is an outlier that nudges almost into out-of-character when taking the character's 25 years of existence, and that thus accepting any push into "dark and gritty" using those as justification is in the same logic as, say, "it's perfectly acceptable for Bomberman to be hardcore manly and violent- he did it once in one game!".

You'll obviously disagree, but that's the point- we're just in completely different opinions, here. You bring up roboticisation as if to justify anything, I tell you the reboot should've canned roboticisation entirely, for an example. CSS brings "Archie Sonic is supposed to be a mix of the games and other media" and I say "the mix is off-balance, this cake has too much of this ingredient, the comics need in some regards much less of what isn't the games because it's confusing the whole thing". And he'll probably disagree, and that's fine, it's his deal to do so.

Eggman presented as more "realistically" evil in Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic Heroes (well, Metal Sonic's impersonation of Eggman anyway) Shadow the Hedgehog, Sonic 06, and Sonic Unleashed. Considering that Sonic Adventure was the game that gave Eggman personality in the first place, I don't see how anyone can think Eggman is out of character in that game.

[Mauro Fonseca]

The actions he performs are presented in completely different tones in those examples, though. In Adventure and Adventure 2 he does inherently more realistic and down-to-earth acts- bombing a city, holding hostages at gunpoint. In Heroes he doesn't do anything, in Shadow he's fighting against the aliens with big cartoony robots and doesn't do anything much evil himself, 06 he just keeps kidnapping a princess over and over (but the tone's also drastically different from anything by simple virtue of the art style, so again, an isolated event), in Unleashed he does a much less realistic action by using a giant space cannon to literally explode the planet.

Turn your news channel on, you'll see people shooting each other and cities being bombed, but I really doubt you'll see planets being blasted apart. That's what I mean by more realistically "evil". That's not to say he can't inherently do those things, but that the times he did weren't representative of the overall characters.

[E-122-Psi]

I think it's a matter of context and presentation of how evil he is. There are plenty of far more light hearted villains who are perfectly willing to kill or do absolutely vile things to achieve their goals. Does it mean that it's perfectly free game for a Looney Tunes short to do something like this?:

My problem is that it's overplaying the mood whiplash like many other Sonic interpretations, and rather than making for a balanced mix of light and dark subject matter, it's tottering too much between both extremes in a way that kinda alienates both demographics.

Not to mention I feel in the end, because it's still trying to be light hearted, the whole concept will end up underplayed when concluded anyway. They eventually derobotocized all the robians under Robotnik's control, and despite previously emphasising how horrific the process of being stuck in a body that's forcing you to help your worst enemy and harm your closest family and friends for over a decade, NO ONE remotely played up that aspect effectively or even much talked about it when they were free. It was just another badly executed attempt to make Robotnik more sinister and super evil that they ultimately tried to shove under the rug when they were bored of it. Darkness isn't just cheap shock value.

[shdowhunt60]

14 minutes ago, The KKM said:

The actions he performs are presented in completely different tones in those examples, though. In Adventure and Adventure 2 he does inherently more realistic and down-to-earth acts- bombing a city, holding hostages at gunpoint. In Heroes he doesn't do anything, in Shadow he's fighting against the aliens with big cartoony robots and doesn't do anything much evil himself, 06 he just keeps kidnapping a princess over and over (but the tone's also drastically different from anything by simple virtue of the art style, so again, an isolated event), in Unleashed he does a much less realistic action by using a giant space cannon to literally explode the planet.

Turn your news channel on, you'll see people shooting each other and cities being bombed, but I really doubt you'll see planets being blasted apart. That's what I mean by more realistically "evil". That's not to say he can't inherently do those things, but that the times he did weren't representative of the overall characters.

This honestly comes off as being pointlessly over-sensitive. I mean, for fucks sake, how many action cartoons have we had growing up where the set piece was either a hostage situation or a bomb set to go off? Sonic was NEVER unique in that regard. Multiple comparisons over the years has brought up the comparison that Adventure Eggman is like Mark Hamill's Joker, he's balanced and portrayed in that same way.

[Mauro Fonseca]

Please re-read what I actually wrote. I'm not saying it's wrong for him to do these things, I'm saying it's not a fair representation of the character Eggman in his 25 years of existence.

 

Psi's Looney Tunes example reminds me- there was one short where Pepe Le Pew was actually married. Would you say that's a representative trait of the character's entire history? Or how about the Felix the Cat shorts where he's a drunkard? Considering how through the decades he's been much more defined by the 50's show, would someone, especially if a fan of that more standardized Felix, not be right to at least go "this decision doesn't fall well with me" if a new Felix movie had him drinking his liver away again?

 

EDIT: And note, I'm not saying it'd be wrong to do Felix like that again. I do like Twisted Tales of Felix, which is a bit on those lines. Just saying that the reasonable counter argument to "but that Felix goes against the established Felix" isn't "you're wrong", it's "yeah sure but I prefer this one".

[shdowhunt60]

2 minutes ago, The KKM said:

Please re-read what I actually wrote. I'm not saying it's wrong for him to do these things, I'm saying it's not a fair representation of the character Eggman in his 25 years of existence.

And? Frankly most of the character's portrayal through history was mediocre. After Adventure 2, the character was completely stripped of his original teeth and was left without any bite. It's been 15 years we've had a completely non-threatening Eggman, who's devoid of any impact or potency. So if we're going to argue that's the case then, we should just go by where we should portray him as he was portrayed through most of history, do we really want that to be the blueprint on how to write the character?

[Mauro Fonseca]

That's a different discussion than the one that was being had, though, that's "and?". And in that case, if you want to go into that discussion, sure. I really rather do want that to be the blueprint on how to write the character and really do prefer him to the, imo, awkwardly trying to balance whimsical and dark version the comic is doing.

[shdowhunt60]

1 minute ago, The KKM said:

That's a different discussion than the one that was being had, though, that's "and?". And in that case, if you want to go into that discussion, sure. I really rather do want that to be the blueprint on how to write the character and really do prefer him to the, imo, awkwardly trying to balance whimsical and dark version the comic is doing.

Then there's your answer then. Personally, I disagree with that, and would rather the comic's and Adventure's Hammill-esque depiction of Eggman. It makes more balanced and engaging character, than someone who's completely ineffectual and uninteresting, because god forbid it offends my sensibilities.

[Mauro Fonseca]

You're purposefully taking the wrong conclusion here. It doesn't offend my sensibilities in terms of "oh no I hate dark stuff!". I've read my share of darker media, I've watched nasty stuff, I've seen some happen IRL. But much as I like Nabokov's Lolita, I don't care to see themes of paedophilia in my Sonic books. I don't need all the media I like to be uniformised into the same thing. Give me historical drama about the Soviets killing and murdering in raping in Berlin in 1945, and give me Sonic being a lighthearted action cartoon with a charming villain who's villainous for his egotism and lack of concern, not for his shock value.

[shdowhunt60]

7 minutes ago, The KKM said:

You're purposefully taking the wrong conclusion here. It doesn't offend my sensibilities in terms of "oh no I hate dark stuff!". I've read my share of darker media, I've watched nasty stuff, I've seen some happen IRL. But much as I like Nabokov's Lolita, I don't care to see themes of paedophilia in my Sonic books. I don't need all the media I like to be uniformised into the same thing. Give me historical drama about the Soviets killing and murdering in raping in Berlin in 1945, and give me Sonic being a lighthearted action cartoon with a charming villain who's villainous for his egotism and lack of concern, not for his shock value.

And I've read darker stuff as well, and the stuff you're complaining about is frankly absolutely kosher. I mean, seriously, you're going to equate what's happened in the comics and the Adventure games (let's arbitrarily ignore the stuff Eggman did in the classics while we're at it) to pedophilia? That's a pretty damn grand extrapolation.

[E-122-Psi]

Even in terms of using Hamill's Joker, that itself represents a cartoon/comic series targeting a different demographic than the 'all around' nature of the Sonic comics. Batman isn't extremely adult, but it aims for a noticeably older target audience, it has more disturbing subject matter, and even then WB thought cases such as the Return of the Joker conclusion went a bit too far. Sonic wants to be this one moment and then do cuddly goofy anthros the next. It was hardly new to the Satam/comics output, as mentioned, we'd have the disturbing imagery of roboticization and then extremely juvenile stuff like 'Duuuuuh, comin' home, maaaaa' the next. This is probably also why so many thought the likes of Shth fell flat, not only did it try to force it's dark and gritty and super hardcore feel onto older fans, but it still had all the cheesiness of juvenile stories like Heroes inserted into it. This isn't exactly a happy medium as much as it is erratic. Whose gonna like BOTH aspects of this?

[Drawloverlala]

Just now, Crazy_Diamond said:

Considering that Sonic Adventure was the game that gave Eggman personality in the first place, I don't see how anyone can think Eggman is out of character in that game.

umm dunno..  i though his personality was given since the begining on the japanese manuals.. though if we want a better example about what defined Eggman's personality first and more cannonical (not going to mention AOSTH of course XD)  i'd mention the OVA's as best example, i think it gave him the most of features for his actual personality in modern games...

in adventure its endeed a bit more different.. but then after Sonic Heroes he seems to comeback to be more like we know him now...

anyways. i haven't read the issue yet.. but i've always liked that he seems to have more chances to win in the comics than in the games, 

but i get it.. maybe he has been more harsh with the eggbosses than one would expect..(?) at least in the case of Clove and Cassia.. it reminded me  just a bit how cruel he was with Snively before the reboot....

[shdowhunt60]

1 minute ago, E-122-Psi said:

Even in terms of using Hamill's Joker, that itself represents a cartoon/comic series targeting a different demographic than the 'all around' nature of the Sonic comics. Batman isn't extremely adult, but it aims for a noticeably older target audience, it has more disturbing subject matter, and even then WB thought cases such as the Return of the Joker conclusion went a bit too far. Sonic wants to be this one moment and then do cuddly goofy anthros the next. It was hardly new to the Satam/comics output, as mentioned, we'd have the disturbing imagery of roboticization and then extremely juvenile stuff like 'Duuuuuh, comin' home, maaaaa' the next. I don't think there's one specific audience that would find both of those aspects entertaining since they aim for that great an extreme.

Are we seriously going into the "cartoon animals shouldn't be taken seriously" territory again? Because we've all been through this, and it's been thoroughly debunked as bullshit.

And yes, having lighthearded moments with more tense and dramatic moments in the next is perfectly acceptable. Target demographics be damned, we're not making Fisher Price books here.

[E-122-Psi]

I'm not saying cartoon animals shouldn't be taken seriously, but that the comics have a 'when they feel like it' outlook to it. We still get rather saccharine stuff like Cream antics at other points and they go right to stuff like 'living death' torture. It's use of light and dark feels more erratic than balanced well.

I mean did anyone beyond the age of five laugh at half of Antoine and Dulcy's antics early on? And yet it tried to boost itself as super dark with Robotnik the next scene. That's not the same as having good light hearted humour any age can enjoy balanced with darkness that a younger audience can still swallow.

It's like simplifying it to saying we can have a universe that has both Teletubbies in one scene and The Punisher in another. Is that really a balance?

[Mauro Fonseca]

7 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Are we seriously going into the "cartoon animals shouldn't be taken seriously" territory again? Because we've all been through this, and it's been thoroughly debunked as bullshit.

And yes, having lighthearded moments with more tense and dramatic moments in the next is perfectly acceptable. Target demographics be damned, we're not making Fisher Price books here.

We're going into "these specific cartoon animals clearly weren't made to be taken that seriously IMO" territory. This isn't Maus.

And I wasn't comparing directly paedophilia to the comic, my point was, since you were heavily implying my objections are just due to "paralysing cybernetics" being too much for my poor old sensibilities (I'm not even dressed like a southern belle), that I'm perfectly fine of reading things that are darker or more adult. I just also want different things from different, well, things.

[shdowhunt60]

2 minutes ago, E-122-Psi said:

I'm not saying cartoon animals shouldn't be taken seriously, but that the comics have a 'when they feel like it' outlook to it. We still get rather saccharine stuff like Cream antics at other points and they go right to stuff like 'living death' torture. It's use of light and dark feels more erratic than balanced well.

It's like simplifying it to saying we can have a universe that has both Teletubbies in one scene and The Punisher in another. Is that really a balance?

This seriously comes off as a personal thing. I have my beefs with the comics, but at least as far as the post-reboot stuff goes, I never had a problem with any of this. If there's "mood wiplash", I have failed to detect any of it.

1 minute ago, The KKM said:

We're going into "these specific cartoon animals clearly weren't made to be taken that seriously IMO" territory. 

And yet people have no problem doing so.