21/06/18 - 09:15 AM


Author Topic: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide  (Read 3989 times)



I always enjoyed Roger van der Weide's work in making parodies of video games, but recently, he's gone more into a podcast style where he and a friend talk about things more than actually make jokes about them. This is a series I watched a few months ago, and I'd like to see what everyone here thinks about his thoughts on the characters. I think he really hits home about what isn't good about the Sonic Boom characters, and it seems like they suffered like everything else when it came to the planning process of the "franchise"

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2016, 02:48:53 PM »
Oh, God, I hate this guy. He's such an idiot and I can't stand even the sound of his voice.

*clicks video to watch because my life is an empty shell*

UPDATE 1: He described the Sonic Boom character designs as down to Earth and gritty; my heart has officially stopped beating.

UPDATE 2: Badger is apparently spelled "batcher."

UPDATE 3: He just dismissed the entire concept of deriving comedy from someone's competency on the basis that it is a "character comedy", for no discernible or logical reason beyond the baseline assumption and claim that "character comedies" are exclusively about morons. The entire comedic concept of the straight man, one whose humor is derived from trying to cope with the nonsensical and frustrating qualities of others, does not exist in Roger's mind despite centuries of it as a tenured comedic archetype.

UPDATE 4: He just used the word lore which, while not inaccurate, basically makes you a douche.

UPDATE 5: There is no update 5. Pay attention.

UPDATE 6: He's just gone over a few times Amy as a competent leader has been used to enhance and contextualize the comedy of another character (Sticks, Eggman), rather than portray Amy as an idiot, yet has not reconciled the fact that Competent Amy is used for jokes but his entire definition of "character comedy" is "people should be morons."

UPDATE 7: Though he may have a point that Boom Knuckles's online profile does not mention the fact Knuckles is an idiot, he seems to think that "solving all problems with violence" and "being hard headed" are two entirely separate personalities, rather than two overlapping traits that are commonly found within single personalities. He has more or less established that his argument considers individual personality traits entire spectrums of someone's personality, leading me to believe he grew up in a dystopian YA novel.

UPDATE 8: Roger claims Knuckles, in dialogue, dismisses his own love of nature. The line in question has Knuckles confirming his love of nature.

UPDATE 9: His Knuckles analysis, again, refuses to reconcile the fact that his very limited definition of concepts are not the only perceptions of those concepts. He goes at length to describe his idea of Knuckles's described personality as a "mountain man", even though the online profile of Knuckles does not actually indicate this. He then considers Knuckles's admission of his own love of nature, followed by his fearful confession he doesn't know how to survive in it, as a contradiction of Knuckles's love of nature...on the basis of Roger's interpretation of Knuckles's online profile absolutely HAVING to describe a mountain man. So in a video analyzing the dissonance between what the characters act like and what the characters are like in the heads of the creators, a dissonance is created between what the character acts like and what the character is like in Roger's head. I have commissioned the BBC to produce a five episode, hour long docudrama about Roger's immense struggle to learn how to turn door handles.

UPDATE 10: Sticks the Badger's full name is now on screen. He edited this video, saw her name, and still typed batcher.

UPDATE 11: "And now, the positive traits that make her an action comedy character come in."

WHAT DOES THIS SENTENCE EVEN MEAN

UPDATE 12: Roger is so deadset in his ways that the idea of "Haha, what if we made a Tarzan character but we used her isolation for crazy conspiracy theories?" is incomprehensible to him. He cannot understand a basic twist on an archetype, or the abstract concept of free association.

UPDATE 13: He calls Sticks as Amy's best friend Sticks's "accomplishment", but I don't think he knows what that words means.

UPDATE 14: He claims you can't have Sonic be eager, adventurous, and heroic in a "character comedy." Currently waiting to see if he brings up alternate reality Knuckles, who exists in the episodes he's seen.

UPDATE 15: Every time he describes what he thinks a "character comedy" is, I want to punch him in the mouth. He's so stupid, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, he literally doesn't understand how genre writing works, and he keeps going. If it wasn't for his sitcom clips, I'd think his only exposure to human culture was Nickelodeon cartoons from the 90's.

UPDATE 16: He claims Boom Knuckles is big because kids can't understand skinny guys are strong, or at least he claims the people behind Boom believe this. Can anyone cite this, or is Roger just eating his own socks because he ordered a pizza and thought it got teleported immediately into his house?

UPDATE 17: He calls Sonic Boom, the show, "confusing in its identity", but all of his reasons for it being confusing and having an identity crisis have to do with the show's content compared to the MARKETING of the content. His thesis is incredibly muddled. He's constantly calling the SHOW confusing and in an identity crisis, but this entire time he hasn't noticed he means the ENTIRE BRAND. He can't even prove his central thesis because he has no idea what he's actually arguing. The show is not its own marketing: the show's identity and its dissonance with the rest of its brand speaks to the identity confusion of the BRAND, not the show as its own stand alone product.

UPDATE 18: He's currently theorizing that a bunch of sitcom writers who write Sonic as lazy genuinely believe they're writing him as adventurous. He also assumes that the writers treat the website as gospel and are just that stupid at adhering to basic cartoon personality traits. Notably, there are no interview citations, whether text or audio, of Bill Freiberger or Evan Bailey's perspective on their versions of the characters to back up his claim because he thinks descriptions on a website make a TV show bad.

UPDATE 19: He uses Amy as an example to prove his argument that the show does not try to establish character when making jokes about contrasting humor and claims Amy's personality traits are only presented when they're inverted or corrupted. Earlier in the video, he cited several episodes and situations where comedy was derived from Amy where her personality traits weren't inverted or corrupted.

UPDATE 20: He describes Sonic Boom's framework, as a show, as an "action adventure story, which is then reworked as a comedy", although previously he claimed the show was written and staged like a sitcom. Again, he is confusing the marketing of the entire brand and equating it with the execution of the show on its own terms, almost like he's an illiterate buttbaby.

UPDATE 21: "I've been nitpicking for a while now, mostly out of scientific curiosity." Hahaha you stupid tool.

UPDATE 22: He is now admitted he'd probably like Sonic Boom if it was sold as a comedy. Despite the fact he can intellectually process and perceive the show as a classic-style multi-cam sitcom in animated form, he is flat out saying that the marketing and corporate branding are preventing him from enjoying a show he can perceive as something different from that branding. His ENTIRE ARGUMENT FALLS APART. His ENTIRE VIDEO is based on the argument that the Boom show, THE TV SHOW, has the identity crisis...and now, after arguing this for ALMOST A HALF HOUR, he flat out says if the marketing was different, the show would be better.

He thinks marketing and screenwriting are the same thing. He actually thinks Bill Freiberger must've written the copy found in the website profiles of those characters, when any logical person would know they were probably just copypasted from some internal bible developed for the entire brand that the TV show just chose to ignore for whatever reason. But no. His entire argument about how the show's writing is indicative of an identity crisis has been based entirely on the marketing of the show, and then flat out admits his perception of the quality would change if he wasn't told beforehand it was something other than a sitcom. His own processing of it is completely irrelevant.

This man is an idiot. He does not know what he's talking about.

UPDATE 23: Finally, a cited interview, where a Fire and Ice producer mentions keeping the excitement and adventure of the show. A fair example of dissonance that probably should've come up in the beginning of the video (you know, when you weren't too busy putting words in Bill Freiberger's mouth).

UPDATE 24: Nope, never brings up Alt Boom Knuckles.

FINAL THOUGHTS: His basic thesis is correct, but that's only because basic observational skills will tell you that there's dissonance in perception among the different Sonic products. Everything that DOESN'T require the most basic, obvious observation skills is drowned in a sea of utter stupidity. His definitions of "character comedy"? Arbitrary. His own logic vis a vis Knuckles? Contradictory and guilty of the same things he claims Sega is doing. His understanding of how multi-media brands work? Shoddy at best, and he determines the quality of something based on its marketing, not judging it on its individual merits...by his own admission, and often contradicting himself even there anyway.

So much of his argument that he CLAIMS is about Sonic Boom's bizarre brand identity is focused around the supposed lack of quality of Boom's writing, which he flat out says is irrelevant near the end. The man cannot organize a thought. If the argument was really based around trying to point out and decipher Boom's weird dissonance, why was an author citation (the Fire and Ice producer) only an OFFHAND comment and not accompanied with other comments; interviews, commentaries, ANYTHING? His argument considers the actual authorial intent, the thing he's arguing is off base and inconsistent, borderline irrelevant as he confuses individual creators with executives. He makes no point to actually identify the different nuances of the Boom brand's inconsistencies, just that Boom's TV show is not very good (but would be if someone told him it was, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION) because it's inconsistent. But it's not ACTUALLY an examination of those inconsistencies across the entire brand.

What a doofus.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 04:38:55 PM by Singapore Sling »

Offline RaceProUK

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2016, 05:35:37 PM »
It's always the same with that sort of thing: they've already made up their minds before they give the subject a chance, then instead of admit they might be wrong, they twist and contort what little they can into the weakest and most insubstantial justification possible.

And then people lap it up as if it's gospel truth.

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2016, 06:26:52 PM »
And then people lap it up as if it's gospel truth.

The fact he makes this weird arbitrary distinction between "character comedy" and "action comedy character" is what gets me.

Like, even if he's only TECHNICALLY right because anyone with basic observational skills can see there's not much tonal consistency between the different parts of Boom, the way he talks about things, there's no way you can even tell this dude's read a book before except for whatever he had to have practiced on to learn how to read. The level of assumptions he makes about the individual things he talks about are so flat out untrue that I can't imagine how anyone could watch this and think this is a well constructed argument.

It's incredibly telling that he'd rather insult the writers he's examining than give actual thorough, contextualized examinations of the authorial intent versus execution. It's so shoddily put together and he just sounds like a weaselly, little buttmad nerd who doesn't even understand basic tonal concepts while insisting he's got something to say about storytelling tone.

It's just like that other video someone posted on Bumbleking, the "Internal versus External" logic thing. He didn't know what he was talking about, clearly didn't understand anything about composing fiction, but people treat this guy like he's some kind of insightful expert.

Offline The Swordsman

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2016, 06:47:20 PM »
I posted a similar topic to this on Bumbleking. (So it was most likely me Sinagpore Sling) I agree with the video and find his Dissection series to be some of his best work.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 06:49:03 PM by The Swordsman »
"Stay in the light or we will drag you into it."-The Vigllant, TES: Skyrim
If you have Christ in your heart, copy this into your sig!

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2016, 06:55:46 PM »
Can you explain why?

I don't mean that in a mean way, honestly. I'm legitimately curious about what exactly about his "Dissections" are actually...like, even passable.

Offline The Shadow Imperator

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2016, 07:09:35 PM »
Oh, God, I hate this guy. He's such an idiot and I can't stand even the sound of his voice.

Yeah, can you not do this, please? Your criticism stands on its own, you don't need to insult people. (And, y'know, it's also against the rules.)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 07:12:01 PM by The Shadow Imperator »

Offline The Swordsman

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2016, 07:12:45 PM »
Mostly I think its just a difference in opinion and tastes. Unlike you I believe he knows what he is talking about and find the discussions entertaining, interesting and informative. His videos are also the only videos on Youtube I have found that does these type of discussion videos on Sonic and he treats the lore/continuity of Sonic seriously. Just curious what was your username on Bumbleking?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 07:15:50 PM by The Swordsman »
"Stay in the light or we will drag you into it."-The Vigllant, TES: Skyrim
If you have Christ in your heart, copy this into your sig!

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2016, 07:23:02 PM »
But that's the thing. I want to know your opinion and perspective. I want to know why you think his argument is sound and makes sense. I want someone to explain to me why they think it's sound beyond "Well, I think he's right." What about him makes him right?

And Mordum.

(And yes, I promise I won't make fun of you. I'd rather not get banned, as I'd like to write for the fancomic for at least a few stories.)

Offline jorgekorke

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2016, 07:25:40 PM »
That one is kinda old, but yea, it's enjoyable to watch, althought it just point out the obvious characteristics of Boom, nothing really special.

Offline The Swordsman

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2016, 07:28:41 PM »
But that's the thing. I want to know your opinion and perspective. I want to know why you think his argument is sound and makes sense. I want someone to explain to me why they think it's sound beyond "Well, I think he's right." What about him makes him right?

And Mordum.

(And yes, I promise I won't make fun of you. I'd rather not get banned, as I'd like to write for the fancomic for at least a few stories.)
I'm sorry, I don't think I could give an answer that you would find acceptable as our arguments in the past has proven.
"Stay in the light or we will drag you into it."-The Vigllant, TES: Skyrim
If you have Christ in your heart, copy this into your sig!

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2016, 07:40:01 PM »
See.

Like, I'm looking at the one answer you've given. "He treats the lore and continuity of Sonic seriously." And it's like...why does that matter, though?

Besides the fact that he constantly contradicts himself ("Amy's only seen as an inversion of her own personality, even though like ten minutes ago I gave examples of her being her normal personality."), his understanding of actual storytelling conventions and genres is shown to be, at its best, incredibly minimal. When he talks about what makes a "character comedy" (characters being stupid being his only definition) versus the characterization of an "action comedy character" (having positive traits, re: "When she shows the positive traits of an action comedy character"), it's...

He's blatantly making stuff up.

Like this isn't how actual genres work. These aren't actual standards. He's either outright making them up or he has such a limited understanding of these genres that he actually believes these insanely limiting, arbitrary definitions of these things. Yet talks about these like they're actual definitions that've long been accepted as true. He talks like he's an expert on how this stuff works, matter of factly. Even the Internal versus External video had him use the word science when a basic examination of what he said revealed he legitimately didn't know what the word science means.

So like, I can understand wanting a critic or editorialist who puts stock in the things you find important, if you happen to find the continuity and overarching mythology of Sonic important. But is an emphasis on the continuity of Sonic so important that you'd prioritize that over whether or not the guy talking about it actually knows what real words mean? Because that's my hang up. He doesn't understand how comedy works, he frequently displays a lack of knowledge over basic real world concepts, and his Sonic analysis is all in the context of a man who uses real world concepts, philosophies, and words and repeatedly shows he doesn't know what they actually mean.

What value is an analysis from that person?

Offline The Swordsman

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2016, 08:13:04 PM »
Well you tend to be very particular on people using the exact meaning of the words despite how the meaning of certain words have evolved overtime by the fandom. (for example the word lore) Like I posted before he is the only one that I have found on YouTube that even does analysis videos on Sonic.(If you know someone else who does these kind of videos on Sonic please give me links) I find value in his videos because I respect his opinion, like the analysis, the topics and the effort he puts into his videos.
"Stay in the light or we will drag you into it."-The Vigllant, TES: Skyrim
If you have Christ in your heart, copy this into your sig!

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2016, 08:37:21 PM »
Well you tend to be very particular on people using the exact meaning of the words despite how the meaning of certain words have evolved overtime by the fandom. (for example the word lore)

A word I admit he used accurately, so that doesn't really fly.

But when he's misusing the word science or he's giving factually wrong definitions to genres of comedy, that's not fandom slang. That's not words evolving.

That's him not knowing the language he's speaking. Science and comedy aren't fandom slang terms. They aren't stuff like canon, Mary Sue, et al. These are actual concepts he constantly uses to illustrate his points and he doesn't know what they mean. I want to make it clear that by using the argument you're using, you're trying to equate the scientific method to the modern fandom definition of Mary Sue in terms of its nebulousness.

There's this thing called the confirmation bias, where people tend to interpret information in a way that allows them to read it so that the beliefs they had before examining the information can still be held as true. His logic, such as it is, is based ENTIRELY around the concept of the confirmation bias. If he's examining the authorial intent and understanding of the material of the Sonic Boom writers across the cartoons and games, why would he only include one actual quote confirming what he already believes but ASSUMES certain beliefs of Freiberger's (like the claim Freiberger believes his characterization of Sonic to match the Boom website's description) without providing a source quote?

Roger isn't an analyst. He's just a guy who tells people what they already think and thus he must be insightful because he agrees with what people already think and happens to be able to string video footage together.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 08:42:59 PM by Singapore Sling »

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2016, 08:40:47 PM »
I've seen several of this guy's videos and, honestly, I don't think he's as bad as most people flag him to be. Sure, his criticisms aren't perfect, but he does raise a few points and you can tell that he's being honest. And unlike a lot of other critics who critique the franchise, he doesn't bash the series. If anything, his critiques fall more into constructive criticism.

I also find it funny how people are quick to dismiss him as a "Boom" hater, when he's stated on other videos that he enjoys the show. But just because one enjoys a show, that doesn't mean you can't critique it. I mean, I enjoy SatAM and "Underground", but they're both just as flawed as "Boom".
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 02:44:15 AM by LogiTeeka »