HOME | DD
IvoryAlmonds — She IS Cannon, but not to the games
#sallyacorniscannon
Published: 2017-06-12 17:37:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 1713; Favourites: 36; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT 1: This stamp is going to face a serious make-over if not replacement!This seriously was haunting my mind for the longest and I wanted to submit something that doesn't include drawing because my digital pen is STILL lost sadly. Oh, and before someone goes all keyboard warrior on me, I acknowledge Sally isn't canon to nor present in the games. I've never claimed that she was. My point is that doesn't make her a fan character nor not 'canon' to the Sonic franchise in total. Read the description and you'll know what I'm talking about.
before
In response to fans, specifically Sally haters, that attempt to call Sally 'a fan character' and ''not canon at all to the Sonic franchise*''...
An official character is not and will not be the same as a fan character. Sally Acorn was and is a character WHO OF WHICH was approved, given permission, and starred in official sources regarding Sonic the Hedgehog. She is also owned nevertheless and can be used/mandated at the whims of SEGA themselves and their branches.
"She starred in comics/satam!11!"
Oh, so she is a 'fan character' for being starred in a spin off/comics? Then so is Amy and Charmy! Let's add them in that case! Amy and Charmy were both firstly seen, originated, and starred in and on a manga that was not created by SEGA. Does that make them fan characters?
Unlike most fan created and based mangas, these mangas were APPROVED by SEGA OFFICIALLY, and the characters, Eimi and Charmy Bee, were later adapted and debuted in games. Eimi was debuted in Sonic CD 1993 and became what we all know as Amy Rose, whilst Charmy Bee 1995, Knuckles' Chaotix. The difference is that Amy and Charmy were made into mainstream game counterparts while Sally remains more of a character used in the Sonic comics.
"Well, isn't she a fan character...?"
If you wanted a definition of a fan character, than take a look at my profile picture or my FC 'Opal The Okapi'.
Do you see my character in official sources and or permitted material? Do you see her in remotely ANY official material or SEGA mandating it or permitting it? Do you see her in a game? No. Instead this character is a fan character who was created in the fan perspective and stays in the fan perspective.
Related content
Comments: 82
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Oh wait, I just read that the tittle was "She IS Cannon, but not to the games" So never mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
She isn't cannon to the games. I do like Sally, though...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I actually found out recently that Sally was actually in Korean Sonic commercial.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? I don't think I've ever saw that one.
Is it actually Sally though, or is it Ricky?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It’s actually Sally. Not the little squirrel Ricky.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How is she canon, when she is not canon? She wasn't made by sonic team.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
She is canon and she can count as an "official" sonic character... Sally appears in several official Sonic spin offs and separate continuities that were approved, permitted, licensed, and ect by SEGA. She just is not an official canon SEGA Sonic character because she wasn't officially adopted by SEGA and adapted to the main SEGA Sonic canon.
The fact that she wasn't made by Sonic team doesn't equate to being non canon period. Amy wasn't created by Sonic Team but that doesn't dismiss the fact that she's canon.
👍: 1 ⏩: 5
Instead of saying she is "canon" even though she is not,why dont you just say she is from a specific spinoff, itll make more sense. Btw you spelled canon wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I know, thanks for telling me though. At that time I gotten the two mixed up and I need to give it a major edit.
Mhm. I probably need to rephrase because again, I see the confusion. Though I meant that she was canon to an official Sonic spin off (which falls underneath official sonic material) as well as the fact that SEGA owns the rights to her and can use her at their whims. Thusly I equate her to an 'official' Sonic character, but note that I never said officially canon to the games, an official SEGA Sonic character, ect.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Exactly my point mate, cause sega been trying to get rid of pretty everything they dont like from the comics satam stuff included. If something was approved 20 years ago it doesn't mean anything if it does not hold up and sega wants to get rid of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah i see what capcom fighter saying there are exeptions of course. Chris from sonic x can be counted as an official sonic character since sonic team had a hand in pretty much everything from the show, boom as well. While not canon to the games is made by sega/sonic team. Satam,aosth, and underground is diffrent sega just approved sonic team had no part in them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can see where he's coming from to an extent.
Eh. Just like Sonic Boom, SEGA of America is one of its production company and the canon itself was approved by them to exist. In addition, ultimately SEGA owns the rights to those canons and the characters, despite them not being canon to the games.
Sally, akin to Chris or other characters, are 'official' sonic characters; just not official sega sonic characters or canon to the games. They are only canon to those universes they star in (which are official sonic spin offs).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He made a good point to be honest. Times are diffrent now most of the sonic spinoff made in the 90s aren't relevant and don't hold up anymore except ova. Chris is segasonic becuase he was made by sonicteam he just not canon to the games. Fun fact sonic x actually has a cameo in sonic adventure dx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can see where he's coming from to an extent and I did wrongly phrase stuff despite my intentions.
"now most of the sonic spin off made in the 90s aren't relevant..." Technically they weren't relevant in the first place (especially when Sonic Adventures came) because they were spin offs that couldn't be called canon or close to the main SEGA canon with a straight face anyway. They don't hold up to anything or is canon to anything but themselves. SEGA officially owns the rights to said spin offs as well as the characters and had permitted/approved/co-produced them.
Genuine question: What statement of mine is this trying to disprove?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look one moment your saying she is a official sonic character. Then you say she not an official segasonic chracter make up your mind. My only point was that any spinoff not made by sonicteam, satam,aosth,underground aren't segasonic. Ova,boom,and x are segasonic despite not being canon to the games sonicteam made or had a hand in them. Big names yuji naka san etc,not smalltime sega of america represenatives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did that for a reason Camy. Sorry if it confuses you, but I used the term ''official' Sonic character' to a character who has starred in, and canon to, official sonic spin offs as well as characters that SEGA owns the rights to.
However I use official [canon] segasonic character as a term to classify characters who are recognized and adapted to SEGA's main Sonic canon.
Although I can sort of see where the confusion/convolution is so I might rethink the terms.
Hmm, I'll have to think more about that last assertion and what you mean. Thank you for trying to clarify your point though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ohhh ok i get what you meant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ye. Sorry if I wasn't clear and I can get why you assumed differently. Sorry if I was also too brash.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its cool.im sorry if i was being rude.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's fine , sometimes we can get passionate and into it. I mean nothing personal really behind it though even if I can come off as harsh. Thank you for being understanding and apologizing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its no problem so we cool?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Secondly if she is an "official sega character" why was sega trying to get rid of the satam elements from the comics? Even the new comics by idw are heavily inspired by the games and im willing to bet my right arm the satam stuff isnt coming back mate. Mojority of the stuff approved 20 years ago, aren't even relevant anymore since sega wants it forgotten, or won't approve it now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never said she was an official sega character though so I don't know where this is coming from.
" ... Why was sega trying to get rid of satam elements from the comics..."
Because... They want to moreso promote and stick to their canon instead of a spin off? Which is fully their right and it makes sense at a sales standpoint?
Also remember that it too was a co-production between SEGA of America and DiC Entertainment.
Doesn't dismiss that Satam's an official spin off and SEGA owns rights to it and the characters. They can utilize them, produce works including them, and put them in if they please. Key word is "if they please".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Amy was bought and adapted for the games thus making her canon. She appears in x,boom, and both archie and sonic the comic. Sally only appears in archie and satam. Fun fact the sally from sonic the comic is a diffrent character they are not the same character. Sally was made by dic under the supervsion of sega of america, but the problem with that is sega of japan has the liscense for sonic not sega of america.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was addressing your implication that Sally's not canon because she wasn't created by Sonic Team. If that was the case, Amy wouldn't be canon in your argument. The true reason why Sally isn't canon - as in canon to the main canon - is because she... *drum roll* Wasn't adapted to it. Simple.
However, she is canon to official Sonic spin offs and ultimately SEGA has the rights to her, thus she is not a fan character but an 'official' Sonic character.
I think I might need to redo this deviation because I can see the confusion despite me somewhat trying to clarify.
I don't know with that last assertion. After all, SEGA of America is still apart of SEGA as it is its North American subsidiary. While SEGA of America does have licenses for Sonic (thus their ability to supervise and mandate companies in north america who are producing works in Sonic’s name, ect.) of course SEGA of Japan are the ones who have the final verdict and can very well supervise them.
I probably won't respond much because I have other things to do and responses I have to finish. Also please do in the near future avoid giving me as many replies 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*sigh*... amy was adapted for the games by sonicteam charmy as well. Of course sega of america is apart of sega duh but they are not allowed to do anything with sonic unless sega if japan allows it. Ok now im done with commenting on this dumb post.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Charmy and amy are canon becuase despite appearing in the manga they eventually made it into the games, so i understand that point. I also did hear sega of japan oversees everything sonic i believe that started sometime during 2017.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you mate!!! Finally someone with some sense. My point is simple if you weren't made by sonicteam your not a canon sonic character.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Which is wrong, because Amy wasn't made by Sonic Team. Using your logic Amy wouldn't be canon because she wasn't created by them. This is false. She is canon because she was adapted to the SEGA/Sonic team's canon.
It seems like you're heavily misunderstanding me and you don't realize what I'm trying to point out. :T
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did i not say she was adapted for the games, you literally said exactly what i told you. One more point im gonna make about sally being a canon sonic character like you sticker says. Answer this the sega mandates for the archie comics why did it only apply to the sega game cast? Does sega only care for their characters?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes you did, but then you also said these things:
> "My point is simple if you weren't made by sonicteam your not a canon sonic character." comments.deviantart.com/1/6860…
Note that the following was your first reply.
> "...when she is not canon? She wasn't made by sonic team." comments.deviantart.com/1/6860…
You still implied that she wasn't canon because she wasn't made by Sonic team; before and after your statement of Amy being adapted. So can you blame me for what I said?
And for the record, I stated that in the description as well as older comments already and I myself told you have Amy wasn't created by sonic team - yet she's still canon - before you said she was adapted to me. So no I didn't parrot you .
"One more point im gonna make about sally being a canon sonic character like you sticker says." Yeah, I'll say this again: I probably need to rephrase myself. I can see the confusion now. When I say, 'she's canon', you'd think (and rightfully so) that I meant to the games. I was very vague and how I worded myself in the stamp was wrong. Apology.
That doesn't exactly relate to the canonicity of Sally Acorn in the way we're talking (and it was already established that she is not a canon sonic character as in a sonic character canon to the main games despite my misleading wording), but I'll bite.
Hmm. I mean, it kind of makes sense for them to moreso enforce that the characters within their main canon to be in character in the comics and closer to their game counterparts from a promotional, selling, and representative stand point. Plus it's more of the fact that they wanted to promote and stick to the current official, main direction they're taking for Sonic and co. Allegedly, SEGA wasn't to keen on giving old properties/past incarnations of the franchise (ova, asoth, underground, x, sonic boom, ect) any attention but instead rather the current form/direction of Sonic. The freedom fighters were grandfathered in though.
Freedom fighters and other characters from other official spinoffs they still technically own. They just are choosing to not utilize them and since they were not adapted to the main games continuity, they're not canon (I can now say that when I say they're not canon I mean not canon to the main SEGASonic canon. Which is why I need to edit the stamp [I reiterate again lol] because it is misleading and not what I want or exactly what I mean..)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly my point i haven't changed what i said since my first comment i know what i said. Sega continuity is the games,not just for sonic but all of their franchises.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But you implied in the beginning that for a character to be canon they need to be created by sonic team, which is false... Then you contradicted yourself with Amy is canon because she's adapted to the games despite not being created by sonic team (note that in your logic and standards, that wouldn't be the case, but in actuality it is and you acknowledged it, thus contradiction)... Then again you went back to your original assertion that for a character to be canon, they need to be created by Sonic Team. You also essentially said other things for points that weren't necessarily true like I parroted you, in which I rebuttaled.
Eh.
But ok, whatever.
Have a nice night; I am going to bed lol :V. It's 12:01 over here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol its funny becuase your horrible at interpreting things clearly cause you sat here saying she not an official sega chracter, then you sat and said she is an official chracter didn't you? Lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you're doing could easily be called the saying "pot calling the kettle black". How you're arguing right now can be deemed as "deflecting", and some of your statements can be categorized as "ad hominems".
We can't have a well-rounded conversation like that.
Also I:
* Told you repeatedly that I acknowledge the misleading terms (especially inside the stamp), despite what I meant behind them (It should be transparent what I meant though hence my description/comments, my statements deeming my wording was flawed, explanations of what I mean given continuously, ect). I then stated I probably need to reevaluate them.
* I used more elaborated on terms like official [canon] sega sonic character and an official sonic character/''official'' sonic character to clear up misconceptions (i.e Sally is canon to the games, she's a fan character, ect). I used the latter to classify characters SEGA owns as well as canon to official Sonic spin offs/properties. The former classifies characters that are recognized in the main canon and canon to the main SEGA Sonic canon. I stated that I might rethink these too though because I can see the slight convolution and confusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's...... actually a good question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I get it dude but i dont know why she says charmy and amy aren't canon when they appear in the games.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bro, I never said she or Charmy wasn't canon. Please read my comment thoroughly, because what you're doing is claiming I said something I did not. I seriously don't know why I keep on having to repeat myself, underline, and bold to get this transparent.
" I know that, but my point was that your implication was wrong. Read your first post. It implies that Sally isn't canon not because she wasn't adapted to the games by sonic team/sega of Japan, but because she wasn't created by Sonic team. If that's the case, using the same measuring stick you use with Sally to measure other characters like Amy and Charmy, they are not canon because they were not created by sonic team/sega of japan either. I will reiterate, my point was that you were wrong with the implication that Sally's not canon because she wasn't made by Sonic Team. If that was the case, by your implications and argument, Amy and Charmy (which are examples to draw out my point to you that the implication is false. Not being created by Sonic Team doesn't equate to not being canon."
" If that was the case, Amy wouldn't be canon in your argument."
My first response literally said this: "The fact that she wasn't made by Sonic team doesn't equate to being non canon period. Amy wasn't created by Sonic Team but that doesn't dismiss the fact that she's canon."
Does this in anyway look like I myself is saying that Amy and Charmy aren't canon? Or am I saying using their logic, Amy and Charmy wouldn't be canon? Of course they're canon! That's indisputable, but the fact at hand was that Amy and Charmy not being canon wasn't and never my point. In fact that is very wrong. My point was to debunk the implication that not being made by Sonic team = not being canon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know that, but my point was that your implication was wrong. Read your first post. It implies that Sally isn't canon not because she wasn't adapted to the games by sonic team/sega of Japan, but because she wasn't created by Sonic team. If that's the case, using the same measuring stick you use with Sally to measure other characters like Amy and Charmy, they are not canon because they were not created by sonic team/sega of japan either. I will reiterate, my point was that you were wrong with the implication that Sally's not canon because she wasn't made by Sonic Team. If that was the case, by your implications and argument, Amy and Charmy (which are examples to draw out my point to you that the implication is false. Not being created by Sonic Team doesn't equate to not being canon.
You do realize that's technically what a license (in which you said SEGA of America didn't have for Sonic) is right? SoA does have licenses for Sonic. If they didn't I doubt that they could be able to co-produce Sonic material, supervise other companies making works underneath the name Sonic the hedgehog in the North American region and ect, but they are able.
So you're concluding having a conversation - a conversation you started - with me by saying how you're done commenting on my dumb post? Well that's nice. But ok, you do you. Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is one of the many reasons why Sally haters suck. I mean seriously they actually dare to say that Sally is a “fan character”. Just because she’s not in the games doesn’t mean she isn’t canon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I will not say that Sally haters suck as a whole. Ignorant haters, purists, and/or hatebrats that use this to somehow promote anti Sally, probably (Though I won't say that they suck as a person, but furthermore discourage what they press.). Their reasoning is severely flawed and illogical. However keep in mind that not all Sally haters think or claim this. Despite that, I full heartedly agree with you. Yes, she isn't canon to the main games yes, but that doesn't denote her to a fan character nor not canon to the Sonic franchise period. Also, just because of her not being canon to the games, doesn't automatically mean she's a bad character and should dirt should be kicked on her. Like no, don't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know about Amy was originally from manga(one of the Sonamy fans told me few years ago which I never knew) but I didn't know about Charmy. Was he too from another manga?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never knew about it until someone mentioned it to me as well. No, he was from the same manga that Eimi or Amy firstly was from ironically. He was just added later in the games on the year 1995 whilst Amy was in 1993.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, so he's from the same manga? I only saw a few manga pics online but I never saw Charmy there(the manga was pretty hard to find since not many were made) so I thought that there may be another one we never heard of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am on my phone so I am unsure if the link works but info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_the_…
Same but apparently he was~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>