19-11-10 change of plans

[MuchachoNL]

fact, but not on a privately owned forum such as this.
But that's not the point.
The forum is here to discuss, so yeah: Until Giz and Dave tell us otherwise, we're entitled to share our opinions.

[Eris Lobo]

It's like getting butt-hurt over Charlie Chaplin's little tramp character. He exists to be pathetic.

Actually, no, not really. In the Charlie Chaplin movies I've seen, the character would be pathetic at the beginning of the movie, but by the end his problems would be overcome, the villains would be foiled, he would get the girl and life would be good. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Laurel and Hardy movies, in which the characters might remain in dire straights even to the closing credits, and the movie might end with them still pathetic losers. The thing is, those were slapstick movies. There was no real character development. Laurel and Hardy remained one-dimensional buffoons.

In Eerie Cuties, however, the characters are more fleshed out. As a result, we readers relate to them more as if they are real people.

It's the way the human brain works. A project was done by psychologists a few years back, and they studied which parts of the brains of their human subjects were "lighting up" when a friend entered the room. The project showed that the "a-friend-is-here" part of the brain lit up just as much, if not more, when a beloved character from a TV show appeared on screen as when a real friend entered the room. One conclusion was that people actually get to know fictional characters ever better than many of their flesh-and-blood friends, and so they feel closer to the imaginary ones. Basically, our brains, which haven't evolved much since the stone age, still tend to think of the people we see on TV as if they're really there, even though we can't directly interact with them.

It's why people love stories where characters are well developed. It's why soap operas have been so popular for so many years.

If this was a strip written on the intellectual level of Garfield or Beetle Bailey, we might not really care what happens to the characters that much. But Eerie Cuties is much more than that ... which is both a curse and a blessing for a writer, because once you give the characters multifaceted personalities, you have to live with the effect any changes have on the audience's emotions and desires.

For many of us (some of us more than others), we see Ace as a friend of sorts. Or, at least, part of our brains see him as real in a way.

And that's the reason we care about what happens to him.

And so it goes.

[NekoLLX]

Call me crazy but i have this inkling Layla is going to make Ace feel at ease at the party (and use her to get back at Kade) so Ade will become less of a But Monkey and more of a Sidekick

[pbfhdude]

Personally i think Ace will remain a butt-monkey, but even the butt-monkey of a series gets the occasional win, i think he has his first win coming up.

[Geeno]

For many of us (some of us more than others), we see Ace as a friend of sorts. Or, at least, part of our brains see him as real in a way.

And that's the reason we care about what happens to him.

And so it goes.

True, but there's a difference between that and expecting to things to unfold in a "realistic" way. You want Ace to be happy - at least, satisfied - that can happen any number of ways. Many of which may be "unrealistic".
The constant psychoanalyzing of Ace is what I find irritating.

Ace is our toy. S/he's my toy. S/he's your toy. We all get to play with Ace.
I don't so much mind people theorizing that Ace what be unhappy if this, that, or the other thing. It's people taking this so personally, like Ace might actually be sad.

If you think a reaction is "unrealistic" point it out out, but stop acting so hurt. Ace is not, and will never be, miserable unless it is decreed so by the writers.

[sanzo]

It's like getting butt-hurt over Charlie Chaplin's little tramp character. He exists to be pathetic.

Actually, no, not really. In the Charlie Chaplin movies I've seen, the character would be pathetic at the beginning of the movie, but by the end his problems would be overcome, the villains would be foiled, he would get the girl and life would be good. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Laurel and Hardy movies, in which the characters might remain in dire straights even to the closing credits, and the movie might end with them still pathetic losers. The thing is, those were slapstick movies. There was no real character development. Laurel and Hardy remained one-dimensional buffoons.

In Eerie Cuties, however, the characters are more fleshed out. As a result, we readers relate to them more as if they are real people.

It's the way the human brain works. A project was done by psychologists a few years back, and they studied which parts of the brains of their human subjects were "lighting up" when a friend entered the room. The project showed that the "a-friend-is-here" part of the brain lit up just as much, if not more, when a beloved character from a TV show appeared on screen as when a real friend entered the room. One conclusion was that people actually get to know fictional characters ever better than many of their flesh-and-blood friends, and so they feel closer to the imaginary ones. Basically, our brains, which haven't evolved much since the stone age, still tend to think of the people we see on TV as if they're really there, even though we can't directly interact with them.

It's why people love stories where characters are well developed. It's why soap operas have been so popular for so many years.

If this was a strip written on the intellectual level of Garfield or Beetle Bailey, we might not really care what happens to the characters that much. But Eerie Cuties is much more than that ... which is both a curse and a blessing for a writer, because once you give the characters multifaceted personalities, you have to live with the effect any changes have on the audience's emotions and desires.

For many of us (some of us more than others), we see Ace as a friend of sorts. Or, at least, part of our brains see him as real in a way.

And that's the reason we care about what happens to him.

And so it goes.

You have put it better than I could have, thank you

[Geeno]

Actually, no, not really. In the Charlie Chaplin movies I've seen, the character would be pathetic at the beginning of the movie, but by the end his problems would be overcome, the villains would be foiled, he would get the girl and life would be good. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Laurel and Hardy movies, in which the characters might remain in dire straights even to the closing credits, and the movie might end with them still pathetic losers. The thing is, those were slapstick movies. There was no real character development. Laurel and Hardy remained one-dimensional buffoons.

In Eerie Cuties, however, the characters are more fleshed out. As a result, we readers relate to them more as if they are real people.

It's the way the human brain works. A project was done by psychologists a few years back, and they studied which parts of the brains of their human subjects were "lighting up" when a friend entered the room. The project showed that the "a-friend-is-here" part of the brain lit up just as much, if not more, when a beloved character from a TV show appeared on screen as when a real friend entered the room. One conclusion was that people actually get to know fictional characters ever better than many of their flesh-and-blood friends, and so they feel closer to the imaginary ones. Basically, our brains, which haven't evolved much since the stone age, still tend to think of the people we see on TV as if they're really there, even though we can't directly interact with them.

It's why people love stories where characters are well developed. It's why soap operas have been so popular for so many years.

If this was a strip written on the intellectual level of Garfield or Beetle Bailey, we might not really care what happens to the characters that much. But Eerie Cuties is much more than that ... which is both a curse and a blessing for a writer, because once you give the characters multifaceted personalities, you have to live with the effect any changes have on the audience's emotions and desires.

For many of us (some of us more than others), we see Ace as a friend of sorts. Or, at least, part of our brains see him as real in a way.

And that's the reason we care about what happens to him.

And so it goes.

Actually, in many early Chaplin flicks, he's the sad clown character that Red Skelton made a career out of. He never gets his way, and we all laugh sadly with him, or weep bitter tears at life's unfairness.
Clowns were, in origin, much deeper characters.

As is Ace, in many ways.

[NekoLLX]

You have put it better than I could have, thank you

Thats odd i just see GrAce as a WILF ;)

Quote tree pruned. The DAMNed

[Geeno]

LOL - Bless NekoLX - exactly

Image is all, there is nothing beneath the surface that we don't put there.

I fully grant that it is fun to think about what may going on behind the surface, but all we will ever see is the surface.

[NekoLLX]

My name is already short for Neko Lurker Lord Xi-Ray and yet people still drop the second L, what does that say about peoples psychology?

Quote removed. The DAMNed

[Geeno]

My apologies. NekoLLX, for me the L's blended in my vision. I'm going blind in my old age,

[NekoLLX]

It doesn't bother me it's just Weird. I mean why do people shorten it ti Neko LX why drop just one letter of a acronym, at leas calling me Neko or LLX makes senses as its taking one of the 2 words as the primary focus but Neko LX? It's a weird concatenation several people have made.

Quote removed. The DAMNed

[Lighthawk]

Could be any number of reasons. People are lazy, often in a hurry, and in general when we read we don't read everything and our brain fills in the blanks so it makes sense to us. That 2nd L has a lot going against it. Plus a lot of people don't bother to proof forum posts.

As for Ace's fate, I have to agree with Geeno. I like the guy and everything, but his status in this comic seems pretty clearly defined. I can't really feel sorry for him because I know he's always going to have it rough. Rather than spend emotional effort on pitying the guy, I'd sooner enjoy the jokes at his expense and cheer a little when something does go well for him.

[theodoric476]

Nicely said.

Quote removed. The DAMNed

[MonCappy]

You like sadists who enjoy making others suffer? The only person she has ever shown any degree of positive or protective feelings for is Nina. The further this arc goes the greater my antipathy for Layla becomes. She may be very well put together physically, but she is a horrible person who cares little for others. I truly hope she reaps what she sows and receives the suffering she has inflicted upon others a trillion-fold.

She has some good points. She will go out of her way to protect her little sister. She has shown that trait a number of times. If anything Layla is too over protective. As to Nina the person I would be pissed off at is Nina. Nina has humiliated him numerous times. My train of thought might go like this, "If that little girl stopped embarrassing me and leave me alone I might get some friends and her sister might leave me alone."

Nina isn't doing it out of malice, though.