Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
Posts
Kaliesto
View playlists
Close
In highschool my friend and I made a series called Crazy Indian, about a native 'entity', Bold Bison. A native american of unknown origin or descent, who personifies the natural world and confronts personifications of mankind's unnatural phenomenons, like pollution, money, nuclear waste, greed etc.
But the people Bold Bison confronts are always baffled cityfolk or so, who always end up referring to Bison as some kind of crazy $&%@ing indian.
However, after highschool I was comsumed with censorship fear. Now I worry constantly about offending people. Coming from a white town where knowing a black guy was a novelty, and moving into a multicultural cesspool like Toronto... It is like culture shock or white guilt or some shit.
But the older I get, and more crap I see... It's slowly dawning on me, that maybe I am being too sensitive. Is Crazy Indian offensive? Probably. Do I really care? Questionably. It certainly reflects poorly on my J.S. Longstreet brand. Especially due to the ultraviolence that CI reverts to. The cultural message in each of the old issues was in stark opposition to a bloodbath.
Maybe it's a balance issue. Maybe it's just the whole 'indian' part of the name. Maaaaybe it's my career map that leads towards cartoony, family-friendly comics that cripples Crazy Indian ever seeing the light of day.
Ah, I'm rambling... anyone have thoughts? Am I being too sensitive or whatever? Or am I justifiably keeping this idea in the highschool past of yore?
It depends - were there other Indian characters who behaved the same way or were treated as normal people? I mean, it's not great that the main character is like that but honestly, if other Indian characters are treated well, and his bloodbathery is seen and presented as the wrong way to handle things, well it could be reworked to keep the idea but make it more sensitive.
Research into the Indian ideologies, condemnation not only from outside sources but also from his own conscious as he tries to fight against his own bloodlust and anger... it could be pretty compelling. If you kept him as a sort-of anti-hero that tries (and fails pretty often) to redeem himself, to try and better himself and move out of the stereotype that he was created with initially... Devil is in the details, after all.
Hell, it'd be cool even if he was a 'devil may care' type that killed as he wanted to, presented initially as a hero but as you go he gets crazier and crazier and becomes the villain of the comic as the people around him start to work against him in order to bring back their loved one who got lost to the darkness in his heart...
Maybe check out some of the grittier versions of comic heroes - Injustice: Gods Among Us is a really good look at how the JLA (Superman, Flash, Wonderwoman, Batman, etc) can change from good to less than good, and it's an interesting story to boot.
Research into the Indian ideologies, condemnation not only from outside sources but also from his own conscious as he tries to fight against his own bloodlust and anger... it could be pretty compelling. If you kept him as a sort-of anti-hero that tries (and fails pretty often) to redeem himself, to try and better himself and move out of the stereotype that he was created with initially... Devil is in the details, after all.
Hell, it'd be cool even if he was a 'devil may care' type that killed as he wanted to, presented initially as a hero but as you go he gets crazier and crazier and becomes the villain of the comic as the people around him start to work against him in order to bring back their loved one who got lost to the darkness in his heart...
Maybe check out some of the grittier versions of comic heroes - Injustice: Gods Among Us is a really good look at how the JLA (Superman, Flash, Wonderwoman, Batman, etc) can change from good to less than good, and it's an interesting story to boot.
I like the sounds of all that. So far he has been a blunt, unmoving, unemotional force of nature. The story has always been from the perspective of the victim who have to deal with their own conscious crap while being manhunted by the unrelenting Terminator of nature.
However the idea of him having a consciousness, and emotional fallout of his own actions would be compelling to write about.
Hmm! I am intrigued. The name Crazy Indian was always an offensive choice to kind of make you go :O "Scandalous!"
I was raised in the senstivity revolution, so there's an element of parody I guess. Directed at sensitivity AND insensitivity. Though, that was probably obscured in my adolescent attempt at storytelling.
Regardless, it needs a rework if it were to ever emerge as something sellable in today's world. Great ideas, Libby!
However the idea of him having a consciousness, and emotional fallout of his own actions would be compelling to write about.
Hmm! I am intrigued. The name Crazy Indian was always an offensive choice to kind of make you go :O "Scandalous!"
I was raised in the senstivity revolution, so there's an element of parody I guess. Directed at sensitivity AND insensitivity. Though, that was probably obscured in my adolescent attempt at storytelling.
Regardless, it needs a rework if it were to ever emerge as something sellable in today's world. Great ideas, Libby!
I don't really see anything wrong with it. Your style is very caricatur-esque and light-hearted. Anyone looking through your body of work could see that, and that you hold no ill will towards anyone. If people choose to be ofended regardless, they can suck it... Well, the concern of being able to put food on one's table as an artist in today's outrage culture is a very real one. But my advice would be to stick to your original vision no matter what. Seriously. you're one of the coolest people I've met online. Don't let bullies push you around.
Regarding the violent stuff. Again, it's fine. It's not like he's slaughtering people left and right, is it? He fights the embodiment of mostly objectively BAD things: Pollution, greed, etc. In a way that's like saying "attack ideas, not people". The over-the-top violence is just added for comedic effect... It's like complaining the Power Rangers level a building or two when saving the city from the giant monster. It's just flashy, that's all. It's a way to make the fights look more interesting. It's not an endorsement for wanton destruction...
"Complex", "relatable", "however-you-call-it" stuff is great. Preferable even. But that's just one way to do things. "Shallow", "gratuitous", "Scandalous" stuff is valid too. It's not something that we need to "purge" our works from. It's not something we need to "grow out" of. And the threshold between the two should broaden as well, because sometimes it feels like it's such a false dichotomy. It's like there's only one "acceptable" way to do things in *insert current year here* and everything else is "a mistake"... It's ridiculous.
/rant
Regarding the violent stuff. Again, it's fine. It's not like he's slaughtering people left and right, is it? He fights the embodiment of mostly objectively BAD things: Pollution, greed, etc. In a way that's like saying "attack ideas, not people". The over-the-top violence is just added for comedic effect... It's like complaining the Power Rangers level a building or two when saving the city from the giant monster. It's just flashy, that's all. It's a way to make the fights look more interesting. It's not an endorsement for wanton destruction...
"Complex", "relatable", "however-you-call-it" stuff is great. Preferable even. But that's just one way to do things. "Shallow", "gratuitous", "Scandalous" stuff is valid too. It's not something that we need to "purge" our works from. It's not something we need to "grow out" of. And the threshold between the two should broaden as well, because sometimes it feels like it's such a false dichotomy. It's like there's only one "acceptable" way to do things in *insert current year here* and everything else is "a mistake"... It's ridiculous.
/rant
Alterego to the rescue! Great rant. I agree on most of that, though I am a terrible worrier and people pleaser. It uh, causes many stalemates.
Anyway, I like the sentiment of what you say, and also Libby has a great point.
The stories that are told of him would be really amplified if there were a framing story through Bison's eyes. Like his own personal dark thoughts bubbling up to the surface to confront the ideals of whoever his victim is.
There's something to be said about a stoic, cruel and unstoppable force for someone to feed off of in their own personal torment. But there's something else to be said about a man's descent into madness.
However, the two don't really work hand in hand. They'd need to be separate, or the silent image of doom is suddenly this philosophical being of continual thought, breaking up the action and becoming too human. Yet before and after a fight, having him plunge a little deeper into the abyss would be neat.
Anyway, I like the sentiment of what you say, and also Libby has a great point.
The stories that are told of him would be really amplified if there were a framing story through Bison's eyes. Like his own personal dark thoughts bubbling up to the surface to confront the ideals of whoever his victim is.
There's something to be said about a stoic, cruel and unstoppable force for someone to feed off of in their own personal torment. But there's something else to be said about a man's descent into madness.
However, the two don't really work hand in hand. They'd need to be separate, or the silent image of doom is suddenly this philosophical being of continual thought, breaking up the action and becoming too human. Yet before and after a fight, having him plunge a little deeper into the abyss would be neat.
Honestly, the only thing I can see people being annoyed about with the crazy Indian is that you call him an Indian, when he's based off a native american, I assume.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Most of them call themselves American Indians, don't they? I've been told that the term "Native American" is basically only used by white people, and a few people even consider it slightly insulting because of the implication of native = savage.
I think in another decade, the extreme sensitivity of the 2010s is going to be looked at like the extreme angst of the 90s or the extreme hippieness of the 70s or the extreme consumerism of the 50s. Tumblr is going to be looked at as the iconic embodiment of this decade's subculture the way MTV was the iconic embodiment of 80s subculture.
That doesn't make the "sensitivity revolution" irrelevant or invalid, though. Especially for someone trying to sell their work now instead of 15 years from now. You gotta respect what other people care about if you want to have a positive relationship with them. You're up there in Canada so you might not be aware but there's a huge hub-bub across the US about trying to make the Washington Redskins change their team's name and mascot, because "redskin" is an old-timey term for Indians and their mascot is just a big sterotypical-looking Indian dude. So... the timing seems bad to revive this character, to say the least.
On the other hand, I guess if you decide you want to market your work exclusively to the red pill guys at Reddit, then you should give him a sidekick named Underdog Railroad who's a former plantation worker wearing blackface makeup, and overplay the heroes' collateral damage to the point of ridiculousness, and make all the villains be guilty of extremely minor things that don't fit the punishment at all, like have the heroes bring down an entire corporation and level a skyscraper in retaliation for one of the secretaries littering.
author=DudesoftThis is probably the single most 2010s-embodying statement I've ever read.
I was raised in the senstivity revolution
I think in another decade, the extreme sensitivity of the 2010s is going to be looked at like the extreme angst of the 90s or the extreme hippieness of the 70s or the extreme consumerism of the 50s. Tumblr is going to be looked at as the iconic embodiment of this decade's subculture the way MTV was the iconic embodiment of 80s subculture.
That doesn't make the "sensitivity revolution" irrelevant or invalid, though. Especially for someone trying to sell their work now instead of 15 years from now. You gotta respect what other people care about if you want to have a positive relationship with them. You're up there in Canada so you might not be aware but there's a huge hub-bub across the US about trying to make the Washington Redskins change their team's name and mascot, because "redskin" is an old-timey term for Indians and their mascot is just a big sterotypical-looking Indian dude. So... the timing seems bad to revive this character, to say the least.
On the other hand, I guess if you decide you want to market your work exclusively to the red pill guys at Reddit, then you should give him a sidekick named Underdog Railroad who's a former plantation worker wearing blackface makeup, and overplay the heroes' collateral damage to the point of ridiculousness, and make all the villains be guilty of extremely minor things that don't fit the punishment at all, like have the heroes bring down an entire corporation and level a skyscraper in retaliation for one of the secretaries littering.
Eh .. well .. it's meant to be offensive if you already call him "crazy Indian".
And given the history of natives being open and friendly to the arriving people as far as it was possible, and the fact that modern native Americans are nothing like the sickly stereotype that's still around (I have a friend with native American roots) .. this is .. pretty .. horrible. Like, all of it.
That is, the portrayal in the picture shown. Not funny. For me, anyway.
As an idea as a whole .. it would be straightforward enough and among other many takes on it, so I suppose it should work if you keep it in that boundary. If you want to go the offensive humour route .. you will reach those who dig it. There are many many of 'em out there who will enjoy that.
Libby's approach's pretty cool if you want to make it more serious.
And given the history of natives being open and friendly to the arriving people as far as it was possible, and the fact that modern native Americans are nothing like the sickly stereotype that's still around (I have a friend with native American roots) .. this is .. pretty .. horrible. Like, all of it.
That is, the portrayal in the picture shown. Not funny. For me, anyway.
As an idea as a whole .. it would be straightforward enough and among other many takes on it, so I suppose it should work if you keep it in that boundary. If you want to go the offensive humour route .. you will reach those who dig it. There are many many of 'em out there who will enjoy that.
Libby's approach's pretty cool if you want to make it more serious.
I enjoyed it. I also don't really care about stepping on eggshells around people.
Then again, I'm from Texas so not sure that counts.
Then again, I'm from Texas so not sure that counts.
You should have in mind that, despite all your effort, someone somewhere is going to find offense in your work despite all the countermeasures to this you may have introduced to your project, so you must be prepared to be firm and level headed for when the doubters appear (not to mention the ever present sensivity police whose modus operandi reminds me of the inquisition with how much fervor they have for finding things to disapprove of). This situation reminds me of a few quotes from an artice i read the other day that apply to the point of generating artwork that some might find offensive:
And finally on the point of dealing with negative criticism:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a drive towards creating works that everyone can enjoy because this is important, but that won't always be the case. There will be a time where you won't want to cater to everyones sensibilities because the whole project would fall apart if you do. They key question here would be: for this project, who are you working for? Who is your public? Why are you doing what you do?
Because obviously your target audience affects how you go about doing things.
author=Article
Many will be quick to state that shouting and screaming, calls for bans and boycotts, and the harassment of individuals preemptively found guilty in the court of open speculation, is solely the territory of the extremist fringe of the group. This is true of EVERY group with an internet presence, on both sides of every political spectrum, and don't try to deny it. But while it is easy to claim that the screamers are the minority, they are still largely the only ones being heard, and having an effect. I know this to be true because Hatred (the game) exists. It exists solely to act as an extremist counterpoint to extremist cultural policing.
And finally on the point of dealing with negative criticism:
author=ArticleI know this may sound as "put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala until the shouty parties walk away", and some might find that immature, but it is a tried and true method for maintaining free reigns over your creative endeavors.
For you see, the shouty fringe harassment squad only go after soft targets. Their pattern is to go after people nominally on their own side who got too comfortable and made a tiny slip-up. The hope is that an apology and retraction can be extracted, at which point the harassment intensifies, because that's what happens when you show weakness to the pack. They swiftly get bored and move on when they realize they are having no effect.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a drive towards creating works that everyone can enjoy because this is important, but that won't always be the case. There will be a time where you won't want to cater to everyones sensibilities because the whole project would fall apart if you do. They key question here would be: for this project, who are you working for? Who is your public? Why are you doing what you do?
Because obviously your target audience affects how you go about doing things.
Everything being said is great stuff. I have this sort of Batman level admiration towards Crazy. He is so powerful that even as an extreme anti-hero, he wins me over.
The title has -always- been a topic of internal turmoil for me. I mean, one side... It isn't his name. It's the associated term by the insensitive folk who are target of his wrath.
But I digress. The name is just a title. I never pursued it BECAUSE I know it is offensive. No one would really -get- it, without a hassle.
I've tried to sell myself on the notion that 'bad press is good press', but it's just not how I do business. Maybe if there was a big time rework, this could work. I really just wanted to discuss it with you all. Drawing him for my friend (it's his character after all) again revitalized my interest.
The title has -always- been a topic of internal turmoil for me. I mean, one side... It isn't his name. It's the associated term by the insensitive folk who are target of his wrath.
But I digress. The name is just a title. I never pursued it BECAUSE I know it is offensive. No one would really -get- it, without a hassle.
I've tried to sell myself on the notion that 'bad press is good press', but it's just not how I do business. Maybe if there was a big time rework, this could work. I really just wanted to discuss it with you all. Drawing him for my friend (it's his character after all) again revitalized my interest.
Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, but when harnessed improperly, it can still put you in a wreck.
My wife, who was Native American, probably would have liked Bison once she understood the reasoning behind the cartoon. It is certainly her brand of humor. It wouldn't be hard to present Bison in way that generally works and draws more good response than bad. I personally think you've nailed it...put it in the narrative that this guy is offensive and totally a stereotyped caricature. Drive the point home with every panel that he's the worst example of stereotyping and then his offensiveness and the fact that no real NA would act like him becomes the joke.
My wife, who was Native American, probably would have liked Bison once she understood the reasoning behind the cartoon. It is certainly her brand of humor. It wouldn't be hard to present Bison in way that generally works and draws more good response than bad. I personally think you've nailed it...put it in the narrative that this guy is offensive and totally a stereotyped caricature. Drive the point home with every panel that he's the worst example of stereotyping and then his offensiveness and the fact that no real NA would act like him becomes the joke.
There is no sin in drawing a silly, over the top comic. And there is nothing wrong in not being an expert on the subject you want to depict either. Nowadays people want all works of fiction to be backed up by a numerous list of research and want them to be true to real life all the time, but these are the kind of people who like to read the dictionary as a hobby, so in my case i do good in not paying much attention. I wouldn't be receiving half the gratification i get when creating any form of artwork if i was treating it like a thesis.
I am not personally offended by the character, but perhaps ask some actual Native Americans about it? Calling him "Crazy Indian" seems like a bad call right off the bat- not only is it generic, it's offemsive, and well... They aren't Indians. It'd be like calling a character "Stupid Eskimo", you know?
I'd go into more detail and respobd to the BS in some of the previous posts but I'm on my phone atm, so no thanks. Needless to say, anyone atupid enough to believe in "sensitivity police" probably isn't a good source of critique on the character.
FYI it's not so much "sensitivity police" or "choosing to be offended" (really? Nobody CHOOSES to be offended, FFS) as it is "people who have been treated like nothing more than worthless trash by the majority are finally pushing for respect and equal opportunity". Get a fucking brain.
Disclaimer: I'm a furry, so I have previous experience in the field ofbeing a minority who "chooses" to be offended.
I'd go into more detail and respobd to the BS in some of the previous posts but I'm on my phone atm, so no thanks. Needless to say, anyone atupid enough to believe in "sensitivity police" probably isn't a good source of critique on the character.
FYI it's not so much "sensitivity police" or "choosing to be offended" (really? Nobody CHOOSES to be offended, FFS) as it is "people who have been treated like nothing more than worthless trash by the majority are finally pushing for respect and equal opportunity". Get a fucking brain.
Disclaimer: I'm a furry, so I have previous experience in the field ofbeing a minority who "chooses" to be offended.
Remember everyone, all confrontational or destructive critics were victims of whatever it is they are complaining at some point or the other. Shouty privileged people who complain from a seat placed on the highest moral ground do so not because of their perception but because they're obviously misrepresented, mistreated pariahs in all instances. People who complain because they can, do they exist? What am i talking about of course they don't.
Oh i forgot AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM HOOT HOOT ABANDON SHIP.
Oh i forgot AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM HOOT HOOT ABANDON SHIP.
