Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Dolphanatic

User
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dolphanatic

  1. 8 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

    Non-princess Twilight is the biggest thing I don't miss. Her as a princess gives her a wonderful purpose, one that represents the entire theme of the show. I am not going to say they have always handled that perfectly, but I suppose that goes to show that Twilight isn't some perfect pony of perfection either, which is fine.

    But here's the thing: Twilight already had a purpose in the show. She was a student, spellwriter, and ambassador of friendship long before the wings came along. Granted, those character traits have gotten more development since then, but to say her role in the show was "without purpose" up until then is absurd. If anything, Twilight becoming an alicorn only slowed her character development down by having her go through the same "learning how to be a princess" storyline over and over instead of letting her develop naturally. It wasn't until Starlight Glimmer came along that Twilight's role in the show finally started to get more interesting again, as it finally gave her a reason for being a princess besides selling more toys. Granted, I may not be the biggest fan of alicorn Twilight, but even I can appreciate the fact that the writers are finally taking that aspect to its logical conclusion by giving Twilight a student of her own. That long-awaited completion of her character arc wouldn't have been possible if she hadn't started out as a lowly unicorn student herself.

    • Brohoof 2
  2. The second half of the film, without going into spoilers, ended up having elements that were either not explained enough or poorly implemented. This thread from gamefaqs sums up my issues: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/203-cartoons-and-animation/73464024 If you're going to be 99% on Rotten Tomatoes I expect it to be nearly perfect but it's far from it.

     

    I disagree. I think the movie was strong from start to finish. In fact, if anything, I think it got even better as it went on. I'll try to give my reasons as well as I can without giving away any major spoilers below.

     

    The post you linked claims that Nick's reaction to Judy's assumptions halfway through the movie wasn't justified, which isn't true at all. There was a good reason to believe she was wrong. She was essentially reciting what she was told since she was a child without thinking of the harmful implications of what she was saying. That's a major slap in the face to Nick, who believed he had completely earned her trust up until that point. So yes, Nick's reaction was completely justified.

     

    After that, the post states that the big reveal at near the end came "at the last minute out of nowhere", which is completely false. In actuality, it was an ongoing subplot throughout the movie. Remember the stolen "onions"? It wasn't "done sloppily and contrived", it was well-integrated into the story in such a way that you don't notice it until the Judy does (unless you're rewatching the movie, in which case, you can see all the subtle hints and details play out). This wasn't done to "force the message in your face" and wasn't the only thing keeping Judy's assumptions from being justified by a long shot. The message came into play when it needed to, like it should, and there were plenty of other reasons to disprove Judy's assumptions, like the one I mentioned earlier.

     

    Long story short, the person who made that post which you linked to clearly didn't do his research. Either that, or he just didn't pay enough attention to the movie and missed a lot of important details. It's a shame, really, because you seem to like the movie like I do, and I agreed with a lot of what you said when you weren't letting someone else take over and do your thinking for you. Next time you come across someone else's opinions, really try to think it through and decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not.

    • Brohoof 1
  3. I just rewatched it today. Since it was actually on the literal release date (March 4), the theater was much more crowded. Needless to say, there are definitely are a lot of subtle details that you notice when you know what's coming that you otherwise wouldn't catch when watching it for the first time.

  4. I think the 2nd trailer kind of revealed the whole movie so I don't feel like watching it.

    That's why I tend to stay away from a lot of the excessive promotional content. It has a tendency to leak spoilers like a broken faucet.

     

    Anyways, it's a great movie with a lot of depth. So much, in fact, that it actually makes me want to see the movie in theaters again, if only to further analyze everything I could have possibly missed, as I now know what's coming, with all the plot twists and the like, and see what the general audience looks like, since I attended the earliest screening (5 hours before March 4, which is said to be the real release date), which only had about 6 other people in the theater.

    • Brohoof 1
  5. I just saw the first showing of Zootopia in theaters tonight, and let me say, it deserves every ounce of hype and praise it's gotten! You know it's great when you're left stunned and speechless long after it's over like you've gotten off of a great roller coaster ride! In fact, in a lot of ways, it is. It's easy to follow and is full of exciting twists and turns from start to finish. If you haven't seen it, go see it!

    With my initial opinion out of the way, I suppose I should go ahead and answer that infamous question that's set the entire Internet on fire: Was Zootopia made for Furries? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But honestly, who cares! While there's no doubt that Disney has been giving Furries an unusual amount of recognition, especially with this movie, there's plenty of stuff for everyone in the movie, regardless of whether you're a Furry or not. Why does it matter if Furries watch and like the movie, alongside other "normal" people? What's wrong with the movie "spawning future Furries"? Guess what, idiots, if people are going to watch it and be fans of talking animals in general, then that's just that. After all, that is the definition of Furries as a whole (nowhere is it required for you to be a pervert/manchild/whatever stereotype you can think of). What's wrong with that? The fact that people can come together to appreciate stuff like this should be celebrated, not shamed. And yes, for the record, I do consider Bronies at large to be subdivision of Furries, but that's beside the point I'm making.

    Everything about this movie works. The story and the message it conveys are pure gold (and surprisingly not politically correct, especially for a Disney movie), the characters (including the villains) are all eminently likable and relatable, the world-building is immersive, the acting is spot-on, the visuals, the music, and everything else just plain works.

    The story is surprisingly easy to follow, despite being full of big reveals and intense game-changing turns. There are a lot of plot twists that will make your eyes widen. There are some real tear-jerker moments, as well. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time! Never did I ever find myself confused or stumbling into any plotholes or anything of the like. The movie had me completely engaged, only for it to get even better when the entire concept gets flipped on its head halfway through the movie. That's right, the movie, which would've already been good enough, decides to 1-up itself halfway through, and continues to do so for the rest of the 108 minutes! That takes some serious nerve! If that isn't a sign of a good movie, I don't know what is.

    Well okay, I'm not going to be too overly positive, since there were a couple major plot twists that I did see coming from as far away as the beginning of the movie. But honestly, they didn't bother me one bit. In fact, they were all places I was actually really hoping the movie would go, and it did! How many times can I say that about a movie; that it actually fulfilled what I initially thought was just wishful thinking, during the movie?! As it turns out, that's exactly what the writers were doing, according to some articles I've read. Apparently, as the writing progressed, the writers came up with the aforementioned game-changing ideas, and finally decided "You know what? Let's go there!" and it worked perfectly! Granted, the movie can be a little bit too preachy at times, and yes, there are some elements to the story that do seem a tad familiar at times, but even then, it's done so well that I don't even care if it's been done before, because it actually works, as it's done in such a different way that I might as well be seeing it for the first time.

    I keep comparing Zootopia to riding a great roller coaster, because it really is, in a sense. It has the grandeur, the excitement, the immersion, and everything you could ever need to keep you at the edge of your seat. It takes you on a wild ride from the very minute it starts to the last second. It's just that good. I really don't care what mindless labels naysayers try to slap on this movie. For a film about the harmful nature of stereotypes, the most ironic thing people can do is shove it aside as "just a kids' movie", or "pandering to Furries", or anything else. It doesn't change the fact that Zootopia is a great movie and whether people like it or not, it's here to stay.

    • Brohoof 7
  6. Temporarily locking this due to suspicious activity.

    Note, Administration has detected several duplicate profiles created by one member that have voted in this poll. These votes WILL be removed.

     

    So it's another Deflategate all over again, just like last year. >_>

     

    Anyway, am I the only Twilight voter here who isn't just posting Twilicorn pics? After all, there is a lot more to her than just a pair of alicorn wings. Twilight was best pony before the wings!

     

    post-11910-0-74597700-1457046610.png

    • Brohoof 2
  7. I would say that boycotting the girly toys because they enforce gender stereotypes actually furthers that stereotype. Wouldn't it make more sense, as a male or an adult, to buy said toys without caring who is intended to own them?

    That's what I said! :P

     

    There is a third category; Intersex. It happens when people are born with ambiguous, non-binary chromosomes or genitals. Sadly, many are mutilated in infancy to fit one gender or the other, often leaving them sterile.

    Even then, it's still just a mix of male and female genes. Besides, I wasn't referring to physical deformations in my post, anyway. I was referring to those people who claim they need to "identify" as a certain gender, as if what they are on the outside automatically determines who they are on the inside.

  8. One of its possible themes coming into season six is the Guardians of Harmony. Recently, toys were revealed. We don't know how they'll impact S6. Could they be season-long, only for an episode, or only a scene? We don't know.

     

    But today, Hasbro revealed something else about GoH besides the logo.

     

    Take a look at these three pictures, all I found on EQD:

     

    Capture.JPG

     

    sig-4388658.sig-4375952.nyc-my-little-po

     

    sig-4388658.sig-4375952.TFW2005-TF2016-0

     

    Notice that two people are playing with the toys, one girl and one boy. Rather than just marketing the toys to one sex, Friendship Is Magic: Guardians of Harmony markets to a unisex crowd.

     

    So, how important is this?

     

    Very.

     

    Over in the UK, Let Toys Be Toys tirelessly campaigns to have toy companies and toy stores market to all genders regardless of age. They have a very huge impact, including desegregating Toys R Us UK's toy aisles.

     

    When the FIM movie was announced, a mom criticized Hasbro on Yahoo for not marketing the franchise to boys at all. There was a huge positive reaction by the fandom in response.

     

    FIM is a gender-neutral, family-friendly show appropriate and entertaining for all ages. It's a great show that spits on the vile "kids' show" label. Observe how FIM's show attracts their audience over the toys. The toys are pandered to little girls via The Pink Aisle and Pink Package, implicating a very disgusting plague of sexism spilling from the toy industry. Meanwhile, FIM's show doesn't discriminate against any demographics. The show continues to support Bonnie Zacherle's vision and thus keep the show in its family-friendly roots.

     

    Bonnie Zacherle founded My Little Pony as a unisex toyline. Even for one branch, GoH is attempting to break a barrier. To show boys and girls playing with toy ponies together tells us as a society and especially conservative parents that ponies are for everyone.

     

    Bronydom has an impact. Bronies have a media appeal because they're loud and proud about their support of FIM in spite of sexism plaguing the market. The stereotypes of ponies and pink things should only appeal to girls and action figures and race cars should only appeal to boys deserve to be hied to the pyre. By being an FIM fan (a.k.a., brony), you're tearing down the stereotypes, even if you don't see it and don't think so.

     

    The top-tier toy market is struggling. One of the biggest reasons why Hasbro and Mattel still salivate over the thought of a merger is to attempt to help make a profit. But boys' and girls' toys have been down lately. To broaden the market audience is a marketing strategy by Hasbro to experiment the process that boys can buy pony toys without social persecution.

     

    To go beyond being a brony here. As a person, I take social justice very seriously. Gender norms and gender stereotypes are an enormous deal to me, especially when it comes to toys. Why do toys impact kids so much? Because toys become a reflection of themselves. They're role models. FIM's target audience (guardians) is responsible for keeping an eye on what their kids might play and decide which is appropriate for them. It's unfair to girls, boys, and kids of minority sex/gender to conform to stereotypes. Hasbro's pandering to girls is one key reason why I refused to support FIM first-party toys, and I've been very vocal about this problem for nearly three years now. If I was a guardian, I wouldn't buy a first-party FIM or EQG toy for my kid because of the unfortunate implications. But by broadening that market with Guardians of Harmony, if the toy quality is good, I might reconsider whether to buy a toy for them or if I ever became a parent.

     

    Do you think GoH will potentially expand the market audience of FIM's toyline beyond just girls and potentially affect other toylines, both within the company and beyond? Please explain your thoughts.

     

    I want to agree with you, but you're overreacting to this. I've bought some mystery pack ponies before. Does that mean I'm somehow supporting sexism? No! If anything, I'm debunking it. The fact that guys like me are actively seeking and buying "girls toys" shows that they aren't necessarily exclusively for girls. Boycotting them, on the other hand, won't help. It'll only send Hasbro the message that ponies don't sell to guys.

     

    Also, getting rid of pink aisles at Toys R Us won't solve any problems. What Let Toys Be Toys is doing is borderline SJWism. There's nothing inherently "girly" about the color pink, so why bother trying to stop the company from using it and thus, unintentionally reinforcing the stereotype that "pink is a girls' color"? Instead, why not fight the actual problem (the sexist bullying)?

     

    P.S. Humans only come in one of two genders: male and female. There's no such thing as a "minority/non-binary gender". Those who say otherwise don't understand the definition of the word gender.

  9. Whoa, whoa, WHOA.

    Graphic design major speaking here - believe me, creating a good, well-functioning font takes A LOT of work and effort. It's not something anyone can do using MS Word. Designing fonts is not a piece of cake and it's definitely not "easy cash" either.

     

    Would you use someone's vector art on the packaging of your product without paying them? Of course not. Consider the decorative fonts used in the logo an example of very complex vector art. 

     

    The thing is, if Hasbro legitimately purchased the font from the website, then there's no way they could be violating copyright because they paid to use the font however they like. There's nothing on the website that says "This font can not be used for commercial purposes." Selling fonts is not unheard of, nor is it the issue here. It's the fact that a font is up for digital purchase, only for the buyer of said font to get sued when he or she uses it, because it's somehow a "copyright violation".

    • Brohoof 4
  10. Okay, this is getting really out of hand. No, I never said that the toy in question was proof of Twilight becoming a unicorn again or that it was even likely. I was just saying that it's rather unusual for Hasbro to do this stuff these days. Obviously, they know about Twilight being a unicorn for the first 2½ years of the shows run. That's not the point. What I was getting at was how Hasbro basically phased out the production of unicorn twilight merchandise after Season 3 aired. Had they kept making unicorn Twilight merchandise, I wouldn't think much of it, since it would probably be safe to assume it's just based on how she looked during Season 1 to the end of Season 3. However, the fact that unicorn Twilight has basically become nonexistent until just now is what has me curious.

    • Brohoof 1
  11. I've never had issues with the staff at any of the Hot Topic stores I've visited. They've always been friendly and helpful whenever I've talked to them. Considering they sell pony merchandise, it wouldn't make sense for them to bite the hand that feeds them, anyway. The looks I get (or rather lack thereof) when buying pony-related stuff there are no different from when I've purchased Minecraft merchandise there. Honestly, a lot of the people there are probably just as nerdy as I am, if not more so! :lol:

×
×
  • Create New...