Guest90210

-snip-

I understand that. But my main point is that, in the end, despite something having objectively observable elements, art's "quality" is not something that we should go around saying is objectively "good" or "bad". I'm not saying you can't make a strong case as to why you feel something is good or bad - quite the contrary actually. I encourage criticism, review, and analysis of all media for the sake of growth, originality, entertainment, and the advancement of media. Media as a whole has advanced in several different metrics over time thanks to analysis, review, and the exchange of opinions.

All I'm saying is that we should save the term "objectively" solely for things that are actually objective, and not formed by our own preferences. What's unhealthy is saying a piece of art is objectively bad, implying that anyone who defends such a piece is objectively wrong, and vice versa, when art is largely consumed differently by each and every person

-snip-

Hmm. Is what you're essentially saying this: "better" or "worse" are subjective perceptions, but we can judge a piece of art objectively in terms of amount of effort put into said work, originality, and time spent?

It is true that objectively, someone may have spent more time on a piece of work, or was inspired by (or directly copied) someone else's art. However, I wouldn't say that the amount of inspiration, originally, or time spent on art can be used as a tool to objectively say one piece of art is better than another because in the end, it is in the eyes of the beholder as to how much weight "time spent" and "originally" has in terms of what makes a "good" or "bad" piece.

While I certainly believe its better to spend as much time as you need on something, and its better to be original when possible, I wouldn't say its an aspect of objective reality. Is it a part of a consensus good/bad (as in, it's something that most honest people will agree with, as you said)? Yes. Most would agree with that, and we should promote that idea among others. But when it comes to objective reality, its still a man-made concept.

As to what's relevant to us as people, the consensus good/bad is important and worth discussing, but all I mean to say is that we can't say these concepts are a part of objective reality, but rather, our conceptual reality. I wouldn't use the terms "objectively good/bad" to describe any sort of art for this reason. I will give my view on the art, and why I feel its good or bad, but I won't say its objectively good or bad.

But you do make a solid point, we can use measurements which are in objective reality (time spent, etc) to form our view on art.

Yeah but you cant take a shit, and frame it, and call it art...... When someone says a piece of art is good or bad, its usually based upon artistic criteria set back during the Rennasance. These criteria for the most part, kept art at a standard, and without that standard, you have people with no artistic talent what-so-ever, dropping metaphorical turds onto canvases and trying to pass it off as Art.

"Artistic criteria"  and "Standards" from the renaissance are also subjective, based on specific people's views from that time period. What you don't consider art, another may consider art. One man's trash may be another's treasure. 

As Digibro said in the video, certain art may be considered a "consensus good", as in, the majority or almost everyone shares an opinion on a piece of art, but that does not mean it is objectively good. Human beings are inherently biased towards our own tastes. Who are you, or I, or anyone else to say that our opinion on art is objectively true to objective reality?

You make a lot of good points.

> The Cutie Mark Crusaders first met at Diamond Tiara Party...Or Did They?

- It does seem like a continuity error, though I suppose the counter-argument would be what SolarFox said; that they had met before but never introduced each other. Like you said though, "Call of the Cutie" does seem to imply that they had never met before.

> Is Princess Celestia becoming forgetful in her wise age?

- It was stated in the Journal of Two Sisters that Celestia & Luna were born alicorns, so the show claiming that they weren't is indeed a contradiction. However, an argument could be made that the show's version of events is canon over the Journal, therefor retconning the Journal's version of events.

> Where is Sunset Shimmer?

- Good question, I have no idea. I feel like the writers should have addressed her "human world" counterpart.

> Where is the Episode for Cadance "Coming of Age"?

I have always wondered this too, and its one of the reasons I've never been a big fan of Cadance's character. She was sorta just rushed into the picture for the sake of having a wedding episode. How did she become an alicorn? How did Celestia & Luna become alicorns for that matter?

> Was Pinkie Pie Adopted?

I can see why it would appear that Pinkie Pie was adopted. While no FiM media has made this claim, it isn't impossible. She's drastically different in essentially every aspect from the rest of her apparent family. Hmm, I wonder if there's any fan fiction which covers that idea?

Google Hangouts offers free video calls. If you could use that, I'd recommend it

also there's a little personal nostalgia involved as I was in high school at the time and didn't hit the low point I did after graduating yet.

It took me a few episodes to realize it, but when I finally figured out the appeal of FiM I was so excited. Have you ever experienced something, and literally as it happened you felt a wave of nostalgia even though it just happened? To me, FiM & the fandom early on were like that. Instant nostalgia, I knew I wouldn't be forgetting it anytime soon. This was during the worst year of my entire life. I was in such a broken state that I was convinced any day could be my last. The fandom helped me get through that year.

Some of the fandom's content through 2012 was the most amazing as well. Most of the fan animations that were instrumental in the development of talent in this fandom premiered at that time, many fan sites were in full swing, and the summer BronyCon that year was pretty much the Woodstock of the brony fandom, especially considering John de Lancie using that as the launching point of his documentary.

 

I didn't participate, but I consumed pony content like there was no tomorrow at the time and it definitely shaped how I view the franchise and the fandom now.

I didn't get into the fandom until shortly after EQG's release. I was unexpectedly overwhelmed with the volume of what I was seeing. The amount of art, music, analysis, and overall content there was for such a young fandom was simply staggering.

I had heard about the show for years, but it took me that long to actually sit down and give the show a chance. A portion of the community had a strongly negative reaction to the season 3 finale. I was worried I had join a fandom that was on the decline, which, looking back was a silly thing to even think about, but that's just how I am I suppose. And to be honest, it made me feel sorta depressed, as strange as that sounds. Even today, it's difficult for me to feel like I am really a part of the fandom (hard to explain. It's an entirely separate topic all-together which has to do with my social anxiety and self-image. I wrote a large blog about it but its never been published). When I first joined, I literally obsessed over its history. I wanted to know absolutely everything. I found these forums by Googling "is the fandom dying" in 2013, lol... 3 years later and I'm still here and the fandom hasn't gone anywhere.

The fandom really was in full swing back then. It was growing at an insane rate. The vast array of content I saw really shaped how I view the franchise and fandom as well. It'll always mean something to me.

Though unfortunately I still believe there are cases where participation rewards shouldn't be given, though it's usually because of the lack of trying. I remember when I was in a soccer team, there was one kid who, for the entire season, only showed up for two games and a few practices. Even though my team mostly lost, my coach didn't want to reward the kid because he never did anything, he believed that doing so would truly be "rewarding failure"

I see what you mean, I think it depends on the circumstance. Maybe the kid didn't show up for legitimate reasons (illness, inconsistent transportation, etc)?

Happy Birthday! I hope you feel better

You forgot about the greatest Bears QBs of all time.

Rex "The Sex Cannon" Grossman

And Jay "The Jay Cutler" Cutler

Agreed. Shaming your child is wrong, and won't teach them anything positive. All it teaches is that making fun of people is an acceptable way of dealing with things, which is counterproductive. Imagine the teasing and ridicule a shamed child would have to endure afterwards. Mocking breeds mocking, violence breeds violence, and so on.

That theme is just brilliant for a heel Rock. He's a natural on the mic, in the ring, as a heel or face, basically anything that he was tasked with. Walking down the ramp slowly to this theme was a heel move in itself. Great stuff.

I will say, my favorite face theme of his would have to be his 2002 theme when he beat Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania, and later became the Undisputed Champion. 

Cena getting drafted to Smackdown then back to Raw in the same night was dumb? I thought it was brilliant, lol. It was completely unexpected and I was going crazy that night, haha

Wow, I've never thought of it this way before you brought it up... That really does ruin the episode.

Why Just for Sidekicks as opposed to Spike at Your Service? That episode bastardizes Spike far worse, painting him out to be completely useless, even in areas where he's been shown to excel at. 

The ridiculous characterization of Spike made "Spike at Your Service" absolutely hilariously enjoyable for me. Plus the Dragon Code thing was brilliant. It's one of my favorite episodes. The humor and charm make up for the bizarre characterization, at least for me.

I'll put it bluntly, I can't really say I think you're of the authority to speak for such a large group of people in this manner

I think DQ means "bronies" in a general sense. Not literally every brony fits his criteria, as there's bound to be someone out there (no matter how limited the sample size may be) who is the opposite and will walk away from the show for whatever reason they feel fit.

They've grown to cherish the personalities and whatnot that these ponies have been given. That much is clear, as background ponies in this fandom are quite popular and you'd be hard pressed to look through a thread on these very forums without a background pony appearing in a signature or an avatar. Many of these ponies haven't had a single canonical speaking line, either, so it's all up to what lines they have been given in fanfiction, fanmade videos, what they're being drawn as doing in fanart, etc, to give them the personality that makes people like them. What if these personalities were to be destroyed by canon? That would be a huge game changer for the fan's enjoyment of the product, no doubt. It wouldn't be the same character they've grown to enjoy and care about, it'd be something completely different, and it wouldn't go away. It'd be stuck as canon and there'd be no way around it.

This is a solid point. The background ponies really are sort of a sacred relic of the fandom, in a sense. They (and the stories and artwork that has accompanied them) are a big reason the fandom is where it's at today. The free range of potential that these ponies have gives bronies an endless supply of ideas for fan work and headcanons to toy with. Setting something crucial in stone may discourage certain future content from being made (though on the flip side, it could encourage new content based off this new canon).

On the other end, it is just a single episode. This will likely be the only time we see the background ponies under the center stage, and with this much character development. So if some of the ponies personality traits are formed/changed from the brony norm, they won't be brought up again in who knows how long, so it'd be easier for fans to continue with their headcanons anyways. It is a "headcanon" after all; it's all their personal interpretation, so I'd think that most people who dislike the episode's canon would just ignore that certain episode and go with their own ideas.

Personally, I'm highly anticipating the 100th episode. I see it as a tribute to the fans from the creators. I think it's existence shows how much of an impact we have had on the show's creation and its direction. But, I do understand the concern some may have.

Lucky 13

Beware, ye ponies, beware of the day

The number 13 has come out to play

The clovers are here, the salt has been thrown

But besides all the luck, you are on your own

Take it as you will, this curious night

Some ponies in peace, some ponies in fright

Choose your own path with a magical wish

Close your eyes and dream as if nothing exists

The luck is in you, it's your full and pure power

If all does align then surely diamonds will shower

Classic Spongebob was just amazing television. Practically every episode had several memorable and distinct moments. The Krusty Krab Pizza song, "FUTUUURE", The Campfire Song, the Magic Conch, so many recognizable things.

Here's another one that makes me laugh every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ctb-Pb3lc

That's disturbing. How was this able to air, let alone air on Nickelodeon? Simply shameful.

Thank you! Finally someone brings this up. "You're afraid of change" is simply a lazy excuse. If change is good, it will be welcomed  If not, it won't. Simple as that.

Reported for Woonaful Content.

lol

I see what you mean. Personally I like the Assassin's Creed version better, but that's mainly because I'm generally not a fan of the original's genre of music. Nothing against it artistically, it just doesn't fit my tastes as well.

Speaking of Tears For Fears, that reminds me of another song, "Mad World" by Tears For Fears. The original is upbeat, while the Gary Jules cover version is slow and played over a piano. They're two wildly different sounding songs, both with the same lyrics. I prefer the Gary Jules version, but I can see why the original may be consider superior in the same way you're saying about "Everybody Wants to Rule the World". I think the slower tone fits the lyrics, but if one prefers a more conflicting tone to accompany the lyrics, that makes sense.

With that being said, I don't think the Assassin's Creed version of that song necessarily betrays the artistic integrity of the original. It may go against the intended purpose of the song, but I don't think looking at it with a new take is necessarily a bad thing.

@, It's true that taking a physical product would possibly deprive someone else of that product, but at the end of the day it still took time, effort, and funding to produce and distribute something via digital distribution. Distribution is distribution, regardless of if it's physical or digital. And theft is theft, regardless of if you do it physically or digitally. You're still taking money out of someone's pockets. These things still have to be created, developed, marketed, distributed to a vendor, sold, and (especially in the case of software) updated. The only difference is that what you get is not tangible so you cut out the shipping.

 

And no I wouldn't put my chips on TPB being down forever. I know they've been raided many times in the past and I halfway expect them to go back up. 

I suppose you have a point, but some piracy is practically harmless, if not beneficial. Most money from album purchases goes to a rich record company. The actual music creators make most money from touring. Me, a poor teenager, pirating an album I never had the money to afford in the first place is hurting no one. If anything, it's introducing me to new artists, making me a fan, opening me up to future purchases for when I do have cash. No money is being "taken" out of anyone's pockets. Sometimes piracy is done out of necessity - Ask any fan of anime.

The Pirate Bay will be back up. It isn't down permanently. This has happened many times before and they always come back up.

"You wouldn't just walk into a music store, take a bunch of CD's off the shelves and walk out expecting to get away with it. So what makes it okay to do it on the internet?"

The difference is, when you steal a CD, you're stealing an actual, physical product. Something is being taken away. When you digitally pirate an album, no product is lost, only gained. That album will still be there for everyone else, while an album physically stolen from a store won't be there anymore.

In other words, pirating isn't "stealing", it's "copying".

That new logo is hideous. It doesn't even make sense

Believe.....believe....That's the goal. That's the end-all. That's the difference between dark and light. That's what matters most when it's all said and done. Live and love. Just be, and be just.

<3 *wink*

I like it c: . It'll definitely look really nice with a yellow paint job