Dark Qiviut

You realize that in all likelihood that means like 5-10 people thus far have actually rated the movie on RT, right?  Give it a day or even a good week or so before you start assuming that it's getting decent reviews on RT; still too early to definitively say that it's getting really decent reviews from that site, especially considering the only comments I've seen there were two audience members saying they're going to give it a shot, not anything about how the movie actually is.

He gets it very well.

Also, the high approval score on Rotten Tomatoes and low approval score on Internet Movie Database don't dictate anything.

1. Just like you can hate a movie and know it's good, it's also possible to like a bad movie. "Liking" or "disliking" a movie (which dictates taste) doesn't mean it's good, bad, or average (which dictates quality). For example, 52% of people on Rotten Tomatoes like Cars 2, but that movie is terrible.
2. Regarding the 815 people who rated Equestria Girls on Rotten Tomatoes so far, how do you know over 800 people legitimately saw the movie and didn't rate-bomb it just because it's related to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic? Likewise, check the rating chart for Equestria Girls on IMDB; as I'm writing this, only ten people didn't rate it a one or ten.
3. Equestria Girls was released today, but not in all theaters; and there are plenty of people who won't get to see it until it either shows up on TV, DVD, Netflix, or YouTube because it doesn't air in their locations.

 

What the buck is "Rainbooms?"

My guess is that "Rainbooms" will be a product spinoff for Friendship Is Magic. Because the term "Rainbooms" wasn't genuinely trademarked, they couldn't genuinely sell it. But now with the official trademark, Hasbro can now produce a line for the toys.

 

If it's a toyline, will you buy it?

This I honestly can't answer at this point. Besides the trademark, there's nothing about them to make me decide if I want to buy them or recommend to buy them.

If the product is good in quality (both in genuine material and messages the toys carry), then I can maybe take a look at them and see if I'll buy them or not. But if they look like genuine garbage, then forget about it!

 

If it's a movie or spin-off series, will you watch it?

Again, this is also up in the air. A trademark alone can't make me determine whether I'll see it or not. There needs to be actual news shown to me before I can decide.

Hell, for all we know, Hasbro might've trademarked "Rainbooms" in case they want to make a toyline and/or series. It doesn't mean it'll happen.

I don't know.. It's just that these dolls look more like official toys to me. The prototypes kind of looked like fake EQG knock-off toys than the real deal.

No, they are the same dolls as the "prototypes" featured on Equestria Daily. The only difference between the prototype and official dolls seen on Equestria Daily is the resolution for each pic.

The prototype's resolution image is very low, and you can see some pixellation along the edges, as if the image was blown up a tad.

The official doll's resolution looks like it was shot from a better quality camera and later reduced to Web-standard size.

Well........ They don't look AS shitty... I guess.

 

To be fair they don't look fucking terrifying like the prototypes.

The designs for the dolls actually are the same. Each doll has the cutie mark tattooed on a cheek. The hair the same. They each carry that same facial gestures. Applejack's (and Pinkie Pie's) doll carries the same pose and clothing. And the anatomy is one-hundred-percent identical. The only difference here is Twilight Sparkle's dress featured in the package is different.

I wrote my response to the dolls' official release and design on Equestria Daily, so I'll paste it here (with some differences):

 

Unless you're Rays manager Joe Maddon, you likely won't be able to take a lump of crap from the bottomless pit into gold.

 

Hasbro and its outsourcing can't turn turn this trash into gold, either. The "prototype" dolls are crap; the official dolls are crap.

@@RWB, I don't need to alter them to silhouettes: The minimal differences are all evident for me to see, even in a completed state. A silhouette would only prove it further.

Twilight Sparkle's skirt is too similar to Applejack's and Rainbow Dash's. The only thing that makes Twilight's skirt differentiate more is the sectioned wrinkling.

Rainbow Dash's and Applejack's skirt are actually exactly the same with the colors, Applejack's unkempt skirt hem (that could easily get lost if reduced in size), and athletic shorts used to identify and separate them.

Rarity's skirt is too similar to Pinkie Pie's and Fluttershy's. The only difference that makes Pinkie's stand out a bit more is how it's a half-circle rather than a wavy shape like Fluttershy and Rarity's. Rarity's and Fluttershy's skirts are completely identical except Rarity's is a little longer.

As for the shirts:

1. Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie are too similar except Dash's sleeves are a bit shorter and wider. In Pinkie's design, the sleeve and upper arm are (almost) exactly the same shape.
2. Applejack's and Twilight's only differences are Twilight's shoulders are a little puffy, and Applejack's sleeves are folded.
3. Pinkie's and Rarity's shirts are too similar, because the sleeves are nearly the same length. Only Rarity's looser sleeves differentiate the two.
4. The only shirt that is remotely different from the rest is Fluttershy because, when colored, she has no sleeves. But take a bit of Fluttershy's upper arm and turn it white; it'll look nearly identical to Pinkie's *snaps fingers* like that.

The only part of the character design that really makes each of the Mane Six stand out is the hair. But like what I wrote before, when the hair and head are cropped off to show the rest of the body only, then the differences are much more minimal. For factually good (human) character design, you really need to pay attention to every shape and make sure the differences aren't so minimal that you don't need to wait a few more seconds to process the information, not concentrate on one main part of the anatomy and color to make them stand out. Shape-wise, you can swap each shirt, skirt, or boot from one character to another, and you can put them on anyone. That's how ambiguous almost all of them are.

Even in silhouette, the EGs would stand out more from each other than the mane 6.

Wrong. In fact, it's the opposite. The pony base design is so simple and strong that you don't need to do anymore other than add a mane and tail. Things like eye/ear shape, horn, and wings can be thought of afterwards and checked if they match the character. You can tell who each of the Mane Six ponies very easily by the blocks of shapes themselves: The radical designs of the mane and tail tells us who they are nearly immediately whether you fill them in with colors or not. Each shape is so different that you can recognize who each character is by them alone, no matter how much you swap them.

Equestria Girls's character designs, on the other hand, don't succeed in this regard for the Mane Six humans, period, and have to rely on colors, refined details, and hair design from the ponies just for us to know who each character is.

Add actual differing colors that further set them apart...

Color should be used AFTER the designs are finalized. Good design is based on the foundation with color added in last. When colors and little details are filled in in order to genuinely identify the character (especially ones you're trying to replicate like Equestria Girls's), you prove how weak the design is.

@@Astrobrony, The official character design for EQG is bad, but for a completely different reason.
 
What makes them bad is by how formulaic they are after all of the details are ironed out. We have all of the six characters finalized with the colors dictating who each character is, but that's not enough, especially for a human design.
 
To show what makes character design good or bad, remove every piece of detail to the point of a silhouette. The hair gives identifies who's who, but crop off the head and hair (and shuffle the bodies if you want to be tricky); the characters become more difficult to spot.
 
The clothing, for that matter, has very little differences. Take the shirts, skirts, and boots; make each shape a black block with a white stroke (or vice-versa). Then stack each category into three separate piles. The details that separate each other from such a simplified perspective are very minimal, which doesn't good character design make.
 
Equestria Girls's base design — the head, neck, body, legs, boot-free legs — is actually quite decent and (unlike this concept) inoffensive. But there's so little to separate them after they're finished. Let the base work and create vast differences to make each character represent a personality from basic silhouetted blocks. EQG doesn't do that. Instead of individualizing the characters, cost-effective corners are cut to replicate the usage of Flash easier and to mold/dress the toyline.
 
This is the big difference with the likes of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and Milky Way and the Galaxy Girls. Each character has several key differences that separate one from the other.
 
MLP:FIM's base design is so simple and so strong that you don't need to do any more extracurricular stuff. Draw the mane and tail; you have the character. Here's a good way to tell, with the Mane Six:
 

 
You can tell who each character is by the outlines. Things like the eyes, horn, and wings can come later.
 
MWatGG: Milky Way, the Sun, the Moon, Uranus, Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, etc. Block out the details, and you know who they are just by the silhouette.
 
Like a good logo, good character design comes from not only understanding basic human proportions (which all five demonstrate [even MWatGG, which I won't explain here to not veer the topic off-course]), but also varying easily telling who each is when simplified. If you need the extra details within the shapes and colors to properly differentiate the characters like what the Equestria Girls' designs did, then it's bad design.

Known for liking the best pony in FIM, Derpy!

Not true, but not false. I have no opinion, so a push.

TPAM is a sports fan.

For featuring what is the best pony in FIM, 9/10!

6/10. The composition's well-done, but the random brightness in the starry sky gives the picture a lack of focus.

8.75/10.

>)

You say you're fast, but:

2/10

(I don't remember seeing you before )

6/10.

1) Favorite MLP episode(s)?

Magic Duel. This is the episode that was extraordinarily hyped because Trixie is slated to return, but given the nature of it being a twenty-minute episode, it was unknown how Larson could handle it. He did a fantastic job here by capturing Trixie's bloodthirsty, jealous desires, all of which were fueled by the corrupted Alicorn Amulet. Twilight's intelligence really came into fruition: The episodes centered her tend to focus on her physical magic, but in this one, they were focused on how to use her disadvantages to her advantage, manipulating Trixie into willingly taking off the Alicorn Amulet. Twilight delivered the friendship report verbally to Trixie, who took it to heart and became a better unicorn.

2) How often do you go back to watch the show?

Not all that often, honestly. I occasionally go back to watching episodes whenever I choose, but I concentrate on other hobbies, discussion, and keeping my techniques polished. I'll go back to watching the episodes whenever I feel like it or if I want to capture the characters' personalities better in the form of fanfic writing.

3) Do you do it in groups of episodes, a single, or marathon an entire season in one go?

I watch my episodes alone, and unless I'm at a brony gathering or convention, I prefer it to be that way.

4) Favorite season?

Season two, easily. While there were some average and bad episodes (The Mysterious Mare-Do-Well and the terrible writing of Rainbow Dash in the first half being obvious), there were so many excellent episodes: The Return of Harmony two-parter, Lesson Zero, Luna Eclipsed, The Last Roundup (original cut), Putting Your Hoof Down, Hurricane Fluttershy, Ponyville Confidential, Dragon Quest, Secret of My Excess, and the objectively good A Canterlot Wedding two-parter.

@@Sir.Flutter Hooves, If you want to make your opinion genuinely credible, don't pull that "bronies-aren't-the-target-audience" strawman. It's ridiculous and makes you look extremely ill-informed, and your sarcasm doesn't do anything other than detract your point.

Equestria Girls isn't targeted to little girls. It targets adolescent girls. In other words, ten- to fourteen-year-old children. These kids are in elementary school, approaching graduation from elementary school, or beginning their first year in high school. EQG's target audience is exactly the same as Monster High's. MLP:FIM's target audience (the toys being marketed to girls, but the animation is targeted to families) is much more different compared to Equestria Girls.

Moreover, almost everything about Equestria Girls has been very messy and shaky. The first leak was bad, but if it was one, I'll shrug and move on. But there have been multiple leaks of so many contrasting character design concepts, including this one that got nearly everyone riled up, the prototype dolls, and two shaky trailers that cram way too much information (although the second one is mildly better). When contrasting information is spilled online this quickly, then it sends the message that EQG has poor quality development and control. The mildly better trailer did a better job being a bit more graphic and showing rather than telling in the first quarter, but that doesn't give Hasbro and DHX a free pass for screwing up EQG's development and production from a conceptual standpoint prior.

Hasbro treats this spinoff as FIM's next big thing, but we're approaching the debut of this movie, and we have literally no details about the toyline other than the widely panned prototypes. From a marketing standpoint alone, Hasbro has continually fumbled on the project, and the zigzagging makes the situation even more bewildering. Hasbro is a billion-dollar corporation, and the fact that they apparently don't know what they're doing makes EQG's marketing an intellectually insulting train wreck.

If Equestria Girls showed a lot more good news instead of bad and didn't demonstrate development hell, then this movie wouldn't currently be under the subject of such controversy.

This trailer is mixed.

1. The beginning shows something that looked interesting and good. The chase scene with Twilight and Sunset Shimmer is very intriguing and action-packed, yet suspenseful.
2. The moments Twilight behaves in the alternate dimension (running on all fours) is funny and shows how she hadn't adopted to the dimension.
3. On the other hand, so much information is crammed in, particularly after Twilight and that son of a bitch, Spike, land in the dimension. We know that the only way to "genuinely" retrieve her crown will be to be the "princess" of the Fall Formal (a.k.a., a "prom"). That's a very key point in the plot, and the dresses offer a key clue how she may get it. Like what I wrote before, if you really want to wet people's whistles, be simple, graphic, and to the point, like
   for Sonic Unleashed. Too much information makes the movie overwhelming and shows less respect for EQG (and the main series itself) as a whole.
4. The animation of the humans sucks. The walk cycle looks stilted, the squash-and-stretch effect to make the animation nice and fluid is absent, and the lip movement is stiff. In FIM, the ponies move organically and look like something from a handdrawn Disney movie. Here, you can easily tell that DHX used Flash, but used it in such a way as if to cut corners instead of treating it as a respectable animation program/enhancer.

This trailer is a mildly better one, because some parts are funny and demonstrate a better ability to attain interest. However, it still crams in too much info, especially in the second half. It's even more unfortunate that this wasn't the first trailer, because the first trailer was an info-dump that spilled so many key points, while this one shows a tad more, yet still tells me to have faith in it instead of showing me they have faith (although not to such an extent as the first trailer).

Even as a fervent critic of the way Hasbro and DHX have handled this movie, this climax is definitely getting somewhere. It's something that genuinely has the potential to come across as well-done.

However, like I wrote several times before (my scathing editorial against EQG being one of them), the climax is all for naught if/because the rest of the plot doesn't capture the conceptual and atmospheric roots of the main series, even IF the characters are in character. It also doesn't alter the horrendous quality control and the development hell this movie has gone through.

I'm not a fan of any of the previous generations, but the only one that can actually be called somewhat factually good is the original G1 (NOT MLP Tales). I'm not a fan of the early generation because the scripts can be very lackluster and the animation really aged horribly (part of the constrained budget from the hey day). But I can appreciate effort and appreciation for trying to appeal to the family-friendly market. The original G1 doesn't try to talk down to people of any age, and founder Bonnie Zacherle's gender-neutral roots are everywhere. We can all see the original G1's heavy influence in G4/Friendship Is Magic, but makes it better.

MLP Tales, G3, and G3.5, however, I honestly hate with my heart's discontent. Instead of being family-friendly, they are executive meddling at its finest worst. The three resort to firly stereotypes, bland personalities, and sometimes horrid animation (I'm looking at you, G3.5! <_<) Instead of continuing to respect Zacherle's vision, Tales, G3, and G3.5 spits in her face and ransacks her vision. Tales, G3, and G3.5 deserve the vitriol it gets nor deserves an ounce of respect. Just because they're the prior generations doesn't mean they all deserve to be held up in a semi-respectful regard.

Here's what I what in my essay about FIM returning to the franchise's roots:

Zacherle intended it to be its own gender-neutral creation and have it suited for families. The original G1 show, movie, and toyline showed heart, care, and passion from themselves and the audience it seeks. But under MLP Tales, G2's toyline, G3, and G3.5, its quality suffered, and the roots of the franchise were alienated so Hasbro can cash with the very young girls, female toddlers, and their parents. G2 flopped, but G3/3.5 barely succeeded enough for the product to stay afloat. Yet, it still disrespected the founder, and older fans noticed this. This is the reason why Tales, G3, and G3.5 get no respect from me and don't deserve it whatsoever: They take Zacherle's bold vision and ransack it.

MLP Tales shows little respect for her and the original G1 tales because its sexist, stereotypical characterization is intellectually insulting.

G2 I'm neutral with despite its narrow audience and poor financial success, because it was advertised poorly and never fully got off the ground.

G3 and G3.5 gets none because of its lazy production regardless of budget flexibility.

The original G1 series, however, gave Zacherle that respect, and I give it that respect in return.

If you use vBulletin, consider your forum dead.

Why? It has exploits.

And I know how terrible vBulletin's security is secondhand. One of the forums I paticipate in, the NYC Transit Forums, was a vBulletin board, but sometime last year, Anonymous vandalized it for over a month, hacking into various accounts (including the Webmaster's) and even the system itself. The Webmaster relocated the entire forum to IP.B as a result.

Least favorite Main character

Applejack, and it's not because I don't like her. She's a tremendous character with a lot of depth, resulting in being the most complete of the Mane Six. I just happen to like the others a bit more.

Least favorite Secondary Character

I chose "Other" for this matter. My least favorite is also the worst written villain the show: King Sombra. From top to bottom, he is unbelievably flat. He sounds like he's smart, but we don't know his full personality because there isn't any. He was written as a purely evil character with no other edge to make him a CHARACTER instead of a "character," the Door of Fear being the only part where we saw how cruel his heart and conscience truly are.

Least favorite Tertiary/Background Character

Diamond Tiara, but not because of her concept. (Snips and Snails are just terrible characters conceptually, but their characters were better in Magic Duel.) It's more what she has become. What was such great characterization in Ponyville Confidential was wasted away in One Bad Apple, reverting her back into the typical school bully rather than the scheming, dynamic, manipulative businessfilly in Ponyville Confidential. She seems to become a flat antagonist, and that's unfortunate.

Connecting this point to the feminist blog implies that high-school as a concept is inherently anti-feminist and sexist, which is a weird place to go. Unless you really mean that only boys should go to school, I think this point may need re-phrasing or pulling it out of this specific debate.

 

Personally I think the stock high-school setting is inappropriate for the characters, as it reduces their agency by lowering their apparent maturity. This is one of the big reasons I dislike the idea. But I wouldn't call it sexist or anti-feminist.

 Nope, I wrote it that way and meant it one hundred percent. The high school setting is anti-feminist conceptually because it doesn't fit the core of Friendship Is Magic, which intends to deviate away from central settings similar to this. There are so many family-friendly and "kid-friendly" shows, especially those where they're girl-centric, and movies centered around high school with nothing to genuinely differentiate, and that clogs up the airwaves. Faust helped conceptualize Friendship Is Magic to stand out and actually send families with girls a message that fresh, high-quality media exists.

The lone part I didn't write is how the setting is sexist. That I disagree with fully. If one of those concepts was revealed in the trailer, then I would rip it as sexist, but that's a stretch, as the official character designs are poor but passable and don't use sex appeal to sell to young adults.

For the setting inappropriate for the characters, especially Twilight, that I agree fully. The characters are developing like teens, but are independent with gender-neutral occupations. They can take care of themselves and don't have revealed ages to unite demographics. If Twilight was sent to an alternate dimension and had to settle in a town equivalent to Ponyville and act as independently as her friends from the alternate dimension, then that I can live by.

I don't get how this image is sexist? It's *bad*, yes, but mainly due to the character art being inconsistent and looking very cut-and-pasty. The humanized Twilight in the mirror is a different art style than the anthro Twilight below, and neither match the humanized Twilight character that shows up in the trailer beyond just clothing choices. This demonstrates a serious disconnect between Hasbro's marketing department and DHX's production, and the lack of quality control taking place. But I don't get how it's inherently sexist.

…That image I link to you is inherently sexist because it implies that the only way for an adolescent girl to feel and look good about herself is to showcase a scarily thin body with poor makeup. The anatomy consists of the model-like hourglass torso that many girls at that age are known to try to replicate. It's trying to attract the audience of Monster High by utilizing an extremely dangerous form of sex appeal.

Hi, Ryu! As a fellow brony from New York, I hearby welcome to the MLP Forums. I hope you have a magnificent time here!

@@mycarhasaMoustache, You severely undermine @@Commander_PonyShep's post and the blogger's impression of the Twilicorn.

Magical Mystery Cure factually came off as rushed. Information that should've been spread out into two episodes are cramped into one twenty-minute episode. Combined with Twilight still having so much growing up to do, it's an extremely implausible reward. If she were to be rewarded, then there had to be much more foreshadowing and smoother pacing in MMC to genuinely show to audiences that the Twilicorn transformation made genuine sense.

Magical Mystery Cure's Twilicorn transformation easily came off as a push for the Pony Princess toy products that were eventually released in April just by how rushed and compact everything transpired. If it was handled as well as it should've been, then the Twilicorn controversy would've been over by now.

@@mycarhasaMoustache, @, Both of you are factually wrong.

This feminist blog, as far as Equestria Girls is concerned, is extremely correct in her opinions and backs them up. From a conceptual standpoint, Equestria Girls is extremely anti-feminist, and that's not good because it goes against everything Friendship Is Magic stands for. How is it anti-feminist?

1. It sticks Twilight Sparkle and "copies" of the Mane Six in a high school setting, a common cliché in family-friendly entertainment, with no honest-to-God effort to connect it to Friendship Is Magic. Unlike several Friendship Is Magic episodes (which use the plot willingly to critique these clichéd concepts), Equestria Girls attaches high school as its central setting.
2. The production of the movie has sucked from the ground up on all parties. Both Hasbro and DHX are equally at fault here, not one or the other. Each concept art that was leaked to the public occurred so early and so quickly for several months, indicating poor security on Hasbro's behalf and sending messages to people that this movie has no quality control. When this disgustingly sexist piece of concept art was revealed, Equestria Daily's commenting board exploded in a fury. This movie had undergone several serious changes since the beginning, particularly the bad character design, when both Hasbro and DHX should've communicated and agreed to a design concept during the sketching and researching stages of the movie. The prototype dolls, for one, indicate the scary, sexist culture that American society still instills into girls from ages two and up. And those dolls enforce the editorial's argument (and also really piss off Faust).
3. This is a completely new franchise designed to attract adolescent girls (ages ten to fourteen), but Hasbro slaps the MLP:FIM logo on the front in order to attract those who've followed the main generation since its inception in 2010. A spinoff doesn't excuse Hasbro or DHX from straying so far away from the roots of this generation. You can make the characters in character however you want or how the beginning of the movie shows Twilight in Equestria. But they're not enough. The feel of FIM, from the concept to its setting, must match the main series. The atmosphere and mission statement from Friendship Is Magic must coexist with Equestria Girls. The info-dump of the trailer, plot summary, and poor development of this movie proves how EQG is FIM's antithesis, and that's a really bad thing.

Friendship Is Magic, on the other hand, is blatantly pro-feminist, because it doesn't stick to the norms of "kid-friendly" TV that plagues current-generation entertainment.

1. Its central setting isn't a school and is a town. Part of what makes this animation so successful is how its main purpose is to provide plots to characters without having to stick to the stereotypical ideals of girl-centric TV. But when they did, Friendship Is Magic spun them in the other direction the minute you see a preview, editorial, or review. For example, Twilight being relocated from her school to Ponyville is an underlying criticism of this stereotypical setting. There were other great concepts that were supposed to break away more like Princess Celestia being Queen Celestia, but Hasbro rejected that one because of the perception that little girls won't buy a fictional, benevolent, off-white, queen pony unless the word "princess" is plastered on the package.
2. The characters are individual, independent, and break away from the tropes in common family-friendly fiction. Sleepless in Ponyville, for example, jabbed at the "common-trope" part when Rainbow Dash cut off Scootaloo's overly sappy campfire story before she could finish it. Each character shares an occupation or activity that both mares and stallions can perform successfully if given the scripted assignment to.
3. As a whole, it sends a message to families that kids, especially young girls, can enjoy quality entertainment without resorting to girly stereotypes. G1's MLP Tales, G3, and G3.5 resorted to girly stereotypes that ransacked founder Bonnie Zacherle's vision of creating a franchise accessible to people of all ages and alienated plenty of the original G1's audience. If FIM didn't air and push the concept to its fullest potential, the franchise might've died.

Faust herself, who laid the foundation for FIM before she resigned from being fully invested halfway into season two, is a feminist; and she's very blunt about it in her character design, interviews, and mission statement for quality family-friendly entertainment. Shows she helped work on — Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and The Powerpuff Girls — are known to deviate away from the norms of traditional family-friendly TV and criticize both anti-feminist and sexist values of female characters. In TPPG, Sara Bellum, Sedusa, and Femme Fetale have exaggerated hourglass bodies to criticize the "perfect doll" culture that so many companies and commercials exploit in Western society to sell.

And the girls don't buy the toys alone nor always see the TV shows or movies without parent consent. The prototype dolls, for example, target young adults, but their parents buy them. The movie tries to get the kids excited, but the parents and/or guardians hold the income and determine whether it's appropriate for their kids to see EQG or not.