Batbrony

RIGHT?!! This guy gets it! XD

So for those who haven't heard, Disney and Jon Favreau have confirmed that the latter has been pegged to direct a "live-action" (i.e. CGI) remake of their beloved 1994 classic, "The Lion King." OK... I have some thoughts... Sorry, needed to get that out of the way. Ahem, now that that's over, let me proceed to tell you all why this is a horrible, bad, terrible, no-good, rotten, dumb, asinine, and completely nonsensical idea. First, some background. For some years now Disney has been engaging in a rather lazy and obvious cash grab by remaking many of their past films, both classic and obscure, as live-action remakes. Their justification for this is that they are "updating" the stories for modern audiences. While the quality of these films varies, most of the ones they've released so far can be justified for a variety of reasons: (1) "Maleficent": while the movie itself ranges from bad to mediocre, the idea of focusing on the villain in retelling the story is a good one, it just wasn't executed well because Disney went for the easy "oh, the villain is just misunderstood and is really a tragic and good character" cliche, which especially doesn't work for a villain as unapologetically evil as Maleficent. (2) "Cinderella": again, while the film actually failed in some of the ways it tried to update the original (prominent Internet critics like Doug Walker have pointed out that Cinderella actually comes off as more incompetent and less in control of her life in the new one than in the original) it makes sense that a movie as old as this one, and a classic fairy tale no less, could get a modern retelling. However, that modern retelling already exists in the far superior "Ever After" starring Drew Barrymore. Still, the justification for making the film is there. (3) "The Jungle Book": it's weird even calling this a remake since all it remade was the Disney film from the 1960s, which has virtually nothing to do with Rudyard Kipling's far more interesting collection of stories. The biggest justification for remaking it is in having an actual child actor (and an Indian one no less) starring in it, and as a technological achievement it's pretty amazing. That said, most online critics I've watched who reviewed it have said that while it's perfectly harmless, it also felt completely unnecessary, and elements from the original that they tried to call back to were awkwardly shoehorned into that film (more on that later as it pertains to "The Lion King"). (4) "Pete's Dragon": this movie was so obscure to begin with that no one in their right mind would even give a flying buck that it was being remade. The remake itself sounds like it's perfectly fine, and there's absolutely no surprise there considering it's not some beloved classic to begin with, hence the filmmakers probably had plenty of freedom to just make a perfectly original update. It got good reviews but very much underperformed compared to these other remakes, most likely because, again, who the buck was asking for a "Pete's Dragon" remake? Disney is also releasing and/or planning to have remakes for "Beauty and the Beast," "Mulan," "The Little Mermaid," "Peter Pan," "Tinker Bell" (not sure how that qualifies considering there's no original Tinker Bell movie besides "Peter Pan"), and most likely many more. Now that this quick overview is out of the way, let's get into why Disney may be pushing their luck with these remakes, and why "The Lion King" is the perfect example of a movie they should DEFINITELY not be making. (1) What does 'timeless' mean to Disney anymore? As you can see, with most of these films, Disney has justified them by saying that they "need" to be updated for modern audiences. Now none of these remakes needed to be made, BUT so far there has been nothing wrong in and of itself with the idea of remaking them (although Disney has most definitely exaggerated how many updates have been made, the importance of them, or how they've "enhanced" these stories). But now we're REALLY getting into the cream of the crop of Disney classics. To this point, the closest to classics that Disney has remade were Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, both of which, while certainly beloved, were both old, old films and also drawn from fairy tales themselves, hence there is plenty of room for retelling. Today, however, Disney's walking on thinner ice with some of these, namely in the proposition to remake their landmark titles from the Disney Renaissance which are barely over 20 years old. These movies, upon release, were hailed as instant classics: "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," "Beauty and the Beast," and "The Lion King." They're Disney at its finest doing what it does best, and people young and old hold them dearly today. But if they're so great (which Disney has no trouble proclaiming), then one has to ask, why remake them in the first place? If a movie's timeless, it's presumably perfectly fine as it is, with no need to change it. Thus, Disney can't simultaneously proclaim a movie a timeless classic while also going forward with remaking it; either the movie's not a timeless classic and thus in need of a remake, OR Disney is just lying to us in order to poorly justify remaking a movie that doesn't need a remake. The phrase "nothing is sacred" gets thrown around a bit too liberally sometime, but here it actually seems apt to use it; Disney is sacrificing the creative integrity of its studios (which are doing plenty fine as is with no need of these remakes) for the sake of making a few more dollars. Hardly surprising, but from a creative standpoint, deeply disappointing. (2) The new medium doesn't work for "The Lion King" Another element that has been key in Disney justifying these remakes is the idea of having live action, human characters thrown into these classic settings from animated movies. Even "The Jungle Book" was able to do this with Mowgli, even if the rest of that movie was all CGI. Again, this is a weak justification, but it at least somewhat justifies the new medium, to a certain extent. In the case of "The Lion King," however, the justification completely falls apart and we see how weak it really is for any of these remakes. Simply put, there are no human characters in "The Lion King." It's a very human story (heck, it's based off of Hamlet for crying out loud), BUT the setting is inhabited entirely by animals. Why did such a story work so well as an animated film in the first place? For very much the same reason "Bambi" works as a film as well; in both instances, the filmmakers utilized the strengths of their medium to their advantage. Animation allowed them to make the animal characters look very realistic while also giving them just enough human features to come across as characters with human mannerisms and emotions recognizable to human audiences. The animals make facial expressions that their real life counterparts cannot, and display an emotional spectrum that only humans possess. In animation, this is acceptable because it's a part of how one tells a story in that medium; people don't expect animation to perfectly reflect real life, but rather depict it's own set of characters in its own particular setting in its own particular way. This is also why in animation, you can have such a wide range of characters in film or television and still tell a story that audiences can latch onto; whether it's something as outrageous off the walls as Ren and Stimpy, as cheap looking as South Park, as massive as anime like Gurren Lagann, as small-scale as a show like Rugrats, or, yes, as seemingly naturalistic looking as Bambi or The Lion King, in all of these humans are able to accept the characters presented to them as characters somewhat like them because they understand that they inhabit an animated medium, where liberties can be taken with appearances and the laws of physics. The animated medium also allows for musical numbers to be seamlessly blended into the storytelling in a way that even the best live musicals/musical films can't do. One minute Simba and Nala can be talking to each other about ditching Zazu, the next minute they can be bursting into song with dozens of other animals that have really no reason to be singing with them, and we as an audience accept it because we know it's an animated setting, where something like that can just happen and then never be brought up ever again. In "The Lion King," the liberties afforded to the animated medium are on display in ways that many animated features do not capture. The anthropomorphism of the animals in that film is a very strange balance of naturalism with fantasy; they look for the most part like their real life counterparts, and they even exist in an ecology which reflects a real life savanna ecology, but at the same time, they display emotions, mannerisms, and facial expressions that only humans can, some look more cartoonish than others (like Timon and Pumbaa, Zazu, and the Hyenas), break out into song on occasion, and even have things happen like a lion cub getting raised by a warthog and a meerkat and growing up to live beside them. All of these elements were critical in telling the story that the makers of "The Lion King" had unfold in their film. Now then, having said all that, we must ask ourselves this very important question: can you do ALL of this in a CGI/live action medium which is supposed to depict the animals as realistically as possible? I for one do not believe that it's possible. Let's take a look at the film that will probably closely resemble this proposed Lion King remake the most, the 2016 Jungle Book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noZF9Mh4y08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUi5rquFiB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKkm2h8STrY Right away, there's a couple things one notices. Now, as far as CGI goes, this all looks gorgeous, no doubt. HOWEVER, if one is comparing it as a remake of an animated film populated by anthropomorphic animal characters, then it fails UTTERLY. How so? The expressions. ALL of the emotion conveyed by any of the animal characters here hinges ENTIRELY on the voice acting. There are a FEW things they can do with the mouths and the eyes, but not much; in making the animals look so much like their real life counterparts, they've sacrificed a major storytelling feature of the animated medium. The most interesting character to look at is Mowgli, since he's played by a real kid, and "The Lion King" won't even have a character like that. Thus, faces like the following will be entirely impossible for the remake to achieve. These are CLEARLY all facial expressions that animals do not make in real life, and thus in the remake, we shall lose a CRITICAL element of what made the characters in "The Lion King" come to life. All emotion will be purely conveyed through the voice acting or body movements, but NOT the faces! It doesn't help that character designs like Scar's won't even be possible; Scar is clearly very exaggerated and cartoonish in his appearance, which helps convey his status as villain. I anticipate that the live-action one by comparison will look far more dull and generic. In addition, you'll notice a rather jarring musical transition in the second clip with Mowgli and Baloo. The song "The Bare Necessities" just kind of... starts out of nowhere. The bad singing doesn't help, but more than anything it just comes across as completely awkward because you have no idea WHY they're even singing in the first place! This again shows a damning limitation of the CGI/live action medium, particularly when it comes to remaking films largely if not entirely populated by animals. Transitions to singing in live action are tricky things to handle no matter who the characters are; in musicals, the audience is just supposed to accept that it's a thing that happens, but even then they need to be led into because the characters themselves are the ones always breaking out into song. Animation, however, affords some flexibility, and "The Lion King" is a perfect example of this. There are two types of songs in that film: (1) songs which the characters sing in real time (i.e. "I Just Can't Wait To Be King," "Be Prepared," and "Hakuna Matata") and (2) songs which are sung off-screen or in the character's minds (i.e. "The Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight"). Again, these work in the animation medium because they function as a part of telling the story in their own way. However, I have NO idea how this is supposed to work in a CGI/live action remake, ESPECIALLY for "The Lion King." If the animals LOOK as realistic as possible, then it is simply not possible for a song like "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" or "Be Prepared" to happen. ANIMALS DON'T DO THAT, hence it would simply be entirely bizarre for two lion cubs that looks like this- -to suddenly start singing in real time. They MAY be able to keep "The Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" since, again, those songs are sung offscreen, and I'm sure they'll find a way to shoehorn in "Hakuna Matata," but again, in a movie that is supposed to be entirely populated with as realistic looking animals as possible, making it a musical simply doesn't work! (3) What is there to add? This ties back into my question about timelessness earlier, but more specifically in the case of "The Lion King," what is there to add? If the film is as timeless as most people seem to think it is, what could Disney possibly add to it? Making it "live-action" clearly isn't something, because as I've already covered, this will most likely take more away from the film than it adds to it, namely so much of what made the original film work. There are storylines that got cut out of the film (some of which were added to the Broadway musical) which they could add, but these would not work for a family film. The most prominent I can think of is if they choose to expand Nala's part in the story (in a bid to say that they're "expanding the most important female character's role," and don't get me wrong, I love Nala, but that would be such a weak way to promote it) by adding in "The Madness of King Scar" scene. For those of you who don't know, this scene was originally shelved from the Lion King film but added to the Broadway musical; in it, King Scar's madness is on display as he basically attempts to seduce, and then nearly rapes, Nala, prompting her to flee the Pridelands in search of help. In the Broadway musical it works very effectively, namely because of the unique and beautiful way in which that story is told through a blend of live actors and GORGEOUS puppetry, but it was very wisely shelved from the film. Children would not understand such a scene and it might very well scare them to see such a thing as potential sexual violence depicted in a family film. Naturalistic looking animals, many of which at many points in "The Lion King" are chasing characters to either eat or kill them, will also look very unsettling to children; in an animated medium, they can look intimidating one moment but then the next second normal, hilarious, or even adorable. But again, as CGI/live action animals, there are only so many expressions they can give them, hence some of the perilous situations in the film may be too much for children to handle. The warmth and charm of the original will most certainly be updated, but in its place will be cold realism and naturalism; that doesn't exactly sound like a worthwhile update. So again, I am left asking myself, what is there to add to such a timeless classic as "The Lion King." In conclusion, let me just put it this way... this seems like a bad idea. I can't pretend to be unbiased; "The Lion King" is my all-time favorite Disney movie and holds a VERY special place in my heart. But these questions I raised don't just apply to "The Lion King"; many of them, I believe, are going to increasingly apply to more and more of these planned Disney remakes. Is every Disney remake a bad idea? Of course not! But some of them seem at best completely unnecessary, and in "The Lion King's" case we find a project which seems to have every potential to utterly fail as a remake to a movie that quite frankly didn't need it and surely won't be improved by making its characters look more realistic. Sometimes, timeless is just that, and doesn't need to be touched one bit. Let's hope a majority of audiences agree and decide not to reward Disney if this cycle of remakes starts to get out of hand. Feel free to leave your thoughts below, I'm interested in what everyone else has to say about this rotten news.

Alright, well it looks like our time with Peruserofpieces has come to an end! On behalf of MLP Forums and all of Poniverse, I want to thank you yet again for joining us this evening and kindly taking time to answer our questions. We all wish you the very best with your plushie making going forward and hope that you will continue to excel at making many, many cute pony plushies!!! If you haven't yet, folks, you should seriously look up Peruserofpieces on DA, give him a follow, and if you're looking to commission a plushie, definitely consider going with him, he's one of the finest plushie makers in our fandom! Until next time everypony, this is Batbrony signing off. I'm off!!! *cue dramatic exit*

Neat! How're you liking Season 6 so far? Are you enjoying Starlight Glimmer as a main character?

Oh no, not a cop out at all. Let's see... anything in plushie-making in particular that you wish to improve at?

Oh my goodness, that's adorable!!! SO SO ADORABLE!!! Also, that story about your grandma and the AJ plushie you gave her was so sweet!!! Alright, more fandom/show related question for ya: what is your best ship?

Any features you particularly enjoy including on your plushies? Or just something you particularly enjoy sewing (wings, horns, cutie marks, clothing/accessories, etc.)?

Very cool! So ponies were your first plushies, I see. Do you have a favorite plushie or a favorite character to make plushies of (which I suppose is sort of a "who's your best pony" question)?

Good evening everypony, and welcome to another Poniverse Fandom Q&A!!! This week our guest is Peruserofpieces, one of the fandom's most prolific plushie makers! This is our first time having a plushie maker as a guest, and if you're a plushie maker yourself or looking to get into it as either a hobby or business, this Q&A is most definitely for you. He's been to three BronyCons with his wares, and many other cons as well, so believe me when I say he's been around in the plushie-making biz for quite some time. The floor is open for the next three hours, so ask away everypony, our latest guest is ready to answer all your questions, so let's give Peruserofpieces a big, warm welcome and have a fun time one and all! Also, as a quick aside, don't forget to visit Peruserofpiece's DeviantArt profile here, where you can peruse his work as well as find out more about setting up commissions with him if you desire to do so. To start, I'll ask a simple and probably obvious question: When did you first start making plushies and what in particular made you want to pursue plushie-making?

OK, good morning everypony, and welcome back to another edition of "Batbrony Reviews." This week's episode was some classic MLP, a delightful combination of entertainment with a well-written story and a excellently executed lesson. It was also a nice return to form for Starlight Glimmer, as well as probably the most she's interacted with the entire group of Mane 6 this season. Without further ado, this is "Every Little Thing She Does." So oddly enough, this episode was kind of a spiritual successor to "Lesson Zero" back in Season 2, albeit not quite as hilarious as that episode. Starlight, as we saw, still has a bit of a problem with how she understands the concept of friendship, namely in that she's quantifying it. She thought, going into this episode, that being good at friendship literally means you're skilled at whatever you do with your friends, and if you're not, then you're being a bad friend. Given that so much of her self-worth her whole life (in her mind) has been measured by how good she is at magic (something that's very much still apparent in this episode as well), this is understandable; even after her reform, her initial friend of the group was Twilight, and one of the things that Twilight was most impressed about Starlight early on was how powerful she was at magic. I won't say that Twilight was a part of this problem, then, because frankly this is on Starlight and her inability to properly convey her anxiety to Twilight, but it's perfectly logical that given that she's now living with Twilight and was trying to distract her with how her magical skills continue to improve, she would in turn think that Twilight similarly would "grade" her when it comes to magic (it does not help that Twilight tends to keep lists and records about EVERYTHING). So the problem that Starlight had was actually really good because it felt believable; some episodes this season have struggled because the problems they dealt with felt like they belonged in earlier seasons of MLP, but here, it did not feel like this lesson learned was inappropriate or the problem forced. Starlight wasn't unnecessarily incompetent, Twilight correctly identified and addressed the problem as soon as she knew it was happening and understood it, and the pacing was just right, with just enough attention given to setting up the problem, seeing it unfold, and having it addressed. In the end, Starlight learned a valuable lesson about what it means to be a good friend, and I imagine that going forward she'll be more comfortable with all of the Mane 6 now, not just Twilight. The only problem I will raise with how this episode unfolded is that I feel like we saw Starlight engaging in many of the same activities she was so nervous about today at the end of last season when she first befriended the Mane 6, but I can forgive that considering it was so quick and took place in song. Overall, this was yet another really, really solid episode for Starlight, and she continues to delight as a member of the main cast. Well now, that certainly doesn't look healthy Not gonna lie, I REALLY want to know the whole story behind this! As I said earlier, as far as the humor and entertainment factor of the episode goes, it (like the lesson) very much resembled and felt like a spiritual successor to "Lesson Zero." Like in that episode, things escalated out of hand FAR more than one could have anticipated going into this episode to the point of insanity, yet it felt like an insanity that could actually happen in this setting. Just like how Twilight melting down and freaking out was completely believable in "Lesson Zero," things going crazy after Starlight cast a number of mind control spells on the Mane 6 made, well, perfect sense. The fact that the insanity "made sense" only made the humor all the more enjoyable to see as it unfolded, and the Mane 6 under Starlight's mind control spell were a delightful combination of hilarious, creepy, and utterly useless. I myself particularly enjoyed Applejack, and give major props to both the writers and Ashleigh Ball on a hilarious turn as our favorite country mare. The 'chillaxing' running gag was pretty hilarious as well, more so when they were joking about understanding the concept as opposed to just saying the word a bunch. And it was also hilarious to see Pinkie Pie as the most pissed off of all of the Mane 6 about the mind control spell, and what's more because she burned cakes while under Starlight's influence. Finally, in a turn for a joke I never thought I'd see even on this show, I'm pretty sure that the Mane 6, after being freed from Starlight's powerful mind control spell, were intentionally depicted the next day in a state that resembled having a hangover. Some of the gags they pulled at the start of that scene were hilarious, particularly Rarity's insisting that the Mane 6 make as little noise as possible, and it's a great use of adult humor in a kid's show because obviously most kids would never understand that that was being referenced. D'awww, the poor, adorable dear... she has no idea how much she just bucked up That's it Twilight, you let her know! So, you got it now Starlight? Damn it :ninja: Animation-wise, everything was top notch as usual, particularly the facial expressions, which really felt spot on here. It was nice getting to see an episode that wasn't just set in Twilight's castle but actually explored it a ton as well; we got to see the kitchen, the library, the foyer, the basement, Starlight's room (which we'd never seen before), and even the roof at the end! It really felt like we got to explore the castle more than ever before, and that's always nice when we get to see not just a new setting, but more of a setting we've seen plenty before, but haven't necessarily explored in-depth. Finally, I thought the final shot of this episode was just really nice; it feels like it's been awhile since we got to see all the girls just relaxing with each other to end an episode, and seeing that (with the addition of Starlight awkwardly trying to relax with them) was really nice to see yet again, especially all the different ways they were unwinding, or rather, chillaxing at the end. Overall, this was just a really, really solid episode and I can't really find a fault with it. It wasn't quite the level of amazing that "Lesson Zero" is, but it was very exceptional all the same, and a solid addition into Starlight's existing canon and ongoing character arc. That's all I've got for ya'll today everypony, until next time this is Batbrony signing off. I'm off!!! *cue dramatic exit*

Hello everypony, I see you! OK, good morning everypony and welcome back to another edition of "Batbrony Reviews"! This should be a fairly short review today, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot to like here. Without further ado, let's get going, this is "Viva Las Pegasus"!!! First and foremost, I would describe this episode as an exceptional experience episode. It didn't have a particularly deep message, if any at all, BUT it was just a whole lot of fun, and in that regard it excelled. I've been wanting to see Las Pegasus in the show for a long time (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) and boy oh boy the animators did not disappoint here. The sights were a blast and exactly what a Las Vegas-ponified locale should look like, and there was a lot of fun to be had this whole episode. I adored the side characters we got, from the adorable acrobat pony and her director to the hilariously obvious Siegried and Roy parody! The backgrounds looked great the whole episode and the LOADS of background ponies were a lot of fun as well. Smugshy is so, so smug Flim and Flam also had exactly the type of episode you'd want them to have. It was nice getting to see them in the role of hesitant heroes (for once), but at the same time I very much appreciated that they did not get reformed. It just wouldn't seem true to their natures to do so, and besides, they're not really evil anyway; I'm pretty sure this episode solidified their status as true neutral characters. They're always out to improve their own fortunes, and that's exactly what they were doing here, it just so happened that this time they actually helped other ponies for a change as well. Besides, at least now they're just ripping ponies off at a tourist destination, it's not like they're claiming to cure diseases or trying to run the Apples out of business now. So yeah, fun episode for them, and I'm happy they didn't get reformed; Equestria's not a perfect place, after all, and it's nice to see that some "scoundrels," especially hilariously over-the-top ones like those two, never change. Plus their revenge on Gladmane was actually quite satisfying to see unfold. Applejack and Fluttershy also got the combo episode those two always deserved. When "Bats!" first aired, I was EXTREMELY disappointed in the results because the entire time, Fluttershy was portrayed as always being in the right, and AJ always being in the wrong. It just wasn't very well executed and didn't live up to what those two as a pair could be. THIS episode, on the other hand, completely did! From the start they complemented each other nicely, and they continued to do so even after they had disagreements. They both weren't comfortable in a locale like Las Pegasus, they both helped solve the problem when they went their separate ways, and they supported each other with their own strengths from start to finish in identifying the friendship problem and solving it. Suffice to say, this episode has more than made up for the disappointment that "Bats!" was. Applejack: she just found your magazines, you know, THOSE ones Overall, like I said before, the episode was an experience first and foremost (a fun one at that), and in that capacity it excelled. It felt actually very much like a Scooby Doo episode; solving the problem was more important than any lesson learned, and even the resolution wasn't that important compared to the viewing experience itself. The episode was about giving the viewer a fun time above all else, and with that being the case I must say it passed with flying colors. That's all I've got for this week everypony, until next time this is Batbrony signing off. I'm off!!! *cue dramatic exit* You may be happy, but you will never be as happy as a pegasus covered in pink prairie dogs

Good morning everypony! It's time to announce yet another exciting MLP Forums Fandom Q&A!!! Next week, on Saturday, September 24 at 7 PM EST, join us for a Q&A with Peruserofpieces, one of the fandom's most prolific plushie makers! This will be our first time having a plushie maker as a guest, and if you're a plushie maker yourself or looking to get into it as either a hobby or business, you should most definitely stop by to ask Peruserofpieces your questions. He's been to three BronyCons with his wares, and many other cons as well, so believe me when I say he's been around in the plushie-making biz for quite some time. Like I said, join us next week in the Official Poniverse Events section on Saturday at 7 PM EST for an exciting chat, and if you'd like to learn more about Peruserofpieces beforehand, click here!

Good evening everypony, and welcome back to another edition of "Batbrony Reviews." First of all, I need to apologize for being so late on this one; I was busy last week travelling for a job interview, and this week just got away from me. That said, I'm very happy to be getting this written up now, because me oh my this was a DELIGHTFUL episode! Without further ado, let's begin. So first things first, I don't think this was so much a Cutie Mark Crusaders episode as it was a Scootaloo episode. Don't get me wrong, they were all involved from start to finish, but there was a clear focus on Scootaloo as the primary actor pushing them throughout the episode, mostly because she drew many parallels with the episode's new character. That said, it was still a phenomenal CMC episode overall, because at no point did any of them come off as needlessly stupid or malevolent. The writing was phenomenal namely because everyone behaved realistically; they were presented with someone they really wanted to help, but an awkward situation because they really didn't know how. This will lead into a bigger point I have to make later on, but a resonating theme with the group in this episode was optimism and hope, how far those can take you, and what their limitations are. The episode tries to answer how does one balance boundless optimism with logic and realism, especially in a crummy situation, and it answers it spectacularly I thought. For the Crusaders, it gave us a chance to see that they continue to mature and grow; they're no longer trying ideas they know are probably bad, they think things through carefully and have a system, and I love seeing that. This was exactly what the successor to their first Season 6 ep needed to be, and I couldn't be happier for it. So now we come to our new character. Gabriella. Oh my. Gabby, Gabby, Gabby. I don't think words can do justice to how cute this little ball of fluff and feathers was, so I'll just leave this instead... Yeah, seriously. New best griffon? Oh buck yes, new best griffon!!! And you know what the funny thing is? I bet this was a hard character to write. No, I'm not even joking. It would have been SO easy to make her a Mary Sue, because of how bubbly, and optimistic, and cheerful, and just plain adorable she is, but somehow they avoided that trap and color me impressed that they did! As with Scootaloo not being able to fly (which the episode phenomenally wove into the story), there was an unspoken pain lying beneath the surface with her. We either are this person or we know a person like this, someone who tries going through life as cheerful as possible, not for their own sake, but just to try to make other people happy. That's Gabriella in a nutshell. You think at first that it's some sort of mask to help her cope with how crummy Griffonstone is, but no, it wasn't! As the episode plays out (especially once we reach the end), we learn she's as genuine as could be in her constant cheerfulness and optimism. Yet at the same time, one can still tell that there was a hidden pain to this character for multiple reasons. For starters, she's gone her whole life, naturally cheerful and upbeat, dedicated to making other griffons happy, but unfortunately for her that is not a natural inclination for her kind. So basically, she's been surrounded by distrustful curmudgeons her whole life. On top of that, she's never felt like she belongs nor knowing what her purpose is. So basically, she has no rewarding outlet for all her cheerfulness up until she went to Ponyville. Not that we should expect something for doing good things, but Gabby's situation was extreme; she had nothing, NOBODY in her life giving her so much as a smile or a thank you for her efforts. To say her situation was depressing is an understatement. This leads me finally to the themes of the episode. While some may say the episode was just about finding your purpose, I'd say it was more than that. Finding your purpose is a theme that has gotten recycled for multiple CMC episodes at this point and will continue to do so, after all, it's what they do. No, I would say that boundless optimism was at the center of this episode, very much akin to, believe it or not, "It's a Wonderful Life" or "Forrest Gump." These are movies that, while simple in certain respects, are effective mostly because, at the heart of them, is a simple but powerful theme that resonates with many people: the power of just being a genuinely decent person. That was very evident in this whole episode. You felt for Gabby, even if you weren't sure just like the CMC weren't what the answer to her dilemma was, because she was just so genuine and decent and good, and to make matters worse she lived in a country that didn't appreciate or encourage those qualities of hers. She didn't just want to find her purpose, she wanted to find her place, although surprisingly she never attempted to or thought of living in Equestria (though I guess I couldn't see her abandoning her home). But you could tell, in many respects, that this was someone who on the inside was probably running on fumes of hope at this point, and she oftentimes came off as almost desperate to find the answer she was looking for. You can't help but feel for such optimism and hope, and it just sucked me in from the second she showed up. I didn't think she was gonna get her cutie mark, but I wanted her to find her purpose, and more importantly, just find pride in who she was. She didn't just find purpose in learning that her purpose is to simply help others however she can, she found self-worth and a reason to just keep going for herself, because such a good person shouldn't be asked to just keep going for others, even if it comes naturally to them. She could probably spend the rest of her life impoverished and destitute and she'd still be totally satisfied knowing that alone, and that's what made the episode so powerful. A genuinely decent character found the one thing she was looking for that was missing from her life, and there was something really powerful about getting to see that because I think it's easy to forget that it's not always hard to be a good person in life, much less like Gabby, especially growing up where she did. So like I said, for an episode that didn't exactly have many tears, this was a powerful one, and I loved it for that, especially because I think it handled its themes with nuance, grace, and poise. Besides that, this wasn't exactly a laugh-heavy episode, but that's fine; there were some good ones here and there, particularly getting to see Twilight nerdgasm, but that's about it. There was a good song in the middle but nothing mindblowing for this show. It was nice getting a simple slice-of-life Ponyville episode again, and I was super happy to spot Derpy with Dinky again (further confirmation of her being Dinky's canon mom this season!!!). But like I said, when I think back on this episode and return to it, I'll always think first and foremost about it's wonderful writing, handling of its themes, and of course, the wonderful, wonderful, WONDERFUL new character that is Gabriella the Griffon! That's all I've got this week everypony, until, well, tomorrow, this is Batbrony signing off. I'm off!!! *cue dramatic exit* Cutest griffon? BUCK YES CUTEST GRIFFON!!!