Nyactis Mewcis Catlum

Fair enough. In that case, my mistake. It came across to me like you were suggesting that a poorly argued point of view is incorrect because it's poorly argued. I will admit I must have misread. To this effect, I do actually agree. Using terms incorrectly is to the detriment of any good reviewer. I especially sympathize with the "Mary Sue" part, as I think that term is thrown not at characters that actually deserve it but rather fully realized characters who have grown over a narrative (if you think I'm targeting a specific example here, you're probably right). "Pacing" was never a term I ever got because no one explains exactly what's wrong with the pacing, which is why I rarely use it when I'm criticizing media other than to suggest that the "story flow simply feels...off", admitting that it's not an objective point of view but rather just that something doesn't feel right about it. I'm sure if I sat down and actually dissected the episode as well as compared it to an episode that feels like it has "correct" story flow I could figure it out, but I'm figuring most reviewers aren't going to take the time to do that. The problem is that I don't think the episode mocks those who use incorrect terminology at all. Instead, it broadly sweeps a category of complaints without considering any of the backing behind those complaints. Not everyone who dislikes Twilicorn dislikes it for the same reason. It's laughable when people argue that it throws off the balance of two unicorns, two earth ponies, and two pegasi as that's superficial, but there are other concerns that some arguers against Twilicorn brought up that are left unaddressed, and yet they're unfairly lumped with that, and I think we can agree the arguments just aren't equivalent. In other words, it's not addressing the crux of any of the arguments. I should also note that the point that Fluttershy uses to defend herself is something I've heard verbatim from fans as well. To be fair, it might just be because that reviewer doesn't respond to comments often in general. I remember Mr Enter in particular I gave a comment a while ago critiquing one of his reviews, and he never replied to me then, either. (Don't ask me what I was critiquing, it was well over a year ago so I've forgotten now lol) It's clear, though, that he reads criticisms, as he cites as much in his later videos. I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing the first sentence in this which is making the following sentences make no sense to me. Can you rephrase? Sorry. If I was to take a stab at it, you're saying that no one person can suggest that they're an authority on an episode, which I agree with. For sure. I will give Fame & Misfortune that credit: if nothing else, it's not boring. It's a discussion starter. For that reason alone, I'm glad it exists.

Now honestly, what would make you say such a thing?

But why must a critic apply theories for their criticism to be considered worthy of hearing and existing? And why are complaints of personal taste non-legitimate? Being bored of an episode, or saying that it isn't funny, is always a matter of personal taste since humor is primarily subjective, and yet such a thing can really hold back an episode when its primary focus is humor for someone. Misuse of terms does not necessarily mean that a view on an episode is inaccurate. There's actually a name for that claim - it's called the fallacy fallacy. That isn't to say that such lack of proper articulation shouldn't be critiqued, but that doing so by dismissing them entirely is not the way to go. A criticism still deserves to exist even if it's wrong, or it hasn't been articulated well. The best way to combat such criticism is to debate it respectfully. The problem with addressing them like this in the episode is that there is no dialogue going on here. There's no back and forth because the fans don't have a direct influence on the show, and thus can't write the dialogue for the ponies they're being represented by. Did I personally think that some criticisms they brought up were silly? Of course; I rolled my eyes, like many, at the complaints about Twilight Sparkle being an alicorn when they happened, because we had no idea how it would shift the status quo yet and people were being hasty in their judgments. But never would I suggest that the people who stated this concern didn't have a point behind it and that the people who held this concern were "looking at the show the wrong way", as this episode likes to insinuate they are. Being afraid of the unknown is a very common fear with humans, and that's exactly what was being reflected in those who were upset with the status quo being unraveled; there's a reason why it's an uncommon step for shows, and it can and has broken shows for people. Some people would argue that that fear was legitimized. I disagree, but just because I disagree, doesn't mean I think these people should be mocked for their point of view, even if they're not able to articulate it in a way that I can clearly understand. If nothing else, these opinions are nice for people to hear to get someone thinking, or to find someone who shares a similar opinion so they know they're not alone. Trying to stifle what people take away from the show can lead to a very dangerous echo chamber, which never bodes well in any community. (Also, perhaps I'm missing something, but is it really common for actual bronies to invade people's houses and create mobs around the staff at Hasbro?)

You have a good point! It's also clear that not all of the writers share the perspective the episode conveys, given that M.A. Larson had reservations about writing it, among other things, and Zeppelin came out afterward, I believe? I didn't keep up with the schedule of the episodes after season 5, so I'm a little behind and haven't watched all of them, correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

If that is how it sounds, then it's not the message I intend to convey. Let me rephrase. I'm saying that it is absolutely your choice to focus on the positive in bad episodes, and it would not be the wrong one; but conversely, it is not the wrong choice for other people to focus on those negatives in your stead. I don't believe an episode should be hated by everyone. I'm not in charge of other people's feelings, nor do I want to be. I'm just suggesting I have as much a right to my feelings as someone who disagrees with me. EDIT: To add onto this, if my feelings were that there's a wrong way to feel about this episode, then I would be a hypocrite, as it's the message of "they're just focusing on the wrong thing" that I have contention with.

And that's the part that I disagree with. There's no "wrong" thing to focus on in an episode. If you didn't want it to be talked about, you shouldn't have put it in the episode to begin with. There are a few bad episodes that I like certain aspects of. "The Mysterious Mare Do Well", for example, is an episode that I don't like. I do like, however, that it validates an aspect of Rainbow's character - more specifically, the scene where Rainbow said that she "hates being all alone". It further cemented Rainbow as an extrovert who cares a lot about her self image, which falls in line with her depiction in previous episodes but makes it fully realized and coalesced. Essentially, her character was "complete" thanks to that scene. It unfortunately made the actions of the rest of the M6 look worse by extension, but it was a really good moment in the episode. There's nothing wrong with wanting to focus on the positive aspects of an episode, but it doesn't invalidate saying that the bad parts of it outweigh the good.

I don't recall anywhere in DQ's post him suggesting that you shouldn't like the episode. He is explaining the unfortunate implications that can be gleaned from it, and why he thinks it doesn't deserve the good rep that it gets; that's not the same as saying that you shouldn't like it, as liking something is an entirely subjective experience. He's not forcing his opinion on other people by discussing it on a forum literally purposed for the sake of discussing the show. If anything, I think DQ would love to like this episode, as do most of us when we watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. We would adore to enjoy every episode that they put out, because it's not fun to watch an episode and then come out of it feeling dissatisfied. But that's how this episode made him, and me, feel after we watched it. We were dissatisfied and disappointed by it. We're only so harsh on this episode because we want and expect better from MLP. We're not doing this because we "hate" the show or we're not fans of it, we're doing it because we are fans of it and we want it to improve and move forward. The episode "Zeppelin" is much more in line of what we expect the show to do when it addresses fans. It has a far more tactful approach to critiquing fan behavior, without outright villainizing them and sounding condescending in the process. If you think MLP is the only work I look at with this critical eye, then you can guess again. Danny Phantom is another TV show I'm a huge fan of, that I was invested in for two seasons... But the third season really disappointed me and let me down; but it disappointed me and let me down because the first two seasons were just that damn good. The same thing applies here. Fame & Misfortune doesn't disappoint me because I feel like getting down on MLP, it disappoints me because MLP brought me amazing episodes such as Hurricane Fluttershy, Flight to the Finish, and the aforementioned Zeppelin. The writers CAN do better than this. I know they're capable of learning from their flaws, and I'm concerned that their idea of writing an episode based on pushing critics down will stifle MLP's growth as a show, which is a shame because that would prevent it from reaching greater heights than it's already achieved.

That's the main issue with this whole episode: if the episode was about what you're saying it is, about criticism in personal relationships and how they can get you down and you shouldn't feel down about having flaws, then what you're saying would be acceptable. But that's not what the episode is about. The episode is about targeting critics of the show. It's not here to teach a moral, it's here to suggest that the critics are taking the show the wrong way. You and I both know that's exactly what the episode was trying to say. It inherently has a mean-spirited edge, so much so that M.A. Larson, the writer of the episode, said that he was unhappy with writing it and knew that it would come off that way. If the writer himself knew that it would come off that way, maybe that should suggest to you that there are unfortunate implications behind it and the critics who are finding those implications aren't just looking for something to complain about. The very premise itself is the problem. Because it's based off of a false idea: that there is a wrong way to consume media. The moral is soured because of this, and it leads to a bunch of unfortunate implications. With fictional characters, it's actually great to love them because of their flaws, because it's what makes them realistic - thus, the song works in that context. But take it outside of that context, as you must for the target audience for this show, and that's where it all falls apart. You don't love real people because of their flaws, and there are some flaws that are absolutely inexcusable for people to have. This is not the case for fictional characters. It is a mistake to blur the line between the two like this, because what's acceptable for a fictional character to do may not be acceptable for a real person. Discord causing chaos in the show is hilarious and funny for us, and it's perfectly normal and expected for you to love him because of that. But if you knew him as a real person, you'd hate him. Certain villainous characters are fun to watch and them being villainous is amazing because it creates a conflict within the story, but in a real life setting they would absolutely deserve to be thrown straight into jail. Conversely, a character being rather kind and sweet and constantly maturing in real life would be the ideal that everyone should strive for, but in fiction it'd be boring to watch; Twilight Sparkle received a lot of heat for this, and although I don't agree with it, you can see where the concern comes from. This episode tries to apply criticisms of characters in a real world context when the two of them simply aren't equivalent, and that's what makes the moral have the horrible implications that it does.

I only really like the idea of Rarity getting into a canonical relationship, and only because she's sort of been teased multiple times to do so. That, and I think it'd be a good lesson to kids to have romance somewhat of the focus, since they'll inevitably have relationships if not a large part of their lives, then somewhere in the backdrop at least with their friends. It'd be especially interesting for there to be a moral on jealousy or third wheeling.

I don't ship it, and thus I don't find it cute. I also don't think the two of them are all that compatible, either. Rainbow's drive for competition would annoy Sonic (who, despite what people may believe, isn't competitive very often), and with Rainbow being the extrovert she is and Sonic having a tendency to pull disappearing acts, it would cause a lot of strain in their relationship. Sonic likes to be a free spirit, and Rainbow more so needs someone who's willing to dedicate time and attention to her, while at the same time understanding if she's busy due to her passions, and while Sonic could certainly fit the latter just fine, the former might be difficult for him. In other words, Sonic would have issues with commitment.

Pinkie Pie has a tendency to annoy me the most. It's not that I hate her, of course not, but I think she's relied on too much as a crutch to make an episode funny, to the point that they make her force jokes that just disrupt the mood and flow of the scene that she's in. I don't think it's so much a fault of her character, though, as it is the writers feeling obligated to insert humor where it doesn't need to be. This seems to be dying down more in recent seasons, so I can't complain much.

There's a little ripple in the air when he shoots off the rock at the time that I linked. It's most visible if you watch the water.

There is, actually. Sonic CD intro shows him breaking the sound barrier.