Does anyone else think G3 is underrated?

[Chocolate Dream 35]

The thing is that, during G3, MLP's focus was not the shows and movies. The shows and movies were simply an afterthought to the toys - an extension to the merchandise usually, not even a free-standing product. For example, you'd buy a Sparkleworks plushie and it would come with some random videotape. It wasn't something that was really taken seriously. Therefore, I judge G3 like 80% on the toys and 20% on the show.

 

I think G3 toys are much cooler than G4 toys. G3 toys had many different poses for the figures and didn't rely on using the same mold for every singly pony. They also seemed to have more intricate cutie marks, body designs, eyes, and facial expressions. Plus, there were so many different characters to pick from! They repeated a few popular ponies (like Pinkie Pie, Minty, Toola Loolra etc), but that was rare. They constantly came out with new characters and each had cool little biographies on the back of the box. My sister and I loved those toys so much when we were younger, and I still collect them. I collect G4 too - I think they're cute, but their designs seem to be weaker than G3.

 

And as far as the shows? Keep in mind they were targeting very, very young girls aged approximately 2-10. I agree that they could have been less stereotypical in their character portrayals, but I'm not surprised that they didn't... they were obviously trying to sell to a different kind of girl than they try to sell to now. The demographic for FiM is still girls, but it's now aimed at a wider age range of girls, evident by the more complex nature of the show. And once again, it almost seems pointless to compare the shows since the shows were not the priority of G3 (I can't stress this enough!).

 

It was just a different type of show because of that. I don't think "different from FiM" necessarily means "worse than FiM."  I enjoyed G3 for what it was, and I still can watch it and smile today when I'm in the mood for it. G3 is light, fluffy, super girly... It has a different feel, but it's not bad.

 

Watching G3 is like eating a bag of cotton candy, and watching G4 is like eating a robust breakfast. A robust breakfast is healthier, and given the choice, I will usually eat the robust breakfast... but sometimes I just want to shove cotton candy in my face, you know?

Can someone just give this post a gold star? 

[Envy 6,049]

All I can tell you is that my inner child hated this kind of stuff, he needed some form of violence to find something appealing, heck when I was younger I remember specifically preferring swords to guns. So no for me no matter what way I look at it G3 is and always will be a steaming pile of horses**t(pun intended).

 

G3 was never meant to appeal to you as a violence-loving young boy. It was intended to appeal to little girls.

 

Just because something doesn't/didn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it's a "steaming pile of horses**t" especially when it was never made to appeal to you in the first place, darling.

 

(teehee, see what I did there?)

[chirox the pony 1,334]

G3 was never meant to appeal to you as a violence-loving young boy. It was intended to appeal to little girls.

 

Just because something doesn't/didn't appeal to you doesn't mean that it's a "steaming pile of horses**t" especially when it was never made to appeal to you in the first place, darling.

 

(teehee, see what I did there?)

And obviously you did not notice the line "so no FOR ME" I acknowledged that it was not made for me, all I was trying to say is that the "child in you" argument won't account for everyone. And no I don't get the darling thing, is it a G3 thing?

[Envy 6,049]

And obviously you did not notice the line "so no FOR ME" I acknowledged that it was not made for me, all I was trying to say is that the "child in you" argument won't account for everyone. And no I don't get the darling thing, is it a G3 thing?

 

It's just when you call it a "steaming pile of horses**t" you're tossing the respectable "it's just not for me" opinion out the window. Calling something "s**t" or "garbage" is essentially saying that it's bad altogether, cancelling out the "it's just not for me" opinion.

 

Yes, "darling" is G3 Rainbow Dash's catchphrase.

[chirox the pony 1,334]

It's just when you call it a "steaming pile of horses**t" you're tossing the respectable "it's just not for me" opinion out the window. Calling something "s**t" or "garbage" is essentially saying that it's bad altogether, cancelling out the "it's just not for me" opinion.

 

Yes, "darling" is G3 Rainbow Dash's catchphrase.

Taking that into account I decided to edit the post.

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Nup

I think it's appropriately rated, given the content it held

[ShadowPirateX 600]

You kidding? G3 and G3.5 were both horrible for several reasons! I don't see it as underrated in any way!

[Wayzer 1,418]

Sorry but no I don't think it's underrated. It's just the complete lack of a plot. It's all cut out flat as paperboard characters. If any season would be underrated it's possibly G1

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

But we humans want to be pandered to. We want people telling us we are always right. We want everything to go our way. And we are suckers for whatever junk can pander to our desires (and I'm definitely no exception to the rule). But pandering to little girls can't be the worst kind in the world. And either way, G3 is done and over, and Michael Bay's reign of terror still continues. 

 

 

 

That's exactly the problem! The problem with G3, the problem with Bay, the problem with television, media, the problem with society as a whole. Shameless pandering, and the fact that it's a viable way to make money, is a horrible, horrible thing. No, I don't ever congratulate a piece of media just because it tells me what I want to hear, or by extension, for telling anyone else what they want to hear either.

 

The best stories are challenging. And by that, I don't mean convoluted or overly complicated. I mean they force us, the viewers, out of our comfort zones and give us something that we did not want, or at least weren't expecting. Good media is also structured, paced, and planned. It's made with creativity, effort, and love. It is NOT just giving viewers utter fluff and not giving a damn as long as it bumps your bottom line. To hell with that mentality, and all that it has ever spawned.

 

I would sooner watch Joyeux Noel 100,000 times simply because it's a good, fascinating movie than ever lay eyes on another Michael Bay robot explosion, or Seth MacFarlene circlejerk, or G3 pink parade again.

[Stancet 677]

 

That's exactly the problem! The problem with G3, the problem with Bay, the problem with television, media, the problem with society as a whole. Shameless pandering, and the fact that it's a viable way to make money, is a horrible, horrible thing. No, I don't ever congratulate a piece of media just because it tells me what I want to hear, or by extension, for telling anyone else what they want to hear either.

 

The best stories are challenging. And by that, I don't mean convoluted or overly complicated. I mean they force us, the viewers, out of our comfort zones and give us something that we did not want, or at least weren't expecting. Good media is also structured, paced, and planned. It's made with creativity, effort, and love. It is NOT just giving viewers utter fluff and not giving a damn as long as it bumps your bottom line. To hell with that mentality, and all that it has ever spawned.

 

I would sooner watch Joyeux Noel 100,000 times simply because it's a good, fascinating movie than ever lay eyes on another Michael Bay robot explosion, or Seth MacFarlene circlejerk, or G3 pink parade again.

I'm not trying to sound like a hypocrite, but I agree you're right. But from the way I look at it, Joyeux Noel is a great movie. I love it to death. Every idea challenged in that movie is something I agree with. Do I like it because it agrees with things I believe? Definitely. Does that make it pandering? It could, depending on how you look at it. I'm not trying to be disagreeable but I'm just trying to say that good media is definitely more than just pandering like you said.

[ShadowPirateX 600]

 

That's exactly the problem! The problem with G3, the problem with Bay, the problem with television, media, the problem with society as a whole. Shameless pandering, and the fact that it's a viable way to make money, is a horrible, horrible thing. No, I don't ever congratulate a piece of media just because it tells me what I want to hear, or by extension, for telling anyone else what they want to hear either.

 

The best stories are challenging. And by that, I don't mean convoluted or overly complicated. I mean they force us, the viewers, out of our comfort zones and give us something that we did not want, or at least weren't expecting. Good media is also structured, paced, and planned. It's made with creativity, effort, and love. It is NOT just giving viewers utter fluff and not giving a damn as long as it bumps your bottom line. To hell with that mentality, and all that it has ever spawned.

 

I would sooner watch Joyeux Noel 100,000 times simply because it's a good, fascinating movie than ever lay eyes on another Michael Bay robot explosion, or Seth MacFarlene circlejerk, or G3 pink parade again.

Isn't it a bit wrong to put Michael Bay in the panderizing category? Cuz' according to 90% of the Transformers fanbase he does excactly what they don't want him to do. (Personally, I'm among the 10% who likes what he does)

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

I'm not trying to sound like a hypocrite, but I agree you're right. But from the way I look at it, Joyeux Noel is a great movie. I love it to death. Every idea challenged in that movie is something I agree with. Do I like it because it agrees with things I believe? Definitely. Does that make it pandering? It could, depending on how you look at it. I'm not trying to be disagreeable but I'm just trying to say that good media is definitely more than just pandering like you said.

 

This is a good explanation of pandering. It isn't just being able to agree on something, it's when it manufactures a message to be as agreeable as possible with no substance whatsoever. With Joyeux Noel, sure, we can all agree with the point that war is bad, but it's the way the point is presented that makes it so fascinating. It's a movie about a fragile peace, and how it happened in the middle of one of the most bloody, barbaric wars in human history.

 

It's not so much challenging in its idea that peace is good, more in its feasibility. It begs the question that if British, German, and French soldiers in WW1 can just spontaneously throw down their arms, walk out into no-man's land, and celebrate Christmas, then why can't the rest of the world get along? It's a golden question that fascinates and challenges the viewer.

 

Yes, it offers up a few of its own answers (politics, nationalism, etc.), but at the end of the day, the message is left open enough to make it clear that there is no one, singular answer, and certainly no simple answer. It treats its complex subject matter with respect, and leaves the audience richer and wiser for having seen it.

 

(And BTW, your taste in underrated masterpieces made me very happy. Almost no one else I talk to has even heard of the film, let alone seen it. )

[Stancet 677]

 

 

(And BTW, your taste in underrated masterpieces made me very happy. Almost no one else I talk to has even heard of the film, let alone seen it. )

 

 

I heard of the movie a couple months ago from the Nostalgia Critic. I heard it was based on true events and did my research. You see, I HATE war. It is unbelievable that soldiers threw down their arms like that. It almost makes me cry that the truce didn't last.

[Paleopony 691]

I don’t think it’s as bad as some bronies say it is but it’s not a masterpiece either, that’s for sure.

[Cash In 21,729]

Eh, it's okay. I can appreciate it more now than I did as a kid because how how far we've come, but I wouldn't give it more than that.