EQG Trashed In Otherwise Superb Article

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

http://blog.longreads.com/2015/01/28/friendship-is-complicated/

 

The blog is too long for me to just copy and paste. It's a long read, as the URL suggests.

 

I will, however, copy and paste my reaction to it, that I posted elsewhere, because it bears repeating. I "probably" come off a bit heated here, because I am. This has riled me up something fierce. 

 

 

 

I'm getting pretty sick of this Fox "News" caliber, yellow journalistic, ignorant, bashing of Equestria Girls, by people with agendas and preconceived narratives, who most likely haven't seen the movies and never will. It is a tragedy when an MLP fan chooses to abandon all facts and opportunities for the same open-mindedness that lead them to discover FiM. EQG is every bit as funny, charming, woman empowering, and goodhearted as FiM.

It's sad that someone can briefly glimpse EQG and describe it only as, "Twilight wears platform shoes and gets a crush on Flash Sentry." Flash is so minor, and irrelevant, and such a description leaves out absolutely everything else, like Twilight's internal struggle to cope with her new status in life, the fact that she's a princess on merit, rather than birth, the fact that the role of Fall Formal Princess holds actual substantive duties and responsibilities, the fact that the winner was a bookworm, and again won it on merit rather than looks. The ending was interesting, and the music was great. If you can look at all that, and cut out the 95%, and judge it based on the 5%, then you're cheating yourself and a perspective audience.

And I don't even know where to begin with Rainbow Rocks. EQG 1 was good, but RR was mind blowingly phenomenal. Everything from the story, the antagonists, the animation, the climax, the MUSIC, the MUSIC, and the MUSIC AGAIN, were far and away worth every moment of my time and money to see it in theaters amongst a room full of judgmental parents, and then again when I bought it on Blu Ray. And holy cow, that secret ending after the credits!!! Even many die hard EQG haters admitted to thoroughly loving RR. I also have to admit, the ending credits theme is such a profoundly beautiful articulation of their friendship. It's nothing short of poetry, so to see EQG written off so unfairly, so harshly, is an absolute slap in the face to Meghan McCarthy, Ishi Ruddell, Jayson Thiessen, and the rest of the FiM team who poured countless hours into making sure it was every bit as wonderful as FiM is, and the characters were entirely consistent.

I really hope the author of that article takes the time to actually sit down and watch EQG and RR, so she can formulate an intelligent, informed opinion. She did a great job talking about FiM, it's too bad she came off as stunningly wrongheaded as she did with EQG.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

In other words, you don't like facts but you love your opinions, so you'd rather articles only have your opinions instead of facts.

[ilcane87 72]

In other words, you don't like facts but you love your opinions, so you'd rather articles only have your opinions instead of facts.

Ever thought of, you know, actually addressing the points he made, instead of dismissing his whole post (which, unlike yours, is well thought out and does a very good job at countering the opposite arguments), just because you disagree with him?

 

To be honest, you should take your own advice.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

Ever thought of, you know, actually addressing the points he made, instead of dismissing his whole post (which, unlike yours, is well thought out and does a very good job at countering the opposite arguments), just because you disagree with him?

 

To be honest, you should take your own advice.

The points he made are already addressed in the article by virtue of the fact that all the factual claims he makes are simply untrue and he's only denying the claims of the article based on his opinions.

 

It's totally okay to enjoy something that's terrible, but you can't say everyone pointing out it's terrible is ignorant and dishonest, then not expect to get called out on your own crap.

[ilcane87 72]

The points he made are already addressed in the article by virtue of the fact that all the factual claims he makes are simply untrue and he's only denying the claims of the article based on his opinions.

 

It's totally okay to enjoy something that's terrible, but you can't say everyone pointing out it's terrible is ignorant and dishonest, then not expect to get called out on your own crap.

So, let's learn how to discuss, one step at a time.

 

Elaborate on the bold parts, unless you want to keep doing the very thing you're accusing him of.

[Cleverclover 1,526]

As someone who has watched both Equestria Girls films more than once, I can honestly say that there are indeed very legitimate reasons to criticize the franchise. To name one just off the top of my head, they're filled with utterly ridiculous contrivance (a car that transforms into a fully functional sound system? Sure, why not?). 

 

Believe it or not, Rainbow Rocks is actually my least favorite of the two. It's not saying much, since I don't particularly enjoy either one, but I like the first film just a bit better. Sure, I like Sunset Shimmer's characterization as much as the next guy, but the problem is that she honestly ends up the only character I give a damn about throughout the whole movie. The humane five continue to serve as lousy replacements for the mane five, and yet again, I'm reminded that I would probably enjoy these movies so much more if Twilight's actual friends were allowed to be apart of them. 

 

Meanwhile, of course, Twilight struggles with the fact that she actually sucks at writing at counterspell, which honestly comes off as a legitimate shock to me, considering that earlier I just watched her single-hoofedly construct a makeshift machine around the portal to get it working again in no time at all, an act that most surely would have required a level of mechanical genius that Twilight has never been shown to have. But now I'm suddenly expected to believe that she would actually suck at writing a spell, even with her proficiency in the study of magic? Uh huh, sure...

 

Furthermore, what fails even more about this is the fact that we're not given any insight whatsoever to Twilight's thought process as she attempts to write the spell. Perhaps if we knew what she was thinking and why she was writing whatever she was writing, we'd at least understand why she's struggling. But that doesn't happen. All that we really know for sure is that she doesn't seem have the slightest idea of what she's doing. However, given the fact that she was still legitimately surprised that she ultimately failed to write the spell, it simply seems that Twilight thought that she was going to succeed for no other reason than because she actually believes that she is unable to fail. Yes, that's right. Twilight herself actually believes that she's perfect. At least that's what I'm taking away from it. 

 

I also dislike Rainbow Rocks more because of its blatant brony pandering and fandom references. While I would much rather see that stuff in these films than in the actual show, I can't help but feel they're a huge contributing factor as to why people love Rainbow Rocks so much. Unfortunately, that just doesn't do it for me. I'm not exactly going crazy over the confirmation that Octavia actually has a British accent or that Maud Pie (a character who I did not even like in her first appearance) made a cameo. 

 

Anyway, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Equestria Girls films are bad, but I simply find them to be average at best. At the very least, I would watch them for the music alone, because that's one of the only things I actually do enjoy about them. 

Edited February 3, 2015 by Cleverclover

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

The thing is, Clover, all those points you raised were genuine criticisms from someone who has obviously seen the movies, and while I'm sure I disagree with you in many ways, your informed opinion is your own, and by making specific points you're already putting yourself in a far better position. The author, however, makes absurdly false statements, the nature of which could only be made by someone with third hand information about the movies, probably from a position of confirmation bias, and come off as a total presumption.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

The thing is, Clover, all those points you raised were genuine criticisms from someone who has obviously seen the movies, and while I'm sure I disagree with you in many ways, your informed opinion is your own, and by making specific points you're already putting yourself in a far better position. The author, however, makes absurdly false statements, the nature of which could only be made by someone with third hand information about the movies, probably from a position of confirmation bias, and come off as a total presumption.

So now you're actually asserting that you know the writer hasn't seen the movies. And according to your first post, this is solely because he doesn't love the films like you do.

If you're actually willing to accept criticism like Clover's, then how about giving some sort of factual reason behind your accusations?

[Cleverclover 1,526]

The thing is, Clover, all those points you raised were genuine criticisms from someone who has obviously seen the movies, and while I'm sure I disagree with you in many ways, your informed opinion is your own, and by making specific points you're already putting yourself in a far better position. The author, however, makes absurdly false statements, the nature of which could only be made by someone with third hand information about the movies, probably from a position of confirmation bias, and come off as a total presumption.

 

To be quite fair, it honestly seems to me that the writer of the article is against Equestria Girls mostly due to how it apparently glorifies overly skinny, fashionable, and attractive girls as being the ideal teenage girl, and she applies this criticism to Monster High as well. Personally, I can agree with that assessment. 

 

Should she have done a bit more research on Equestria Girls before writing this article? Perhaps. But even if she had sat down and watched both films, I honestly don't think her opinions would be any different. Because at the end of the day, her criticisms aren't stemming from the plot of the films. They're focused on the aesthetics of the designs of its characters, and how the designers seem to bend over backwards to make them appear visually flawless to girls, possibly instilling a desire from within themselves to strive to be as flawless as they are.  

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

To be quite fair, it honestly seems to me that the writer of the article is against Equestria Girls mostly due to how it apparently glorifies overly skinny, fashionable, and attractive girls as being the ideal teenage girl, and she applies this criticism to Monster High as well. Personally, I can agree with that assessment.

 

Should she have done a bit more research on Equestria Girls before writing this article? Perhaps. But even if she had sat down and watched both films, I honestly don't think her opinions would be any different. Because at the end of the day, her criticisms aren't stemming from the plot of the films. They're focused on the aesthetics of the designs of its characters, and how the designers seem to bend over backwards to make them appear visually flawless to girls, possibly instilling a desire from within themselves to strive to be as flawless as they are.

If one were to look at MH, yes, it would be fair to say what she said. The author is taking everything that completely applies to MH and putting it on EQG, as if it was compatible, because she can't be bothered to actually watch EQG and RR to know they're light years apart. She takes what she knows of the former, and presumes it also applies to the latter. The main focus of the two franchises aren't anything alike. With EQG you can see the attention to detail, the depth of plot and character, the effort put in to the music, and to develop the characters. Even if you don't like EQG, you can't reasonably say the focus is "1000% about status and make up", or however she phrased it. If that's her observation of the movie, then it's just factually incorrect, and ignores absolutely everything else that was in the movie. It would be like if I was observing a cat, and described it as having spines and 8 legs. That's not my opinion of the cat, that's just factually incorrect. The author shows her ignorance of the series through this, as well as saying things like, "the ponies go through the mirror", while we all know it was just Twilight. If she'd seen EQG, she'd know that. Then to write off the entire first movie as "Twilight becomes an ultra skinny teenager in platform shoes and gets a crush" is either intentionally deceptive to add to her narrative, or again, completely ignorant of the actual nature of the movie.

 

To compare MH with EQG is to say that the ocean and a piece of paper are the same, because they both appear flat. While it may be an apt description for one (MH) it certainly isn't for the other (EQG).

Edited February 3, 2015 by EquestriaGuy

[Misty Shadow 7,902]

I skimmed through the article. My opinion is that I do not like it, and I do not believe that she actually watched Equestria Girls.

 

...

 

Yeah, that's all I really have to say.

 

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

@Clover

 

Let me just add this. As with FiM, it's the strength of the characters that define them, not their body shape or what they're wearing. When you have a strong personality, that is what's absorbed and remembered. If EQG was devoid of this, if the mane 6 suddenly weren't exactly who they are in FiM, and there was a void, then yes, that void would be filled by that which would be the only possible thing anyone could take away, body shape and fashion, because that would be all that is present in such a movie. I'll stand in probable agreement with you that this is most likely the case with MH, and worse yet INTENTIONALLY so, but with EQG that is neither the intent nor what projects first and foremost from the screen.

Edited February 3, 2015 by EquestriaGuy

[Dulset Tarn 441]

If one were to look at MH, yes, it would be fair to say what she said. The author is taking everything that completely applies to MH and putting it on EQG, as if it was compatible, because she can't be bothered to actually watch EQG and RR to know they're light years apart. She takes what she knows of the former, and presumes it also applies to the latter. The main focus of the two franchises aren't anything alike. With EQG you can see the attention to detail, the depth of plot and character, the effort put in to the music, and to develop the characters. Even if you don't like EQG, you can't reasonably say the focus is "1000% about status and make up", or however she phrased it. If that's her observation of the movie, then it's just factually incorrect, and ignores absolutely everything else that was in the movie. It would be like if I was observing a cat, and described it as having spines and 8 legs. That's not my opinion of the cat, that's just factually incorrect. The author shows her ignorance of the series through this, as well as saying things like, "the ponies go through the mirror", while we all know it was just Twilight. If she'd seen EQG, she'd know that. Then to write off the entire first movie as "Twilight becomes an ultra skinny teenager in platform shoes and gets a crush" is either intentionally deceptive to add to her narrative, or again, completely ignorant of the actual nature of the movie.

 

To compare MH with EQG is to say that the ocean and a piece of paper are the same, because they both appear flat. While it may be an apt description for one (MH) it certainly isn't for the other (EQG).

So you have no actual basis for your accusations, you just accuse the author of not having watched the movies because you personally disagree about the quality.

[Cleverclover 1,526]

 

 

To compare MH with EQG is to say that the ocean and a piece of paper are the same, because they both appear flat. While it may be an apt description for one (MH) it certainly isn't for the other (EQG).

 

True, but still, it's not as though a reasonable comparison can't be made, particularly since EQG was indeed meant to be Hasbro's answer to MH. Also, I have to ask, have you ever watched any of the Monster High films or specials? I never have personally, yet I'm somewhat inclined to think that they're really not so different after all, aside from the one obvious difference that sets them apart, of course. 

 

So you have no actual basis for your accusations, you just accuse the author of not having watched the movies because you personally disagree about the quality.

 

Please stop being so hostile. There's no reason for it. 

[Dulset Tarn 441]

Please stop being so hostile. There's no reason for it. 

There's every reason for it. His entire claim is that the author hasn't seen the films, which he's certain of because the facts cited by the author don't line up with his opinions about Equestria Girls. He's literally just saying "This guy disagrees with me, therefore he's unethical". It needs to be called out.

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

True, but still, it's not as though a reasonable comparison can't be made, particularly since EQG was indeed meant to be Hasbro's answer to MH. Also, I have to ask, have you ever watched any of the Monster High films or specials? I never have personally, yet I'm somewhat inclined to think that they're really not so different after all, aside from the one obvious difference that sets them apart, of course. 

 

Nah, no way, lol. Like you I haven't seen MH.

 

If there's anyone here who can vouch for it as having actual substance, and not how most of us perceive and summarily dismiss it as a superficial, 22 minute commercial for the toys, please enlighten us. Otherwise, I just consider it in the same league as everything else marketed to girls. I picture a cloud of anti intellectualism, boys, and relegating females to stereotypical roles. 

 

edit: Let me proactively counter the likely response here. MH doesn't star a cast of characters I'm already intimately familiar with, or is made by an animation team that has changed the face of girl's animation, so I haven't borne any obligation to have seen it. The author has no such excuse. She knows it stars the same characters she was just extolling over several paragraphs, and written, voiced, composed, and animated by the same people who have won over the hearts and loyalty of millions, and yet because of whatever personal agenda drives her, suddenly that accounts for nothing, and for some reason she can inexplicably write EQG off as easily as you or I would MH. That takes an incomprehensible amount of cognitive dissonance. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by EquestriaGuy

[cuteycindyhoney 13,307]

I really like Equestria Girls, and downright LOVE Rainbow Rocks, but I saw nothing wrong with the analysis of the decisions behind creating the films. I thought the article to be very insightful. Truthfully now. Did anyone look at the character designs and not know they were aiming at the Monster High audience? (With a little Bratz Dolls thrown in for good measure)    

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

I really like Equestria Girls, and downright LOVE Rainbow Rocks, but I saw nothing wrong with the analysis of the decisions behind creating the films. I thought the article to be very insightful. Truthfully now. Did anyone look at the character designs and not know they were aiming at the Monster High audience? (With a little Bratz Dolls thrown in for good measure)    

Oh the reason for creating EQG is probably exactly as stated, to break into the MH audience. My chief complaint is that without having seen EQG or RR, despite knowing it stars the same characters and developed by the same studio, she writes it off using the same terms one would to describe MH, and in so doing comes off absurdly offbase, and doing an injustice to the EQG IP. 

[Dulset Tarn 441]

Oh the reason for creating EQG is probably exactly as stated, to break into the MH audience. My chief complaint is that without having seen EQG or RR, despite knowing it stars the same characters and developed by the same studio, she writes it off using the same terms one would to describe MH, and in so doing comes off absurdly offbase, and doing an injustice to the EQG IP. 

Your chief complaint is a lie you made up.

[KatonRyu 1,033]

So you have no actual basis for your accusations, you just accuse the author of not having watched the movies because you personally disagree about the quality.

 

Well, the article does say that EQG is one thousand percent about changing clothes and combing hair, which no matter how you look at is a factual error. That, at the very least, forms a basis for accusations.

 

Looking past the numerous tangents in the article about MH and marketing, nothing in-depth is said about EQG at all, and what is said is either wrong (all about clothes etc.) or a very minor part of the movie (Twilight and Flash). So if one were to conclude that the writer of the article has a case of confirmation bias when it comes to comparing EQG to MH you'd be correct.

 

However, the things said about EQG aren't really all that negative; the clearest opinion it seems to give is 'it's shallower and less interesting than FiM.' This is actually a sentiment I agree with. (I'm leaving RR out of this because the article, despite featuring an RR clip, does not talk about RR at all.)

It's nice to see that EQG is so passionately defended here but I do think the reaction is a bit excessive considering the tone of the article. (Not saying it to offend anyone)

[SilverStarApple 849]

It's pretty freaking obvious this person didn't actually see these films, they're just dancing badly to the tune of their corporate sponsors. "Movies cause body isseus! Video games cause vielence!" and all that crap.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

You know, the article even helped me realize something. I was actually really skeptical when it mentioned the whole "sex sells" sentiment in regards to Equestria Girls, like really? But it actually makes a good point. Flash Sentry, no matter how small a role he plays, is only there to check off the "love interest" checkbox on the corporate shill checklist. The story and development wouldn't be the least bit different without him, but they needed to shoehorn "romance" in there somewhere, no matter how foreign to the entire series it is. If the "sex sells" sentiment were truly absent from the development, there would undoubtedly be no Flash Sentry at all.

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

You know, the article even helped me realize something. I was actually really skeptical when it mentioned the whole "sex sells" sentiment in regards to Equestria Girls, like really? But it actually makes a good point. Flash Sentry, no matter how small a role he plays, is only there to check off the "love interest" checkbox on the corporate shill checklist. The story and development wouldn't be the least bit different without him, but they needed to shoehorn "romance" in there somewhere, no matter how foreign to the entire series it is. If the "sex sells" sentiment were truly absent from the development, there would undoubtedly be no Flash Sentry at all.

That I can agree with, though I do have to give DHX credit for their execution, if he was mandated to be in there. He was played off comedically, and generally unimportant, which lets them keep the focus on the story. They made the best of what might have been a bad situation. Is rather them turn him into a major joke than actually try to force in a romance and fail. Twilight has this whole googoo eyes, puppy love crush, which is as funny and at the same time serious as I'd like it to get.

[Dulset Tarn 441]

That I can agree with, though I do have to give DHX credit for their execution, if he was mandated to be in there. He was played off comedically, and generally unimportant, which lets them keep the focus on the story. They made the best of what might have been a bad situation. Is rather them turn him into a major joke than actually try to force in a romance and fail. Twilight has this whole googoo eyes, puppy love crush, which is as funny and at the same time serious as I'd like it to get.

Lack of effort, lack of commitment.