Are bronies too hard on G3 MLP?

[Miles 2,512]

Holy Cow.  Where do I even begin, lol...

 

Alright.  Before I get into even answering the question, there is something that I have to make clear.

Contradictions do not always make a person's argument invalid... because sometimes what you may see as an actual contradiction, might be something that the person is capable of further explaining in such a way that shows how his viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.

 

Here is an example using two situations:

"I hate [it] and I love [it] ." (Or, "I dislike [it] and I like [it].")

Versus,

"I know that [it] sucks, and is dull, and lacking... but I like it anyways." (Or "love it," either way).

 

Only one of these contains a contradiction.  Though, it's up to you to decide if you think validity is lost from it.  Anyway, I'm only making this point as a kind of disclaimer to my opinion on G3 ponies...

 

---

 

G3 MLP is not a good show.  It's lackluster.  Annnd... It's vaguely nearing what some might think of as borderline creepy.

I like G3 MLP.  Now, I don't watch it much; in fact, I've only seen a few episodes.  But I like it.  I like it literally because of it's low quality.  I find entertainment in some of the awkward humor.

Yah, that's kinda weird of me.  I know.  So what.    

 

---

 

Moving on, there are some things I just really have to say about some of the hardcore critiquing going on here...

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 3:42 PM, Old King Q said:

[1]
Honestly, too many are too soft on G3. Except G3.5, G3 is an example of blatant pandering to little girls. Little to no genuine conflict. One-dimensional stereotypes. Little to no sense of pacing. You know the rest. The G3 specials treat girls as if they're stupid. Girls love genuine conflict, three-dimensional characters that they can look up to, and great stories.

 

The reason many people believe they're hard on G3 is because G3 "really is for little kids," and that you should relax and not think so much when enjoying it. There's a term for this: turning off the brain. It doesn't matter if it's once in a while or always. The second someone turns off the brain or doesn't need to use the brain to know what a character does and acts, then you're admitting the quality sucks and proving my main thesis in my rant. Good stories should have depth and help make people think. Making people think and analyze treats the audience, especially kids, with respect.

 

Often, Friendship Is Magic produces quality content that makes people think and relate to the character, and the conflicts are often very real. G3 never does that. Faust and DHX fought against this ageist stigma when producing FIM, and it's time to call that out more.

 

[2]

Why should we accept it as is? G3 demonstrated how not to write feminine content. If we don't criticize it, then you're sending a message to the animation industry that you tolerate this content. There wasn't much family-friendly-quality feminine content then, and there isn't now despite FIM's and Littlest Pet Shop's successes.

 

[3]

As said earlier, the second you admit that you don't need to think deeply into the content, then there are serious problems with the content. Some of the best "children's" content always has both kids and adults enjoying it without having to turn off the mind. All-ages, gender-neutral, family-friendly entertainment is the type of product we need as both bronies and fans of quality animation. FIM's main series — not EQG — has this. Pixar has this. Steven Universe has this. This is something we should strive for: criticize the faults so no one else makes these same mistakes.

 

Are there worse out there? Definitely. Many of Nickelodeon's cartoons are more repulsive in every regard. But it doesn't make G3 any better.

 

1.  You're not a little girl.  You have no right to define what they like.  They do.  I bet there are plenty of little girls who are smart enough to understand that the show is slightly one dimensional, doesn't have much conflict, and that it is aimed at them but with obvious stereotypical over-femininity.  And even if a little girl didn't know that, there is nothing wrong with her liking the show.  

 

Oh and guess what?  Your "turning off the brain" argument, as well as your argument against using "it's for kids/for little girls" is forgetting about something.

You are arguing against other people using it as an excuse (for lesser quality or whatever).

But what about people who use it as a legitimate reason to watch the show?  What about people who legitimately want to watch a show meant for little girls because they want to relax?  

 

2. You should accept it as it is because it is something that has already happened and is unchangeable.  G3 MLP is done.  Over with.  No more production.  G4 (FIM) is in production.  And it's obviously much better than G3 was.  (But to be honest, I don't really care about this [point 2], as much as I care about points 1 and 3).

3. Sure, it's possible that when "you don't need to think deeply into the content" that there could be "serious problems with the content."  But, there could also be serious problems with the content even if the content is able to make you think deeply.

Therefore, just because something doesn't make you think deeply, that doesn't necessitate any problems with it.  And just because something does make you think deeply, that doesn't mean there aren't any problems with it.

 

Also, I think the biggest issue I have with your argument is this:

"This is something we should strive for: criticize the faults so no one else makes these same mistakes." - (taken directly from your above quote).

Why is this my biggest issue? 

 

Not everyone agrees that these "mistakes" are mistakes.  And then, not everyone who does think they are mistakes wants to get rid of them.  Some people like to watch a show literally for the sake of the show's lesser quality.  They don't want change.  They don't want to get rid of the corny, one-dimensional, overly stereotypical, blablabla [insert whatever other trait they like that subtracts from the show's quality].  

 

Anyway, the point is... you are incorrect in thinking you can just express objectively that there is a problem with low quality shows having low quality.  There is very much an audience out there who sit down to watch a show with the intention of being able to relax ("turn off the brain").  Therefore, you cannot objectively say that there is anything wrong with low quality shows in and of themselves.  And, you can't argue against someone who uses "it's for kids/little girls" as a reason to watch the show in the first place, because that is not the same thing as trying to use it as an excuse for low quality (when low quality is not wanted).

---

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 6:17 PM, Old King Q said:

[1]
Cartoons are always serious business, and they should be treated seriously.

 

Why?

 

People deserve good quality content. This is especially the case with children; they're much more intelligent than most of us think, but they're also highly influenced on the surroundings. What they watch on TV is no exception. Good family cartoons help produce intelligent minds. Bad family cartoons don't. If kids watch and enjoy crap as kids, chances are they'll watch and enjoy crap as adults.

 

[2]

If you want your argument to look solid, never use blatant loaded questions. A lot of people like myself hate G3 because it helped perpetuate the "animation is for kids" stereotype and stigma of MLP as a sexist franchise. MLP was originally a unisex franchise for all ages; G1 (not Tales) poorly aged, but still holds up to Zacherle's visions. Tales, G3, and G3.5 don't with the stereotypes they enforce and embrace. G4/FIM revived Zacherle's roots in their animation.

 

[3]

This mindset never works. If people don't like it, then they deserve to voice those criticisms. If the product is terrible, then they shouldn't hold back and verbally tear apart the content. If the content doesn't respect the consumer, why should the consumer respect the content in return? G3 doesn't respect me as a consumer and doesn't respect kids. So it doesn't deserve respect back.

 

Like I said earlier, ignoring it or handwaving it translates to both tolerating it and implying to the writers that offensive content is okay to publish. This blasé attitude is one reason bad cartoons are churned out. Kids have voices, but they need help. That's why respectable adults, parents, and teens are often very critical and picky of them; cartoon characters can become as big a role model to kids as their parents. Analyzing why bad cartoons are bad, why good cartoons are good, and being very critical about the content keep the industry honest. Otherwise, there's no quality control.

 

As what @@paradoxical said, kids are our future. There needs to be really strict standards of quality. Separating the good from the bad is the adults' responsibilities.

 

 

1. Lemme tell you something, Q...

I sometimes watched crap as a kid, and liked it.  I'm now an adult, and albeit not everything I watch is crap (of course FIM is the opposite of crap), I still can sit down and enjoy watching some good ol' crap.  

So what exactly are you meaning when you say that (the underlined portion in your quote)?  Are you trying to say that watching crap makes people stupid?

I graduated high school with a 4.05 GPA out of 4.0 - yep, that's right.  With weighted and dual credit courses I was able to get above a 4.0.  Albeit, not by much.  And I wasn't valedictorian or salutatorian or anything; I think they had something closer to 4.2 or 4.3, but I don't remember for sure as it was 2 years ago.  I mean, I ranked 6th in my class, which ain't saying too much, I know, but I think I at least deserve some respect as to be allowed to call myself at least moderately smart... And right now in college, as I am in my 4th semester (meaning I'm a sophomore), my GPA is 3.87.

So, I'm gonna repeat something here:

I sometimes watched crap as a kid, and liked it; I sometimes watch crap now as an adult and like it.

So when you say "Cartoons are always serious business, and they should be treated seriously"...  You are wrong.  Because I'm gonna tell you right now that I know a boatload of people who like to watch "dumb shows" or "crappy shows" (including cartoons) literally for the sake of them being dumb shows - because they like that.

Mind you, I have of course taken this beyond talking about G3 ponies.  I know.  But so have you.  You incorrectly assume that everyone deserves to have shows that are not crap.  

There is no reason at all for you feel obligated to make sure that all shows have high quality.  Especially when there are people who are directly against that because they like lesser quality shows.

Please, let the writers of low quality shows do what they will.  If you want something to critique in order to make it better, critique what is already good to make it even better.

---

2.  Seriously?    You gotta be kidding me,  Q.  
 

  On 2015-02-06 at 5:44 PM, Destiny said:

I think so. Generation 3 is certainly not outstanding by many means, but it's certainly not the worst thing ever. At most, it's simply forgettable. Perhaps some bronies hate on G3 because they don't want to admit fully that they like MLP? Or to make Friendship is Magic seem better in the eyes of people who don't particularly like it?

"Oh yeah, hah. I like Friendship is Magic. But no, I don't like My Little Pony. Generation 3 absolute trash. Now Friendship is Magic, on the other hand..."

 

Destiny, don't listen to him.  Believe me, your questions are 100% valid, and especially because you didn't say that "all" of the bronies who hate on G3 may do that, but you said "some" - hence, I bolded, underlined, and italicized it there in your quote for you, so that Old King Q could see it  ...  Besides, you weren't arguing, you were offering valid points as suggestions, just like you said:

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 7:20 PM, Destiny said:

I wasn't arguing, actually. I was simply making a suggestion.

 

And they were great suggestions that may be true for a number of people.   

---

3. Old King Q, I have no problem with you criticizing G3 ponies.  You are entitled to your own opinion just like everyone.  I'm fine with the fact that you think G3 disrespects you and disrespects kids.  But a problem occurs when you try to declare yourself as objectively correct, when the fact is, it's subjective.  The red text I disagree with, but I've already talked about that, so I'll just let it be.  But anyways, the part of your quote in blue I am okay with, and pretty much agree with.

~ Miles

[SteveMorison 404]

There's a difference between being a show for kids and being a show for toddlers. G3 MLP falls into the latter category, and I bet that many of the flaws that get G3 the hate it does are also present in several popular and successful toddler shows, such as the ones mentioned in my previous post. That doesn't necessarily make it right, but if 3 year old girls enjoy the show, then it has suceeded with it's purpose, end of story.

[Mirror Silver Spoon 125]

Urghh, this agrument is getting nowhere, I think. It's just a cartoon, seesh. I never saw G3, but I won't let these opinions discouraged me from watching it, if I ever chose to do so, and I might not. I don't know, and I don't care. Sorry, I am just kinda annoyed.

[_Kurtis 636]

Is there one post on this thread that doesn't compare G3 with G4? Good grief. 

 

Of course Bronies are too harsh on G3. Why? Because it's not G4. Why is G3's animation so bad? Because it's not like G4's animation. Why is G3 so boring? Because it doesn't have the plot lines G4 has. Why are the G3 ponies so ugly? Because they don't look like the G4 ponies. Why is G3 so gut-wrenchingly painful to watch? Because it's not the same quality as G4. 

 

I actually happen to like G3. I'll go on and on about how great it is, but I'll spare you the time. It's pretty different from G4; maybe Bronies don't like change?

[CTRLee 75]

I am somewhat neutral about G3, probably due to the fact that I've only watched a few episodes of it. To be honest, G3's kinda mind-numbing for us grown-ups, and interests no one other than little girls.  (Which I wonder, is this where the "Watching a little girl's show = pedophile" begins?) It's about tea-parties, dress ups, and many other 'girly' things. This is also what I think that why at the dawn of the brony fandom, we've received so much flaks from the mainstream media, mainly conservatives (like a certain news agency goes by the name of a type of mammal). In conclusion, I can go ahead and say G3's message is mainly "Buy our toys!".

 

G3.5, don't make me start on it! I've watched it personally, and it...I can rant on about how bad it was for an hour straight. Like the crude animation, the voice acting, the storyline...etc. But even with such an abomination, I won't go straight out and bash G3 because I respect it as part of MLP's history. Just like some bronies that bashes G1, all they care is FiM, and everything else in the MLP history is rubbish. This, frankly, is very disrespectful, because to understand a fandom's identity you will have to take a look at the franchise's history first, then you will learn to know your past and embrace it's uniqueness. So to be honest everything before G4 leads to this very point, including the fact I'm sitting in front of my computer and typing this post.

[zombienixon 330]

 

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 11:07 PM, Miles said:

I like G3 MLP.  Now, I don't watch it much; in fact, I've only seen a few episodes.  But I like it.  I like it literally because of it's low quality.  I find entertainment in some of the awkward humor.

 

I'm the same way. I love watching terrible movies and cartoons.  Even before I started wanting G3 toys, I still liked the cartoons, even though they weren't very good. I can't bring myself to hate something so cute, even if there isn't much substance behind it.  It's also fun to watch with friends and riff on it.  I still remember some of the jokes we made when watching G3 and 3.5.

 

 

 

  On 2015-02-07 at 3:07 AM, CTRLee said:

I can go ahead and say G3's message is mainly "Buy our toys!".

 

The ironic thing about this is that the G3 cartoons do a better job of being a toy commercial than FiM, in a lot of ways. 

[CTRLee 75]

  On 2015-02-07 at 7:20 AM, zombienixon said:

The ironic thing about this is that the G3 cartoons do a better job of being a toy commercial than FiM, in a lot of ways. 

In what ways? I'm kinda confused.

[SteveMorison 404]

For the sake of fun I do wonder how the G3 and G4 characters would react to each other if they met each other.

[zombienixon 330]

  On 2015-02-07 at 7:40 AM, CTRLee said:

In what ways? I'm kinda confused.

 

 Well, a few of the shows would feature new ponies that came out.  There were two different cartoons that introduced both pegasi and unicorns (G3 toys were mostly earth ponies) and pretty much every one you saw on screen you could find in the toy aisle. That and G3 ponyville was basically made out of playsets.

[Pineapple Bloom 511]

I grew up with the older MLP generations. I loved the G1 movie, I loved the "My Little Pony Tales" cartoon that was from G2  I think, and I adored the G3 toys. I think all generations are good in their own special way.

[ShadowPhoenix 153]

  On 2015-02-06 at 6:17 PM, Old King Q said:

Cartoons are always serious business, and they should be treated seriously.

 

Why?

 

People deserve good quality content. This is especially the case with children; they're much more intelligent than most of us think, but they're also highly influenced on the surroundings. What they watch on TV is no exception. Good family cartoons help produce intelligent minds. Bad family cartoons don't. If kids watch and enjoy crap as kids, chances are they'll watch and enjoy crap as adults.

 

If you want your argument to look solid, never use blatant loaded questions. A lot of people like myself hate G3 because it helped perpetuate the "animation is for kids" stereotype and stigma of MLP as a sexist franchise. MLP was originally a unisex franchise for all ages; G1 (not Tales) poorly aged, but still holds up to Zacherle's visions. Tales, G3, and G3.5 don't with the stereotypes they enforce and embrace. G4/FIM revived Zacherle's roots in their animation

 

This mindset never works. If people don't like it, then they deserve to voice those criticisms. If the product is terrible, then they shouldn't hold back and verbally tear apart the content. If the content doesn't respect the consumer, why should the consumer respect the content in return? G3 doesn't respect me as a consumer and doesn't respect kids. So it doesn't deserve respect back.

 

Like I said earlier, ignoring it or handwaving it translates to both tolerating it and implying to the writers that offensive content is okay to publish. This blasé attitude is one reason bad cartoons are churned out. Kids have voices, but they need help. That's why respectable adults, parents, and teens are often very critical and picky of them; cartoon characters can become as big a role model to kids as their parents. Analyzing why bad cartoons are bad, why good cartoons are good, and being very critical about the content keep the industry honest. Otherwise, there's no quality control.

 

As what @@paradoxical said, kids are our future. There needs to be really strict standards of quality. Separating the good from the bad is the adults' responsibilities.

 

Very well said. The executives of Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network & Disney think that they're somehow appealing to children by dumbing down their programming and have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that they are the leading authority on what kids are interested in. Garbage such as Teen Titans GO! and Dora the Explorer often trade well-written content and characters for either banal, saccharine, consumerist-culture, random or scatological humour. Either that, or it's some clichéd and half-assed sitcom aimed for retarded teenagers that have been brainwashed by worst of society (cliques, gender stereotypes, general prepubescent angst etc.)

 

There is absolutely no excuse for airing lousy-quality content. For example, I grew up watching The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh while others did Teletubbies or Dora. My parents banned the latter two and many others because they deemed it as intellectually deficient and overall retarded. I thank that decision till this day. There must be quality control otherwise, children will grow up to watch garbage as adults. As Walt Disney mentioned, if one only targets entertainment towards kids, they're in trouble as adults are only the young grown up.

[The Coffee Pony 1,390]

Nah, I don't think so. I watched a few episodes and I thought it was terrible but if you like it, go ahead and enjoy it. I'm not going to hold anything against you, I am the guy who enjoyed Super Mario Bros. The Movie and Batman & Robin after all. XD

 

As for G1, It's a bit dated, It's got quite a few animation errors, it's got that 80's cheese, it's got too many main characters to remember, I cringe at every musical number and god dammit I love it to bits! Give it a shot guys, it's actually pretty good.

[Jeric 46,861]

I grew up with a great fondness of Milne and Barrie. Classics which proved that narrative meant for children can be inspired works of art. In decades that followed, the media presented to children for consumption had a noticeable drop in quality. My avatar today is of a one note villain in a cartoon that was typical of the 80's. An era with stories and characters that are a far cry from Tigger and Peter Pan. I enjoyed it, but it was an empty enjoyment, salvaged more by my imagination when playing with the Mattel toy line. Sound familiar?

 

G3, while admittedly enjoyable for some, represented a low point in narrative. Without quality programming like FiM and Disney films to name a few, we risk conditioning children to accept a lower quality of storytelling. To call G3 objectively good would be a slight to the beacons of light like the current show.

 

Is that an elitist opinion? Perhaps. I do not judge a person who enjoys G3, but until there is a new golden age of children's television - casting a critical eye toward lesser quality shows of the past and present is healthy, and important.

[TheJLeeTeam 914]

Kind of, G3 is kind of relaxing but 3.5 is creepy. But I think they were just trying to sell toys. But I've seen tons of worse shows like Fanboy & ChumChum, Mighty B, and Sanjay & Craig which annoy me more.

[Felix 1,363]

I've never watched G3! That said I can't really form an opinion. However I do think some people believe G3 isn't as good because it doesn't look as good. There's probably a lot of people who may watch it and enjoy it if they tried. Maybe even I would? :3

[Red Cedar 1,408]

Having suffered through G1 as a teenager with a younger sister, and never seeing G3, I was curious to go back and see if perhaps I had misjudged them after I became a fan of FiM.

 

G1 turned out to be exactly the same awful, stereotypically girly TV show that I remembered, even more devoted to product placement than the current version, and G3 had such ridiculously simplistic storylines that it was suitable only for toddlers.

 

FiM, at least, tends not to talk down to its audience, has interesting, well-rounded characters and good stories set in a world that is recognizable as ours, but with its own history, customs and culture that makes it a pleasure to explore. So, IMHO, the only good of the previous generations was to pave the way for this one, which is much better in every respect.

[Leonard Smix 421]

I say it depends on what you like...

 

Personally, i dont like G3, but i dont really have anything against it, and i can understand why people like it..

 

It all depends on what you like to watch, if you simply dont like to watch it, then there is no such thing as "too hard"

[Dark Qiviut 22,447]

  On 2015-02-06 at 7:10 PM, 'zombienixon' said:

Do you have any grasp of the concept of 'fun'?

Actually, I ask you this question: What about content that is fun and smart? Like Friendship Is Magic? What do you enjoy when the content makes people think and doesn't talk down to you as a viewer?

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 7:10 PM, 'zombienixon' said:

I didn't get into FiM for deep storytelling and character development. I watched it because it was cute and fun and made me laugh, with some nice action thrown in from time to time.

You're following the show for some fairly shallow reasons. Friendship Is Magic is designed to break away from the shallow tropes that hurt feminine programming as a whole. There are a lot of great characters, great stories, realistic conflicts that hit people personally, and lessons that started simple in the first season and later evolved into maturer and grayer ones in season four.

 

I can name a whole list, but for brevity's sake, I'll give you a few.

1. Suited for Success: A blunt critique of the executive meddling system.
2. Party of One: The audience realizes how much Pinkie not only makes people happy to make her happy. She's heavily dependent on friends to make her happy. She's extremely sensitive, and this episode is a character study about how much she needs them. Otherwise, she gets depressed.
3. Sisterhooves Social: Too often, siblings rivalries present characters who hate each other to get to the top. This is a very realistic portrayal of a sister/sister conflict. Sweetie Belle wants to spend time with Rarity, only for Rarity to believe (justifiably) that SB was only causing trouble. This led to friction and SB not accepting her apology.
4. Hurricane Fluttershy: One of the most realistic internal conflicts in this whole show. Fluttershy's shyness was thoroughly explored. Instead of a "simply shy" pegasus, she has a broken psyche. A massive phobia of stage fright that affects her daily life.
5. Sleepless in Ponyville: Scootaloo's nightmares changes her opinion of the forest, but out of fear that Dash will look down on her, she hides it.
6. Wonderbolts Academy: Dash has to put her ego aside for the good of her tag team with Lightning Dust. But Dust's recklessness was affecting herself even more when Dust was rewarded for it. Her decision to quit her lifelong dream because their practices went against her morals showed her maturity.
7. Rarity Takes Manehattan: The whole episode was about her generous spirit, only to have her biggest personality quality be manipulated by Suri for her own personal gain. This led to Rarity's eventual epiphany of not to let anyone's ability to manipulate her change who she is.

And these are only some examples. I even created a whole thread about the evolution of the morals in this series. There's a lot of analysis on here and YouTube breaking down the characters, actions, and morals themselves. FIM's quality isn't steady, but it's a much deeper show than you're letting it out to be.

 

  On 2015-02-06 at 7:10 PM, 'zombienixon' said:

If you take a show like this too seriously, you're missing the point.

On the contrary. If you don't take the show seriously, then you're missing the whole point of why MLP was rebooted in the first place. FIM is founded by the concept of producing intelligent, deep content. Generation 3 isn't founded by that whatsoever for reasons explained by TenorSounds, Paradoxical, and myself.

 

---

 

This now leads to you, @@Miles.

1. Even though I'm not a girl, that doesn't mean I don't understand how good tastes work. Too often, cartoons and toys with femininity in mind treat the concept as extremely stereotypical. This isn't exclusive to MLP, but several other products out there. Barbie, Monster High, Bratz, Pony in My Pocket, Equestria Girls, FIM's first-party toys. Products that are as obviously feminine as Friendship Is Magic, yet don't come close to doing a good job like FIM.

    

   Why?

    

   Because these products sterilize femininity to specific boundaries. "Girl" colors. Minimalistic conflicts treated as something real. Stereotypical characters. Segregating the products into the Pink and Blue Aisles. "Femininity" in production becomes stigmatic for pandering to girls because those products enforce the belief that girls should always be subject to gentle things. As if they have no interest in realistic characters to look up to.

    

   That's NOT how girls believe nor should. Girls are just as eclectic as boys. They can hold their ground, have bright ideas, love great characters, embrace great stories, lead, don't always want to be the pretty-pretty princess all the time, don't care about being the damsel in distress, and love realistic conflicts. They're not stereotypes, and great stories shouldn't treat girls as real-life dolls.

    

   Don't believe me? This is the very same argument Lauren Faust herself used so often, including in her famous op-ed to a slanderous editorial about FIM on the same Website.

    

     Quote

   The messages I’m really trying to get across with the show are these:

   • There are lots of different ways to be a girl. You can be sweet and shy, or bold and physical. You can be silly and friendly, or reserved and studious. You can be strong and hard working, or artistic and beautiful. This show is wonderfully free of “token girl” syndrome, so there is no pressure to shove all the ideals of what we want our daughters to be into one package. There is a diversity of personalities, ambitions, talents, strengths and even flaws in our characters–it’s not an army of cookie-cutter nice-girls or cookie-cutter beauty queens like you see in most shows for girls.
   • Find out what makes you you. Follow your passions and ambitions, not what others expect of you. For instance, if you like sports don’t let someone’s suggestion that that is unfeminine stop you from doing what you love. Be considerate of others’ feelings, but not at the expense of your own goals and dreams.
   • You can be friends with people who are vastly different from you. And even though all friendships have their share of disagreements and moments when you don’t get along, that does not mean that your friendship has to end.
   • Cartoons for girls don’t have to be a puddle of smooshy, cutesy-wootsy, goody-two-shoeness. Girls like stories with real conflict; girls are smart enough to understand complex plots; girls aren’t as easily frightened as everyone seems to think. Girls are complex human beings, and they can be brave, strong, kind and independent–but they can also be uncertain, awkward, silly, arrogant or stubborn. They shouldn’t have to succumb to pressure to be perfect.

   Observe the same market. There aren't a lot of feminine products that treat girls as intelligent beings. Too many companies continue with this misogyny of girls not being capable of enjoying real conflicts because they earn plenty of revenue. Friendship Is Magic's animation openly challenges this, even in some of their worst episodes. Unfortunately, the first-party toys remain stagnant, if not gotten worse with their exploitation.

    

   G3 doesn't challenge this at all. When they're shown G3, the cartoons are played with the idea that girls should be told to respect the worldbuilding, the characters, the conflicts. That their worlds should be filled with stereotypes. Written with blatant laziness that requires them as kids (and us as adults) to feel lobotomized to enjoy. Too often, this excuse of turning off the brain is used to defend crap. A hidden version of handwaving issues because "it's for kids." Thus, my point in my linked rant is proven right there. And I didn't even describe the sexist implications with G3's toyline.

2. Just because G3 ended doesn't mean I should accept it as is and move on. Even though it's over, the fact it's out there means those memories will live on. Don't forget, G3 only ended mass production five years ago and continued until 2011 for specific events. G3 is still extremely fresh in this franchise's mirror, and G3 should be talked about and critiqued to make people aware of why it's bad. Even thirty years from now, it should be talked about to remind others of how, compared to FIM, you don't write feminine content. Otherwise, you repeat the same pattern.

3. Actually, the first paragraph is pretty true. Even if the narrative looks fine on the surface, the bigger problems can occur at a deeper level. Take a look at Tales, for example, and how many episodes fall back on tolerating and embracing cruelty.

    

   Yet, when you must turn off the brain to enjoy, glaring problems surface. When you shut off the brain, you're telling yourself to screw off any character derailment, unlikeable characters, stereotypes, superfluous conflicts, and shoddy humor. The ability to turn off the brain means you dialing back your intelligence. Accepting whatever quality you see firsthand. No questions.

    

   In other words, an unacceptable ideology to discourage critical thinking.

    

     On 2015-02-06 at 11:07 PM, 'Miles' said:

   They don't want to get rid of the corny, one-dimensional, overly stereotypical, blablabla [insert whatever other trait they like that subtracts from the show's quality].

   I know this mindset all too well, and it's both stupid and dangerous. Stupid because it shows the people who want this don't give a damn. Dangerous because they're telling others they want objectively bad quality shoved onto others.

And for your reply to my second post:

1. There's no denying there are exceptions to the rule. Like eating a Big Mac, it's fine to enjoy crap once in a while while acknowledging it's crap. However, If you enjoyed eating only or mostly overly processed food and will eat nothing else, then you run the risk of not enjoying real, fresh food later because you may not like the taste, texture, or smell.

    

   Entertainment works the same way. If you watched and enjoyed nothing but bad entertainment as a kid throughout your life, then chances are you're going to watch and enjoy nothing but bad entertainment as an adult. These people weren't educated about quality for several reasons. Two are the parents were too lazy to give them the options, or the parents didn't know any better alternatives.

    

   To repeat myself from earlier, kids are extremely intelligent beings, but they're also highly influenced by their surroundings. What they see on TV influences them. Characters are as important role models as parents. Good role models help build kids. Self-respecting parents and adults are extremely picky with content because, yes, they know kids deserve a better variety of good-quality family shows and will do whatever they can to give them the best quality programming they can find. Good parents will present specific quality control for their kids to help build better minds and a better palette of family entertainment.

    

     On 2015-02-06 at 11:07 PM, 'Miles' said:

   So when you say "Cartoons are always serious business, and they should be treated seriously"... You are wrong.

   Actually, you're objectively wrong. What killed your reason here is this:

    

     On 2015-02-06 at 11:07 PM, 'Miles' said:

   Because I'm gonna tell you right now that I know a boatload of people who like to watch "dumb shows" or "crappy shows" (including cartoons) literally for the sake of them being dumb shows - because they like that.

   In other words, they don't deserve the cartoons because they like ones that dumb down the overall audience. This selfishness only emphasizes my point from earlier in the post.

    

   Should cartoons be taken seriously? Absolutely, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying to themselves. Again, one reason is the fact that kids deserve good-quality content. Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and Disney have been the home of some really awful "kids' shows" over the last several years. Almost every Disney sitcom, modern Spongebob, Breadwinners, Teen Titans GO!, several of 4Kids's cartoons/anime dubs, MLP G3/G3.5, Thomas & Friends (Series 8-16). All of these dumb down content to pander to specific demographics.

    

   As a fan of good cartoons, why the hell should I accept a quality that I know is terrible? Answer: There's no reason to accept it. If Thomas fans accepted this quality, then they wouldn't have seen the huge improvement in Series 17 and 18. If Spongebob fans accepted the series' current quality, then they wouldn't be ranting so much about its current state nor hope the new movie will hopefully fix the mess it's currently in.

    

   There are some exceptions like Steven Universe, FIM, Transformers (not the movies), Gravity Falls, Legend of Korra, current Thomas, Arthur, and Adventure Time. But like I said, they're exceptions.

    

   Even if your friends claim to like these dumbed-down shows, it still doesn't change the fact they're still being disrespected by the fact this garbage even exists. Why do you think there are several well-known critics of family cartoons in the first place? Because they know the writers can do better, and they know kids deserve better.

    

   But there's another reason why cartoons should be taken seriously. The ones that are good actually take themselves seriously because they spend a lot of time making sure their content works.

    

   The writers of the famous Warner Bros. cartoons and Disney shorts took themselves seriously because they spent a whole bunch of time making sure every single joke hits the mark. They want to make the jokes funny, but they're not lazy in their jokes. They have context, and they work very often.

    

   The writers of Disney's Gargoyles took themselves seriously because they wanted to deliver a factually good cartoon out to a wide audience. A series that respects the lore of Gargoyles while keeping their characters spot on, pacing carefully, using mythology to build the world of Gargoyles, and delivering powerful morals (i.e., "a gun isn't a toy" in Deadly Force, one of the best and most powerful episodes of the decade).

    

   The writers of Friendship Is Magic take themselves seriously because that's what Lauren Faust wanted. She wanted to deliver a quality feminine cartoon to people of all ages to battle back very sexist stereotypes that plague feminine TV.

    

   G3's writers don't take themselves seriously, and it shows in their work. Every single character is the stereotypical girl living in a stereotypical world and presents a world of colors with sexist connotations. I take G3 seriously because G3 treats the audience as stupid. There's no reason to tolerate a work that insults girls and boys, period.

    

     On 2015-02-06 at 11:07 PM, 'Scar' said:

   You incorrectly assume that everyone deserves to have shows that are not crap.

    

   There is no reason at all for you feel obligated to make sure that all shows have high quality. Especially when there are people who are directly against that because they like lesser quality shows.

   Quality in family cartoons should definitely be treated seriously because, yes, kids deserve a better variety of great cartoons. Whatever networks, writers, etc. publish influences people around them. Products are always a response to culture, either catering to or subverting something.

    

   Many of us here grew up in a time where companies produced terrible cartoons with no quality control; we're still seeing this crap today in Nickelodeon's lack of desire for cartoons that are intelligent, likeable, and well written. Any family company that churns out crap should be held accountable for disrespecting kids, their parents, and every other demographic out there. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would make sure this present form of the animation age ghetto gets called out to make sure future generations get to see fresh cartoons that don't talk down to their audiences.

    

   The very concept that some kids don't deserve objectively good cartoons because they don't want them sets a precedent that negatively affects others via dangerous implications of having others be influenced through poor work. It's an excuse for low-level quality when there shouldn't be one in the first place! To repeat from earlier, kids need a variety of good-quality content to help them grow. More people need to be educated about what makes great family entertainment great. Standards need to be set and then climbed higher and stricter to send messages to everyone here that we need great family cartoons.

    

   Cartoons that contain well-written drama, comedy, or both. Develop likeable, three-dimensional characters that subvert stereotypes. Deliver mature and deep morals if you're writing a show based off them. Self-maintain a strict level of high quality. Show more and tell less. Talk up to both kids and adults, not down.

    

   Ones like G3, modern Spongebob, Breadwinners, and TTG don't come close to meeting those standards. I don't give a shit if companies like Nickelodeon or any of the people who consistently write horrid work don't like it! I'm not going to change my positions, ignore them, nor tolerate the bad work. I'm keeping them accountable, and I'm going to make sure strict quality standards are met. If it means I'm on an island, so be it.

2. No, those questions I called out weren't valid. They each contained "a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition." The user asked if the reason they hated G3 was because some bronies didn't actually like MLP at all or make FIM look better than believed. It doesn't make a difference if it contained "some," "most," "all," or a generalization. The second the questions were asked, they were loaded, and it was asking for a callout.

  On 2015-02-07 at 2:30 AM, 'Generosity' said:

It's pretty different from G4; maybe Bronies don't like change?

Not only is this also a loaded question. It's also a blatant strawman, one I blasted not long ago. Many bronies like the fact that FIM isn't like G3 because it's a good thing. It doesn't pander to just young girls and instead provides high-quality content to people all across the board. It's a welcoming breath of fresh air in family-friendly, feminine production in a genre often plagued by sexist stereotypes.

[zombienixon 330]

  On 2015-02-08 at 3:53 AM, 'Red Cedar' said:

G1 turned out to be exactly the same awful, stereotypically girly TV show that I remembered

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, your memory sucks, then.

[SuperBrony87 506]

  On 2015-02-08 at 3:40 AM, Felix said:

I've never watched G3! That said I can't really form an opinion. However I do think some people believe G3 isn't as good because it doesn't look as good. There's probably a lot of people who may watch it and enjoy it if they tried. Maybe even I would? :3

Rainbow Dash / Daring DO... Same pony... You've noticed too haven't you Felix?

[Red Cedar 1,408]

  On 2015-02-08 at 4:29 AM, zombienixon said:

 

g1 screenshot-2.jpg

 

g1 screenshot-3.jpg

 

g1 screenshot-4.jpg

 

g1 screenshot-5.jpg

 

Well, your memory sucks, then.

I even went back to see the original Tirek episode. Nope, it was terrible. Even Tirek threatening to behead Spike didn't help it.

[zombienixon 330]

  On 2015-02-08 at 4:31 AM, Red Cedar said:

I even went back to see the original Tirek episode. Nope, it was terrible. Even Tirek threatening to behead Spike didn't help it.

 

Whether or not you thought it was good was irrelevant. I was pointing out that it wasn't stereotypically girly.  It was for the most part an adventure series, not a tea party and dresses affair. That was G3's thing.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,162]

Well, it's subjective. I mean, I'll admit that Mortal Kombat is not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, BUT I've watched it multiple times and will continue watching it because it's a fun ride. It's got flaws, but it's enjoyable in my view. Many people will disagree with that.

 

Likewise, a similar thing can be said for G3. I remember watching that "Bronies Watch G3" or whatever it was called, and I think the first two they showed weren't that bad. In fact, to me, they were somewhat enjoyable. Granted they were sub-par compared to G4 or even Return of Tambelon from G1, but not bad in any case. It wasn't till they got to that last one that the quality sunk to a BAD level.

 

However, I know some enjoy it regardless, so it is what it is.

[zombienixon 330]

 

 

  On 2015-02-08 at 6:05 AM, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

It wasn't till they got to that last one that the quality sunk to a BAD level.

 

Would that have been Newborn Cuties?  Those are as painful to watch as Foodfight, but mercifully shorter. 

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,162]

  On 2015-02-08 at 6:54 AM, zombienixon said:

Would that have been Newborn Cuties?  Those are as painful to watch as Foodfight, but mercifully shorter. 

 

Yeah, and I think it's commonly referred to as G3.5, IIRC.