The paradoxical pattern of ponies, and why it may be damaging to company and fanbase

[ManaMinori 4,145]

This has been bothering me for a while now, and I never really knew quite how to voice my opinion on this, but I figure that I should a least try, rather than sit on my hands, waiting for the right words to come. I’ll just throw this out there- when the issue of whether the generation 4 fandom will last or is doomed to fail and be forever forgotten has been raised by others, I have always been on the side of believing that it will, undoubtedly last long into the future.

 

But here’s the thing…..quite honestly, the MLP g4 fandom is REALLY weird. I mean, you guys are a crazy talented bunch of quirky individuals, don’t get me wrong, but….you….we...the fandom is an anomaly.

 

Let’s back up for a bit and look at the older gens. Hasbro’s roots lies in it being a toy company. During the earlier generations (that being 1 – 3), there were a lot of focus on the toys of the ponies, rather than making a real cohesive story/ series around them. This resulted in more episodic My Little Pony animated series, which allowed them to focus more on many more horse characters being produced in the toyline, and not going beyond much of their basic personalities. Instead, leaving kids to be kids and use their imaginations to flesh out these characters which is a really good thing in terms of development and play (as we see and have learned from Lauen Faust), and also for Hasbro to produce many more pony characters in the toyline, since there really wasn’t a “main cast” to focus on in the show. The first generations of g1, 2, and 3 were more toyline-based.

 

But g4….this is where it gets weird. With the introduction and heavy focus of a main cast of characters, and molding its toyline to constant releases of the same 6 characters, just with different gimmicks...it honestly shouldn’t be a marketing tactic that the kiddies that are the targeted age demographic would beyond of, for 8 years now. I can’t fathom why this tactic has worked for so long.

 

But here’s why I think it’s going to hurt Hasbro’s business, and also the g4 fandom’s longevity in the long run. Quite simply- the toyline has become centered on the show. This wasn’t Hasbro’s original way, as I already pointed out. But the reason why this could be hurting Hasbro is evident in the g4 toyline. Every few months or so, we get repeats of the Mane 6 with new gimmick. There should only be so many times a kid will go for having the same characters thrown at them for a prolonged period of time. It may be working for Hasbro, now, but sooner or later, I fear that it will come back to bite them in the butt. If you establish characters so deeply in the animated series, then as a toy company making these toys, that really doesn’t leave much wiggle room for imagination on the part of the child you’re peddling that toy to. On top of that, how many Twilight / Fluttershy/ Pinkie Pie/ Applejack/ Rainbow Dash/ Rarity variants will a kid go for until he says “enough!”?

 

Now for the fandom and its fate…...honestly, it may last, given just how many creative people are supporting this franchise. There will be many who leave, sure- that’s inevitable, as many will just be chasing trends and will jump ship once the series is over. The g4 fandom, for all I know, will survive, small, but powerful, as the remaining few push through the decades ahead, reminiscing on their pastel pony love and continuing to go to neighborhood meetups and smaller conventions. But here’s the thing that we can’t forget…..this generation of fans of FiM...due to the heavy focus on the animated series by most (if not all) of you, and Hasbro, could prove to be more unstable in fandom structure than the generations of fans before them.

 

Truth be told, the gen 1, 2, and 3 fandoms have lasted the 35 years that they have because of their love of the toyline ponies. That’s not to say that there weren’t some who enjoyed the tv show for what it was, but the important detail of their longevity as a fandom lies in the fact that they were pony COLLECTORS. They coined the term of “generations” to differentiate the changes in the toyline ponies, when a new era begun, and g2 came onto the scene with differently molded ponies from the originals.

 

Because the g4 fandom and even the toy company, Hasbro, is so heavily centered on the tv show and its main group of characters, rather than the toys and the variety of the older gens of ponies that will last far longer than the animated series itself, I – sadly- can’t say for certain that this fandom will be as stable as the older fandoms and last for the 35 years that they have.

 

I can only hope that Hasbro will remember that, going forward, their most successful tactic in terms of marketing these pony toys, will be in their past, which is offering a much wider variety of ponies/ characters that aren’t too complex and developed in the tv series, in order to allow children to exercise their imaginations as well as providing a more stable means for future fandoms of this franchise, to collect the toys that will last and be loved throughout generations, rather than solely depending on the tv show to classify their fandom and be more easily shaken apart when the series itself draws to a close.

[BastementSparkle 20,328]

That's an interesting point there, and pretty true. So much of the "G4" fandom is built specifically around the cartoon and not really around the toys at all. I know I'm here because I really like the cartoon show, and any toys or merch I have, I only have because I like the show as much as I do. If they go back to mostly focusing on the toys rather than the show for G5, I can pretty much guarantee that'd make me lose what little interest I have in it now, as the only reason I'd ever buy any figures, or plushies, or whatever, is if I really like the show/game/movie they're from in the first place. 

 I'm not really worried about the Friendship is Magic fandom though. There are fandoms for plenty of shows that have been off TV for years. Sure, the fandom will shrink, but the most loyal of the bunch will no doubt stick around for a long time. I know I'll hang out as long as there's at least one other person talking about FIM.

[Jedishy 3,549]

57 minutes ago, Nightmare Muffin said:

But here’s why I think it’s going to hurt Hasbro’s business, and also the g4 fandom’s longevity in the long run. Quite simply- the toyline has become centered on the show. This wasn’t Hasbro’s original way, as I already pointed out. But the reason why this could be hurting Hasbro is evident in the g4 toyline. Every few months or so, we get repeats of the Mane 6 with new gimmick. There should only be so many times a kid will go for having the same characters thrown at them for a prolonged period of time. It may be working for Hasbro, now, but sooner or later, I fear that it will come back to bite them in the butt. If you establish characters so deeply in the animated series, then as a toy company making these toys, that really doesn’t leave much wiggle room for imagination on the part of the child you’re peddling that toy to. On top of that, how many Twilight / Fluttershy/ Pinkie Pie/ Applejack/ Rainbow Dash/ Rarity variants will a kid go for until he says “enough!”?

You mean like Hotwheels that is just different cars with random paint jobs has failed Matell? Or shows like Sesame street have had the same characters since 1969 keep selling? Somehow I am not worried about it. 

1 hour ago, Nightmare Muffin said:

Because the g4 fandom and even the toy company, Hasbro, is so heavily centered on the tv show and its main group of characters, rather than the toys and the variety of the older gens of ponies that will last far longer than the animated series itself, I – sadly- can’t say for certain that this fandom will be as stable as the older fandoms and last for the 35 years that they have.

Star Wars lasted for decades between movies and characters and with no TV shows to carry it on. Books helped but not everyone was into the EU stuff. So I somehow do not think that G4 has anything to worry about. Especially if we take into account things like comics, books and G5 to keep it going. 

[Goat-kun 2,528]

It makes sense. However, we must also take the current physical toy market into account. Will it last? Which form will it take in the future?

 

My humble prediction: the basic toy market will be supplanted by gaming while the physical toy market will move in the direction of more expensive collector toys and robots.

[Tacodidra 61,286]

When it comes to the toys, I feel Hasbro isn't even utilizing the current cast as well as they could. They have introduced a lot of new characters in the last couple of seasons – many characters to make toys of. But they haven't. There are no toys of Thorax, none of the Student 6 (though Silverstream is going to be released)... Even if we were to assume pony characters would sell better than non-ponies, there are many from the last couple of seasons alone – the Pillars, Sandbar, Cozy Glow... So I feel paying more attention to the show and its characters might be good for the toyline...

Edited August 11, 2018 by Tacodidra

[BornAgainBrony 2,398]

This really seemed to be exactly the way it was in the 80's though. And maybe that's why Lauren was able to make it work because she directly based it on her 80's experience with the show and the toys. There were quite a few shows that were written just to sell toys. Many of them went nowhere. But a few became permanent icons in pop culture. G.I. Joe, Transformers, Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake, etc. In some cases, these shows weren't even to sell toys, just greeting cards! The shows grew bigger. WAY bigger, into global phenomenons. I'm not sure if this is what the companies expected, but I'm thinking "no." I had been wondering for a long time why kids shows never seemed to do this anymore (sadly it took me a LONG time for me to give FiM a chance because I was so disillusioned with the idea of a reboot show that could actually be GOOD), and I could never be sure if it was because of a change in society or the way businesses approach it. Mostly these days they seem to have a much more "strip-mining" approach to making money these days, rather than going for the slower long-term benefits. You can even see this with MMO's now (a game genre that was developed with longevity in mind). The first ones lasted a decade or more (and a couple are still running). These days you're lucky if a new MMO lasts for two years. This is why a lot of films that aren't even that good, are expected to earn all of their money in the first weekend before audiences have realized they were completely bamboozled by a clever teaser trailer.

What worries me is that with how big the show (or perhaps more importantly, the universe it takes place in) has become, tearing it down and starting over seems like a huge mistake. I really hope I'm wrong, but we know Lauren isn't coming back, and the pattern of reboots is still that they end up being horse manure 99% of the time. It might not be on the same money-making or fan-populous scale, but the FiM/EG universe has become something very important that is permanently imprinted on the hearts of fans. Compared to Star Wars it doesn't have the same large-scale, but then how often do children's shows ever do that anymore? I guess I just feel that what they already have is good enough that they'd be better off just going somewhere else in Equestria and staging a new show there, and bring our beloved characters in for a cameo once in a while. Or going into the future and focusing on CMC as adults. The kids get something new and different, the older fans don't feel burned, and there's little to no risk of seeing characters that are loved like family get distorted into something that feels like a nightmarish trip to the Bizarro planet. I just have this horrid feeling that G5 is going to feel like a weird dream filled with "something isn't right," like a trip to Oz that my subconscious will just keep trying to wake itself up from.

Edited August 11, 2018 by bornAgainEquestrian

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

Heh. As much as I'd like to express how baffling it is that bronies are mewling so much about the fandom's fate, I do realize that this falls outside the scope of this thread.

That's right, G4 is a deviation from Hasbro's main marketing strategy for the MLP franchise as a whole -- and you know what? There's quite a bit of potential in what they're doing here in G4 if they just study the phenomena close enough -- even if it means getting their hands dirty by looking at what might subjectively be termed the more disgusting aspects of the fanbase.

I've been active in a bunch of MLP communities and even when I wasn't, I did quite a bit of lurking. Quite a few bronies appear to be total misfits who might feel more at home in a psychiatric ward. I've even heard of a few who were legit drug addicts. Heh. I'm thinking that Hasbro could take a page from animé. I've never been much of an animé fan myself but I've heard stories of how addicting the stuff is. Something any good show will do is manipulate the viewer's attention and get them to experience specific feelings at specific periods. When masterfully done, shows can leave the viewer in a state of ecstasy. Admittedly, I have no education whatsoever in film or in drama so feel free to take that with a grain of salt.

But what comes after the roller coaster of feelings? Thirst. Remember when you were a kid at a theme park and you wanted to go for that ride again just to repeat the experience? That's exactly what I'm alluding to here. Some of these individuals will want a repeat of the experience so badly that they will spend many hours and dollars on the franchise and merchandise either to get their next fix or to remember how it all felt.

The point of all this? Perhaps Hasbro could sell euphoria to adults who are desperately looking for even a glimmer in their otherwise pitch black lives. In this instance, the toys would serve as reminders of the emotional roller coaster the viewers experienced in the show, movies, comics, etc. If Hasbro doesn't net them, they can rest assured that some other franchise will. Perhaps more notorious for doing this than animé would be Disney.

Such an endeavor is obviously not without its risks. After all, the kind of people this strategy targets are the same kind of people who would go to back alleys at night to purchase potentially dangerous substances from armed, shady and dangerous dealers -- all just for their next fix. Any fandom made up of even a small minority of such far gone individuals could sour any fandom -- now just imagine if there were more of the worst of us. It would be hell -- a quagmire of anger, sorrow, bitterness, resentment... Such people are really good at feeding off of each others and it's quite a sight to behold. They will worship or damn the content of the franchise for succeeding or failing to give them their fix and that isn't surprising given that withdrawal is quite a nasty bitch. The real cesspool, however, is in general topics. What do these people have outside of the show? A never-ending sea of darkness without any horizons, that's what. It's an environment where individuals who are yet to be corrupted either see the writing on the wall and leave or they will eventually be assilimated. Assimilation can be quick or it can be slow depending on the individual.

Is this really the kind of people Hasbro wants in their stores? Would it tarnish their brand? Perhaps they could make certain toys available only online to keep the forsaken adults separated from the children -- as they better do. Could this move hurt Hasbro's reputation? Perhaps they could branch out and create a separate company that sells content and toys to this adult audience. No, such a show wouldn't need to be rated R. That's silly. PG would suffice or PG-13 if they're feeling lucky.

LOL You know, I would certainly consider the latter. There are astronomical sums of money to be made from exploiting the thirst of those who suffer most. It's an extremely competitive market, though.

[ManaMinori 4,145]

9 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

It makes sense. However, we must also take the current physical toy market into account. Will it last? Which form will it take in the future?

 

 

 

My humble prediction: the basic toy market will be supplanted by gaming while the physical toy market will move in the direction of more expensive collector toys and robots.

 

it shouldn't last. MLP has always banked on reboots and refreshing the toyline designs every so often.

[Goat-kun 2,528]

22 minutes ago, Nightmare Muffin said:

it shouldn't last. MLP has always banked on reboots and refreshing the toyline designs every so often.

Indeed. This is how things have always been in the days before the internet. I don't know what future holds. We could be witnessing a collapse of the toy market.

[BornAgainBrony 2,398]

13 hours ago, Querch said:

That's right, G4 is a deviation from Hasbro's main marketing strategy for the MLP franchise as a whole -- and you know what? There's quite a bit of potential in what they're doing here in G4 if they just study the phenomena close enough -- even if it means getting their hands dirty by looking at what might subjectively be termed the more disgusting aspects of the fanbase.

Ehh... are you referring to rule 34 here? Because I definitely don't think a business would ever need to go that far to hold onto the fans. I think things like that are far too subjective to be mass-produced anyhow, but then... who knows. If not, and you're referring to emotional issues as you mentioned further down, then disregard.

13 hours ago, Querch said:

I've been active in a bunch of MLP communities and even when I wasn't, I did quite a bit of lurking. Quite a few bronies appear to be total misfits who might feel more at home in a psychiatric ward. I've even heard of a few who were legit drug addicts. Heh. I'm thinking that Hasbro could take a page from animé. I've never been much of an animé fan myself but I've heard stories of how addicting the stuff is. Something any good show will do is manipulate the viewer's attention and get them to experience specific feelings at specific periods. When masterfully done, shows can leave the viewer in a state of ecstasy. Admittedly, I have no education whatsoever in film or in drama so feel free to take that with a grain of salt.

Alright, so out of curiosity, on the "psych ward" comment, and also lines about a "never ending sea of darkness" I really wonder what it is you're getting out of being involved in this. Or at least, you really seem to be going out of your way to show an acute lack of compassion. It sounds like you're just parroting snide comments about mental disorders you've read online.

Why do I wonder that? What you've described about addition is the very basis of most entertainment. It's why the so-called "History Channel" is comprised of "Ancient Aliens," ghosts, and hunting for Bigfoot. Why the "Weather Channel" is running shows about naked guys in the woods and hunts for buried treasure. It's the source of the reality shows, and the 24/7 news cycle comprised of 95% speculative reporting. You seem to specifically be targeting Bronies as having a problem like this, but it's everyone. Here's the problem: scientists cracked the code on addiction. They understand exactly how it works. They learned this so they could be more efficient at curing it. But what reads like a knockoff of Dennis Leary's "No Cure for Cancer" rant, there was far more money in using the information to get people addicted to "insert product here." Very little entertainment is NOT using this information to grab and hold onto people. And it's not even remotely new. It's far older than the psychological studies that have cracked the code on addiction. Ever heard the phrase, "Bread and Circuses?" The Romans seemed to have this concept pretty much figured out.
 

13 hours ago, Querch said:

But what comes after the roller coaster of feelings? Thirst. Remember when you were a kid at a theme park and you wanted to go for that ride again just to repeat the experience? That's exactly what I'm alluding to here. Some of these individuals will want a repeat of the experience so badly that they will spend many hours and dollars on the franchise and merchandise either to get their next fix or to remember how it all felt.

The point of all this? Perhaps Hasbro could sell euphoria to adults who are desperately looking for even a glimmer in their otherwise pitch black lives. In this instance, the toys would serve as reminders of the emotional roller coaster the viewers experienced in the show, movies, comics, etc. If Hasbro doesn't net them, they can rest assured that some other franchise will. Perhaps more notorious for doing this than animé would be Disney.

Not sure if this is something that toys would be able to pull off. And also there's the problem of being able to keep the entertainment fresh (and yeah, I understand this is one of the reasons that reboots are appealing). On the other hand, the difference between "toys" and "idols" probably isn't really that different, especially for adults, as far as serving as "reminders" is concerned.

13 hours ago, Querch said:

Such an endeavor is obviously not without its risks. After all, the kind of people this strategy targets are the same kind of people who would go to back alleys at night to purchase potentially dangerous substances from armed, shady and dangerous dealers -- all just for their next fix. Any fandom made up of even a small minority of such far gone individuals could sour any fandom -- now just imagine if there were more of the worst of us. It would be hell -- a quagmire of anger, sorrow, bitterness, resentment... Such people are really good at feeding off of each others and it's quite a sight to behold. They will worship or damn the content of the franchise for succeeding or failing to give them their fix and that isn't surprising given that withdrawal is quite a nasty bitch. The real cesspool, however, is in general topics. What do these people have outside of the show? A never-ending sea of darkness without any horizons, that's what. It's an environment where individuals who are yet to be corrupted either see the writing on the wall and leave or they will eventually be assilimated. Assimilation can be quick or it can be slow depending on the individual.

Is this really the kind of people Hasbro wants in their stores? Would it tarnish their brand? Perhaps they could make certain toys available only online to keep the forsaken adults separated from the children -- as they better do. Could this move hurt Hasbro's reputation? Perhaps they could branch out and create a separate company that sells content and toys to this adult audience. No, such a show wouldn't need to be rated R. That's silly. PG would suffice or PG-13 if they're feeling lucky.

Again I get the feeling that you're not able to think outside of the tiny peep-hole you're peering through at this. The shady back-alley drug dealer comparisons... seriously? Seems like you want to vilify things as much as you possibly can. Let's take a look at alcohol for a moment, shall we? It's presently one of THE most popular human forms of recreation. Everybody from clubbers to sports fans to a cute couple on a date loves a bit of imbibing, and there's a bunch of Pony-themed drinks out there too But go back a few decades to the prohibition era, and you have the inspiration for thousands of films and books that are basically a modernized fantasy about the lives of pirates on the high seas. NASCAR owes its origins to races between bootleggers who modded their cars to be capable of outrunning the police. The point here, is that when you go out of your way to make something as hard to attain as possible, you inevitably send enthusiasts for that thing down a much darker path. But in a parallel universe, they could be enjoying the same thing with friends at a tiki bar.

I really have to wonder if the internet had existed 40 years ago, and you were able to look in on homosexual groups... would you have made the same assessment? Quite probably, the darkitydark outlook you see in Bronies isn't a symptom of the addiction. It's a symptom of that addiction being treated as a taboo. But in a lot of cases I don't think the addiction is quite specifically towards MLP itself. It's something more fundamental, that MLP accidentally (or intentionally, if Lauren Faust has all the genius of a super-villain capable of taking over the world) stumbled on. And just as ridiculous as alcohol prohibition seems to us now, the fact that these things are seen as taboos is extremely silly.

"Far gone" is relative. You seem to think it's a disease if people yearn for what their heart wants, while rejecting the sick reality that they never made. This "disease" is the basis for every revolution that has ever happened in the history of the world. Otherwise we'd just be a passive hive-mind ready to accept whatever nonsense our leaders want to throw at us. Again, not saying Bronies are about to save the world. But you're condemning something in humans that has been necessary for the improvement of civilization since its inception. And to simply label it an "addiction" seems to be for the sole purpose of demeaning it. 'Oh, people are addicted to warm fuzzy feelings? What terrible monsters they must be.' If you compare humans to other primates, humanity is a cold-hearted freak-show, and it should come as no big shock that there are those of us who don't feel fulfilled by the wannabe THX1138 world that has been constructed on planet Earth. What's really sicker? To reject a pathetic reality while wanting a better one? Or to just toss your arms up in the air, say "that's life," and wish that anyone who doesn't agree with you was in a psychiatric ward? Sorry, but there are perfectly good reasons for the "abyss" that you condemn some Bronies for being caught in, and anyone who has actually studied psychology should have no problem grasping this. You speak quite intellectually, but your common understanding of depression seems like it's trapped twenty years in the past. I've done the group therapy thing before, and one of the most interesting things I discovered about the dynamics of the people there, were that an astonishing majority were highly empathic; people who are sensitive to the feelings of others to the point where it at least appeared to border on precognition. Yes, we live in an age where caring for others is actually condemned to a serious degree. At first glance, that sounds ludicrous, but the more you think about it, the more you'll realize how true it is. There are a myriad of reasons for this that may not be apparent to those who don't care about it, but those things are also heavily social/political/religious and this isn't a good place to delve into that.

As for Hasbro's dilemma... yes. There's a lot of untapped potential here. They could even possibly split the IP into two. One continuing along its current path, perhaps aging with the fanbase sort of like what Harry Potter did, while the other tangent becomes the reboot. But Hasbro's problems are bigger. For one, they probably don't have the resources. If this was Disney? They could do it with a finger snap. But I also feel that Hasbro is probably rather conservative. I know the studio loves what has happened with MLP, but I have to wonder what the higher-ups think about all of this. Catering only to children is definitely a much easier task. Fandoms can get pretty toxic and I'm fully aware of this. Dealing with the "Derpy war," the meltdown over Twilight getting wings, or the Starlight hate club that still wants to see her retconned... it takes a strong stomach to deal with those kinds of things. Only the individual can decide whether or not the end results are worth enduring that kind of drama. But there's another problem, especially in the West. A lot of people haven't even gotten past the "cartoons are only for kids" mentality, even after the arrival of South Park, Adult Swim, and Drawn Together. "Ponies are for girls" is something that is even LESS likely to go away. Our standards for what is and isn't acceptable are ridiculously rigid, and over things that just don't matter that much. Ideology over similar things has resulted in immeasurable suffering for people throughout history. Suffering that easily could have been avoided. And the very same thing is true to this day.

Edited August 12, 2018 by bornAgainEquestrian

[Khoufu 43]

As a kid, I avoided duplicate ponies. Core 7 at the end of G3 was part of what killed it for me. As a pony collector who also enjoys the cartoons, I would still love to see brushables of more non-mane 6 ponies. There are so few non-show brushable ponies that the prices of them are surprisingly high. $40 for a little brushable pony from 2012? Crazy.

[ManaMinori 4,145]

On 8/13/2018 at 11:25 AM, Khoufu said:

As a kid, I avoided duplicate ponies. Core 7 at the end of G3 was part of what killed it for me. As a pony collector who also enjoys the cartoons, I would still love to see brushables of more non-mane 6 ponies. There are so few non-show brushable ponies that the prices of them are surprisingly high. $40 for a little brushable pony from 2012? Crazy.

do you think other kids  avoid the duplicates, as you did? Especially now that they're FAR more prevalent than g3's core characters ever were, and for much longer.....

and, if so, why Hasbro continues to run the risk of repeating this "everything mane 6" cycle, if kids ARE fed up with it.....

[Khoufu 43]

On 8/16/2018 at 9:25 PM, Nightmare Muffin said:

do you think other kids  avoid the duplicates, as you did? Especially now that they're FAR more prevalent than g3's core characters ever were, and for much longer.....

and, if so, why Hasbro continues to run the risk of repeating this "everything mane 6" cycle, if kids ARE fed up with it.....

My friend's kid sighed tiredly when she got her umpteenth Twilight Sparkle in a playset recently. I've heard that Hasbro is primarily focused on first pony purchases. I suspect that they package Mane 6 with other characters because they want both types of toy buyers to buy the set: those who want the Mane 6, and those who want a new pony who isn't Mane 6. The Mane 6 are probably incredibly convenient ti manufacture.

[ManaMinori 4,145]

8 hours ago, Khoufu said:

My friend's kid sighed tiredly when she got her umpteenth Twilight Sparkle in a playset recently. I've heard that Hasbro is primarily focused on first pony purchases. I suspect that they package Mane 6 with other characters because they want both types of toy buyers to buy the set: those who want the Mane 6, and those who want a new pony who isn't Mane 6. The Mane 6 are probably incredibly convenient ti manufacture.

I think that's a horrible business strategy, and as I said in the op, don't know how Hasbro continues to keep their brand afloat by doing this.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Nightmare Muffin

[ManaMinori 4,145]

and to again, reiterate, none of this doom and gloom by the fandom about it ending because the SHOW is ending would even be warranted, if Hasbro didn't put so much focus on the series, but rather, in its toyline.

[BastementSparkle 20,328]

7 minutes ago, Nightmare Muffin said:

and to again, reiterate, none of this doom and gloom by the fandom about it ending because the SHOW is ending would even be warranted, if Hasbro didn't put so much focus on the series, but rather, in its toyline.

On the other hand, if less emphasis and effort had went into the show, a lot of those people might have never been interested in the first place. You even said it yourself, the G4 fandom in terms of MLP is a bit of an anomaly, a lot of people are here more because they care about the cartoon than the toys. If they care about the toys at all, it's because they liked the cartoon so much first.

 Whether that overall would have played out better or worse for Hasbro, at least for this generation is hard to say, but a lot of the audience this generation has likely wouldn't have cared in the first place without the show being as much of a focus as it is.

[RaphLuna 307]

I believe the point she was trying to make is The toy line Redo of The Main Six..

in the G1 Line You Did not See hasbro make Pegasus Pony Princess Tiffany, and each year release the same pony only tweaked. No they made a Mix of a Varety of ponies..

with the Toy line Pony G1 trend of the past  there was always something new and different to look forward to.

Even the G2 and G3 Toy line had a variety of mix.. with the Exception of G3 running out of ideas and just re-releasing old ponies.

the G4 Are Horrid on Re Releasing the same main cast of ponies, especially when there are others in the series they could make toys out of.  

 

i watch the series, however buy their toy stuff not anymore.  if they re-release the origional G1 old toys back into reproduction, then yest i will get some i do not have in my collection that i missed out...

 

however time to get over mlp hasbro, they care more about selling new toys than the series.. sad really.. watching the latest episode it holds great promise to continue however if they still choose to rush through and Scrap G4 Series and Leap to G5...

making this move will prove my point Hasbro Cares more about selling more stuff than A producing a Quality show with meaning and purpose..

 

however the truth is MLP TV series were only made to sell toys and merch to Fans and Kids...

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

Alright, so out of curiosity, on the "psych ward" comment, and also lines about a "never ending sea of darkness" I really wonder what it is you're getting out of being involved in this.

I just have a morbid sense of humor. 

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

Or at least, you really seem to be going out of your way to show an acute lack of compassion. It sounds like you're just parroting snide comments about mental disorders you've read online.

Or it sounds like I'm just parroting snide comments about mental disorders you've read online. How else would it occur to you to make such a comparison? 

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

Why do I wonder that? What you've described about addition is the very basis of most entertainment. It's why the so-called "History Channel" is comprised of "Ancient Aliens," ghosts, and hunting for Bigfoot. Why the "Weather Channel" is running shows about naked guys in the woods and hunts for buried treasure. It's the source of the reality shows, and the 24/7 news cycle comprised of 95% speculative reporting. You seem to specifically be targeting Bronies as having a problem like this, but it's everyone.

Much of your post can be condensed to just this and you know what? We're very much in agreement here. This is far from being exclusive to bronies. Moving on.

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

Again I get the feeling that you're not able to think outside of the tiny peep-hole you're peering through at this. The shady back-alley drug dealer comparisons... seriously? Seems like you want to vilify things as much as you possibly can.

Jumping the gun there, aren't you?

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

Let's take a look at alcohol for a moment, shall we? It's presently one of THE most popular human forms of recreation. Everybody from clubbers to sports fans to a cute couple on a date loves a bit of imbibing, and there's a bunch of Pony-themed drinks out there too

Yeah. Same could be said about smoking, coffee, extreme sports, shopping, even just eating. All of those are potentially addictive behaviors but not everyone is as susceptible. There's an interesting word: susceptibility. Susceptibility is what separates the moderate drinker from the alcoholic, the regular coffee drinker from the caffeine addict, the occasional smoker from the nicotine addict. Susceptibility varies individual to individual but the most susceptible individuals are often those under some heavy chronic stress -- so much so that they find no joy in their lives because their alertness gets them sleuthing for threats. Can't stop to smell the roses when your body thinks something's out there to get you. The point of my entire post was that Hasbro look into exploiting high-susceptibility individuals for increased revenue. Some might be extreme enough high-susceptibility individuals who might go so far as to meet armed street thugs and sell house and home to get their next fix. Seeing how the dots are connecting? As I've said in my previous post:

On 8/11/2018 at 12:56 PM, Querch said:

If Hasbro doesn't net them, they can rest assured that some other franchise will. [...] There are astronomical sums of money to be made from exploiting the thirst of those who suffer most. It's an extremely competitive market, though.

Looking back in my post, I was basically describing these "high-susceptibility individuals" in morbid detail and I had quite a bit of fun doing so 

On 8/12/2018 at 2:09 AM, bornAgainEquestrian said:

"Far gone" is relative. You seem to think it's a disease if people yearn for what their heart wants, while rejecting the sick reality that they never made. This "disease" is the basis for every revolution that has ever happened in the history of the world. Otherwise we'd just be a passive hive-mind ready to accept whatever nonsense our leaders want to throw at us. Again, not saying Bronies are about to save the world. But you're condemning something in humans that has been necessary for the improvement of civilization since its inception. And to simply label it an "addiction" seems to be for the sole purpose of demeaning it. 'Oh, people are addicted to warm fuzzy feelings? What terrible monsters they must be.' If you compare humans to other primates, humanity is a cold-hearted freak-show, and it should come as no big shock that there are those of us who don't feel fulfilled by the wannabe THX1138 world that has been constructed on planet Earth. What's really sicker? To reject a pathetic reality while wanting a better one? Or to just toss your arms up in the air, say "that's life," and wish that anyone who doesn't agree with you was in a psychiatric ward?

Who said I wished for anyone who doesn't agree with me to be put in a psychiatric ward? If people are too stubborn to adapt to their environment, then they deserve the pain that they bring upon themselves because of it. It's also much more amusing to see someone do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result. It's one thing for some misfits to band together to validate their egos and another thing for them to work together and work together to get a firm foothold in a society that rejects them.

Seriously, though, this desperate craving for "warm fuzzy feelings" from the external world is precisely the problem. A resilient person can find such feelings from within -- at lest that would be the high bar. The lowest bar is to have an extensive network of sources for "warm fuzzy feelings" so that everything therein can be taken in moderation. It's called having a balanced life.

[BornAgainBrony 2,398]

 

14 hours ago, Querch said:

Jumping the gun there, aren't you?

 

Based on what you said at the time, no, but then with the addition of this...

14 hours ago, Querch said:

I just have a morbid sense of humor.  Or it sounds like I'm just parroting snide comments about mental disorders you've read online. How else would it occur to you to make such a comparison? 

....yeah.
 

14 hours ago, Querch said:

Who said I wished for anyone who doesn't agree with me to be put in a psychiatric ward? If people are too stubborn to adapt to their environment, then they deserve the pain that they bring upon themselves because of it.

Riight... umm those two sentences directly contradict one another. First you get defensive as if you're trying to say, "Hey, I'm not cruel." Then you turn around and say that people deserve to suffer if they can't adapt to every random tangent that society decides to veer into. I could invoke Godwin's Law to tell you just how dangerous of a viewpoint this is, but I think you already know better.

Maybe this is just another one of your jokes, but at this point, knowing when you're being sarcastic and when you're not is about as practical as practicing psychic mind-reading. But "adapt or suffer" is basically the same thing as saying, "Why don't you just try NOT being gay?" You appear to be equating what is "normal" with whatever the majority decides. And if tomorrow, "normal" becomes something different, then whatever was normal yesterday can either adapt or go join the freak show.

Now this is a philosophical question that we could debate for ten years and there's probably no way to answer it. Which is better? Being able to adapt to anything and everything, or being true to your nature? For this though, as I said before, I can only point to our nearest genetic ancestors. Compared to them, it is we, the humans, who are the oddballs. Yes, they still have territorial spats and get into fights, but by POWERS greater, they are more social and affectionate. It should come as no small surprise that there is a yearning for it in our present culture with fences around every piece of property and people holding shotguns saying "Stay off my lawn."

 

14 hours ago, Querch said:

 It's also much more amusing to see someone do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result.

 

I've seen just as many scenarios where people try a million different things but keep getting the SAME result. Reality is just as "insane" as the individual.

 

14 hours ago, Querch said:

It's one thing for some misfits to band together to validate their egos and another thing for them to work together and work together to get a firm foothold in a society that rejects them.

 

Well the end remains to be seen, but typically the former is required before the latter can occur.

 

14 hours ago, Querch said:

Seriously, though, this desperate craving for "warm fuzzy feelings" from the external world is precisely the problem. A resilient person can find such feelings from within -- at lest that would be the high bar. The lowest bar is to have an extensive network of sources for "warm fuzzy feelings" so that everything therein can be taken in moderation. It's called having a balanced life.

 

If you saw someone wolfing food down like a glutton, I wonder what your first thought would be. And then if I then told you that the person hasn't had a meal in two weeks, what would your next thought be? I suspect if the world were balanced in this way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It may not be an addiction at all now that I think of it. It may simply be that people are gobbling up all they can because they know they may never experience it again. This should be very easy to for anyone with an ounce of compassion to be able to grasp. This basic fundamental emotion is ridiculously absent in our current society. The only glaring exception to it is romantic relationships, but that's a VERY unhealthy solution to the problem.

The meme-form of this is argument: " Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by *jerks."

*jerks was not the original word used in the quote. It's a very simple analogy for the problem though.

Just because you need something doesn't mean it's an addiction. Maybe you only need a slow and steady flow but even that isn't available. It's only an addiction if you keep needing more and more of it over time. But since even the basic need can't be regularly fulfilled, we have no solid data to go on to say whether or not it's an addiction.

Edited August 28, 2018 by bornAgainEquestrian

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

@bornAgainEquestrian

Hm, I think I see where you political leanings are. Even if this was the place to press on, you're not in the camp I'm after. 

You're quite vulnerable, I see. Perhaps unnecessarily so. You seem to think that there would be less suffering in the world if only people were better than they actually are. Heh. I think you want to love people but find yourself unable to do so given what you might have been put through. If people would just take care of each other, there would be no need to use any force to defend anyone or anything, wouldn't it?

Your debating skills could also use some work. The best you did there was setting the goal but the strawmen made it look like you were determined to not understand what I was trying to get through. If anything, it's at best a pretty underhanded way to try and control the conversation but very often it just ends up hurting your case.

Sincere as you may be, you would do well to hone your skills. All that the former does is push you in a certain direction and gets you to suffer the trials, tribulations and failures necessary to move forward. It's a learning process and all learning processes are grueling, especially at the beginning.

You would do well to become stronger, wiser. It seems like you might have some experience with being put under fire but you could have done a lot better to deflect me there. You are going to have to grow some teeth if you hope to defend not just yourself but everything you stand for.

You know, I'd be willing to give you a couple of pointers on how to be more prepared to deflect your opponents when put under fire. That would have to go through PM, though. 

[MangoFoalix 25,037]

2 hours ago, Querch said:

@bornAgainEquestrian

Hm, I think I see where you political leanings are. Even if this was the place to press on, you're not in the camp I'm after. 

You're quite vulnerable, I see. Perhaps unnecessarily so. You seem to think that there would be less suffering in the world if only people were better than they actually are. Heh. I think you want to love people but find yourself unable to do so given what you might have been put through. If people would just take care of each other, there would be no need to use any force to defend anyone or anything, wouldn't it?

Your debating skills could also use some work. The best you did there was setting the goal but the strawmen made it look like you were determined to not understand what I was trying to get through. If anything, it's at best a pretty underhanded way to try and control the conversation but very often it just ends up hurting your case.

Sincere as you may be, you would do well to hone your skills. All that the former does is push you in a certain direction and gets you to suffer the trials, tribulations and failures necessary to move forward. It's a learning process and all learning processes are grueling, especially at the beginning.

You would do well to become stronger, wiser. It seems like you might have some experience with being put under fire but you could have done a lot better to deflect me there. You are going to have to grow some teeth if you hope to defend not just yourself but everything you stand for.

You know, I'd be willing to give you a couple of pointers on how to be more prepared to deflect your opponents when put under fire. That would have to go through PM, though. 

It probably would be for the best if it were to go through a PM. I'm all for discussions and everything but stuff like this gets a bit off-topic.

[Steve Piranha 29,432]

Interesting point, Hasbro used to focus on toys with different ponies with focused personality traits, and let imagination take over; with the occasional animated adaptation as a commercial. FIM is different, as it’s toys around the show, and with constant releases of the Mane6 it shows. However, it’s as such probably because that old formula doesn’t work these days, and much less a show with focused characters, if you can remember they used to release toys of minor, background, and even toy-line exclusives. The show probably played a part, but also industry: people don’t buy toys as they used before. It’s more practical, and cheaper at times, to entertain kids with videogames