Flexible history - plus or minus?

[Latecomer 438]

One of the things I've always liked about the show is how it tends to present historical events in a secondhand, or even more distant, manner. A legend in a book, a traditional play, stories around a campfire... we rarely actually see events older than a poni lifespan firsthand.

Now normally, I'm the kind who loves flashbacks and prequels and the like. But this abstracted method not only fits FIM well stylistically, but is also very fandom-friendly - suggesting and inspiring without binding, it allows for numerous different takes not limited to the show's rating.

However, I recently spoke with someone who had an opposite view, considering worldbuilding which told us nothing concrete a failure. In particular, they didn't see the point in Hearth's Warming Eve when there was no wau to tell fact from fiction - reproducing part of their complaint

It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that we have no way to know if the leaders were really that shallow, or if it's just the mane six acting. And even then we don't know if it's acting for the sake of the play, or acting because of they personally interpret the roles. Even the windigos are something we at the time couldn't tell if they were real or not. And everything else about the play becomes indicpherable because we can't tell if we're to emerse in the play actually happening or see it through the lenses of a play.

Now you see, I agree with most of what they say there - but would swap the words "so bad" for "as good". What they saw as a big minus was what I liked about it. And so I figured I'd ask - what are other people's takes on the subject. Do you like the past passed down in perhaps-unreliable tales, or revealed outright like in the Season 4 premiere flashbacks?

(mirrored from Fimfiction, because whi should they get all the fun?)

 

[Pentium100 2,056]

16 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

Do you like the past passed down in perhaps-unreliable tales, or revealed outright like in the Season 4 premiere flashbacks?

I would like to know the "real" events. MLP, of course, needs to keep the rating so the story was done in such a setting that everyone could believe whatever they wanted (it's a play for children, so of course the ponies will not show ponies killing each other even if there really was a war, it is also a legend, so the "true story" may have been lost to time). However, it would still be interesting to know what really happened.

The problem with legends and such in-universe, especially a show like MLP is that I have no idea what to believe. Are the windigos real in Equestria or just some sort of a legend and actually stand in for a nuclear winter or some natural disaster? I mean Discord and changelings are real, so is a magical artifact powered by love so there is no reason not to believe in the windigos, but at the same time there is no evidence of them in the show.

Then again, the history of the real world has a lot of legends too and some things are just lost to time, so, history of a fictional world shown in a similar way is more "realistic".

I think the show that did this nicely was Babylon 5. There you heard lots of legends and such, but later the true stories behind some of those legends were told.

[Denim&Venöm 16,509]

I like it. It's a different and original take on things, because everyone does flash backs. Hearing these legends through reference and interpretation may take us out of being immersed in the past, but it further immerses us in the show's present. This is how the characters themselves see their history and we it from their perspective too. 

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

The problem, overall is that people REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at you if you write something that contradicts canon, and most people will interpret that what happened is exactly what the cartoon has portrayed. This is similar to the conversation about the Equestrian flag in the same episode.

Honestly, the cartoon is more of a guideline if you're going to write or draw something. But that is my opinion. Sounds very 'opportune' that ponies haven't accurately recorded what happened, even if it was incredibly important, because that is what we do and speaks more of a disconnected lore than an effort to build a fictional universe. Especially when you mess up your lore and you have a character that lived through that time that is alive.

So, in my opinion it is better to present your universe 'as is' rather than open tales that can be interpreted anyway the audience likes, UNLESS you're going to do something with the notion that the history that was presented may not have been entirely real.

But then again, that is why they invented the 'alternate universe' tag.

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

43 minutes ago, Denim&Venöm said:

I like it. It's a different and original take on things, because everyone does flash backs. Hearing these legends through reference and interpretation may take us out of being immersed in the past, but it further immerses us in the show's present. This is how the characters themselves see their history and we it from their perspective too. 

I think those are two alternative ways of tackling the same issue and both are valid. But it needs to lead to something. It doesn't matter that a legend is the interpretation that the people give to real events, or that events that the flashback has shown are the real deal if that doesn't mean anything in the story you're telling. Lore needs to be part of a larger universe to be meaningful.

I think the real question is 'did the cartoon do this properly?' In my experience, this depends on what each one's opinion about the cartoon is.

[CypherHoof 26,479]

14 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

The problem, overall is that people REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at you if you write something that contradicts canon, and most people will interpret that what happened is exactly what the cartoon has portrayed

Which is fair enough; I can see how you can say that portrayal of a historic or even fictional event (such as Hearthswarming Tale) can be contradicted by fanfic, because those are just stories *within* the story, and may have not been accurate to what "really" happened. But equally, unless there is a compelling reason to contradict the canon of the main series, it is better to remain compatible. As there will be no more, there isn't a risk you will be later contradicted any more (as has happened with a lot of fanfic, for example regarding scoots' being an orphan) and the comics/chapter books can't be considered canon really because they have been repeatedly contradicted by the show.

But if you WANT to go and do your own thing, or use just S1-S3 as a base (possibly even omitting Twi's wing upgrade and pretend the rest of the storyline didn't happen - or didn't happen YET) then that's fine too - few if any movies in THIS world "based on historical events" are particularly close to the real story, and many are so wildly inaccurate families of the people portrayed in the movie have sued...

Edited March 22, 2020 by CypherHoof

[Goat-kun 2,498]

In the end, it's not about unreliable tales but unreliable everything. I feel like I must stress so that no big brain analyst shall feel compelled to argue stupid shit, that this does not impede a kid show. It impedes the fans themselves since lack of lore turns all our combined fanons into a Tower of Babel. I won't let go off my version of Harmony. Others won't let go of their sunshine and rainbows. Talking lore is only gonna get more like debate pit.

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

1 hour ago, CypherHoof said:

Which is fair enough; I can see how you can say that portrayal of a historic or even fictional event (such as Hearthswarming Tale) can be contradicted by fanfic, because those are just stories *within* the story, and may have not been accurate to what "really" happened. But equally, unless there is a compelling reason to contradict the canon of the main series, it is better to remain compatible. As there will be no more, there isn't a risk you will be later contradicted any more (as has happened with a lot of fanfic, for example regarding scoots' being an orphan) and the comics/chapter books can't be considered canon really because they have been repeatedly contradicted by the show.

But if you WANT to go and do your own thing, or use just S1-S3 as a base (possibly even omitting Twi's wing upgrade and pretend the rest of the storyline didn't happen - or didn't happen YET) then that's fine too - few if any movies in THIS world "based on historical events" are particularly close to the real story, and many are so wildly inaccurate families of the people portrayed in the movie have sued...

You have to take into context what OP said. The problem is that canon itself is sketchy if the play is meant to be seen as unreliable tale. So, nobody, by this logic, should complain if someone writes a story about the 'the true story' what contradicts the tale.

The thing is that people in general don't think of that episode as an unreliable tale. They see it as an accurate retelling of the events.

Which is different from when Twilight dumps exposition about the EUP, which I think is utter garbage and will gladly ignore with the assistance of a AU tag.

[Latecomer 438]

3 hours ago, Pentium100 said:

I would like to know the "real" events. MLP, of course, needs to keep the rating so the story was done in such a setting that everyone could believe whatever they wanted (it's a play for children, so of course the ponies will not show ponies killing each other even if there really was a war, it is also a legend, so the "true story" may have been lost to time). However, it would still be interesting to know what really happened.

The problem with legends and such in-universe, especially a show like MLP is that I have no idea what to believe. Are the windigos real in Equestria or just some sort of a legend and actually stand in for a nuclear winter or some natural disaster?

Well vagueness is about the only way the events could be anithing but kid-friendly stuff. When officlal reveals come, theu'll alwaus be E-rated and often quite simple - like the Journal of the two Sisters.

 

 

 

 

 

Whi not just beleive what uou want too? It's fiction after all - what uou inagine and what the showrunners create is equally made up. 

 

2 hours ago, Metemponychosis said:

The problem, overall is that people REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE at you if you write something that contradicts canon, and most people will interpret that what happened is exactly what the cartoon has portrayed. This is similar to the conversation about the Equestrian flag in the same episode.

 

 

 

 

 

[CypherHoof 26,479]

6 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

You have to take into context what OP said. The problem is that canon itself is sketchy if the play is meant to be seen as unreliable tale. So, nobody, by this logic, should complain if someone writes a story about the 'the true story' what contradicts the tale.

Yup. But my own take is that tales recounted within the show are subject to contradiction; even the show itself does this - look at Stygian's treatment by the Pillars, and the true story behind that.

Clearly, the characters of the three leaders are deliberately exaggerated into caricatures; the cave itself may not have existed - it may have been an allegory for how expeditions (not just two ponies) from each tribe (or possibly the entire tribes) travelled to what is now Equestria, and attempted to claim different parts of the land for their own tribe's exclusive use - probably many acres of land, and with substantial encampments upon them while they squabbled over borders, just as they had in the previous lands.

So how did Clover the Clever, Private Pansy and Smart Cookie really get together and kindle the flame of friendship? Well, that too may have been analogy; As advisers and secretaries to their respective leaders, they probably had to interact frequently to hammer out agreements and resolve disputes between the three tribes. It would not have been unreasonable that those three were already friends, and rather than having a single magical "flame of friendship" event, hammered out an agreement to share Equestria equally without borders.

Are Windigos therefore real? Well, maybe. Mythical Wendegos are greed spirits, associated with winter, famine and starvation. We also have the example of the Sirens that were tricked into a portal to the world of the Equestrian Girls - but fed on negative emotions from their enslaved "audience" so we know emotion-feeding monsters are valid in Equestria. So it isn't unreasonable that Windigos, who feed on strife and discord, and bring with them cold and snow, are actual monsters in Equestria.

So an epic tale, sweeping in scope, great enough to fill a large volume, and ending with the creation of two alicorn princesses to symbolize the union of all three tribes, with the strength of an earth pony, wingpower of a pegasus and magic of a unicorn... And a play with a simplified version of the story for little fillies to enjoy, and learn why the three tribes must remain together in harmony to survive.

[Goat-kun 2,498]

1 hour ago, CypherHoof said:

Yup. But my own take is that tales recounted within the show are subject to contradiction; even the show itself does this - look at Stygian's treatment by the Pillars, and the true story behind that.

Clearly, the characters of the three leaders are deliberately exaggerated into caricatures; the cave itself may not have existed - it may have been an allegory for how expeditions (not just two ponies) from each tribe (or possibly the entire tribes) travelled to what is now Equestria, and attempted to claim different parts of the land for their own tribe's exclusive use - probably many acres of land, and with substantial encampments upon them while they squabbled over borders, just as they had in the previous lands.

So how did Clover the Clever, Private Pansy and Smart Cookie really get together and kindle the flame of friendship? Well, that too may have been analogy; As advisers and secretaries to their respective leaders, they probably had to interact frequently to hammer out agreements and resolve disputes between the three tribes. It would not have been unreasonable that those three were already friends, and rather than having a single magical "flame of friendship" event, hammered out an agreement to share Equestria equally without borders.

Are Windigos therefore real? Well, maybe. Mythical Wendegos are greed spirits, associated with winter, famine and starvation. We also have the example of the Sirens that were tricked into a portal to the world of the Equestrian Girls - but fed on negative emotions from their enslaved "audience" so we know emotion-feeding monsters are valid in Equestria. So it isn't unreasonable that Windigos, who feed on strife and discord, and bring with them cold and snow, are actual monsters in Equestria.

So an epic tale, sweeping in scope, great enough to fill a large volume, and ending with the creation of two alicorn princesses to symbolize the union of all three tribes, with the strength of an earth pony, wingpower of a pegasus and magic of a unicorn... And a play with a simplified version of the story for little fillies to enjoy, and learn why the three tribes must remain together in harmony to survive.

Or they were kicked out of the old world for being a supremacist cult and their leaders made up some fancy story to cover up their failure. I can keep going if you want. Those unfriendly non-pone outsiders ain't gonna freeze out of malice any time soon

 

Also:

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Goat-kun
They're kinda real

[nightshroud96 116]

3 hours ago, CypherHoof said:

Which is fair enough; I can see how you can say that portrayal of a historic or even fictional event (such as Hearthswarming Tale) can be contradicted by fanfic, because those are just stories *within* the story, and may have not been accurate to what "really" happened. But equally, unless there is a compelling reason to contradict the canon of the main series, it is better to remain compatible. As there will be no more, there isn't a risk you will be later contradicted any more (as has happened with a lot of fanfic, for example regarding scoots' being an orphan) and the comics/chapter books can't be considered canon really because they have been repeatedly contradicted by the show.

But if you WANT to go and do your own thing, or use just S1-S3 as a base (possibly even omitting Twi's wing upgrade and pretend the rest of the storyline didn't happen - or didn't happen YET) then that's fine too - few if any movies in THIS world "based on historical events" are particularly close to the real story, and many are so wildly inaccurate families of the people portrayed in the movie have sued...

I remember hearing how many fans considered Clover The Clever to be female until sometime later we are smacked with the revelation of it turns out Clover was actually male.
I heard a whole lot of fanart stuff depicting Clover as female ended up now being AU(despite not intentionally being AU) due to cannonly Clover is actually male.
Big OOF there.

Honestly I prefer they actually show what happened in lore than having it be loosely depicted/told through something like a play(honestly how the season 4 premiere shown us how Luna became NMM wasn't a good example since clearly a lot of stuff were missing in that flashback. No way the castle would be empty aside from the sisters at that time)

Edited March 22, 2020 by nightshroud96

[SharpWit 2,472]

I like my history to mostly be cemented in place I think. It forms a basis on which we can develop our own stories within a preexisting setting, but what we're given can and does do away with certain possibilities.

Prime example, Princess Luna's transformation into Nightmare Moon. As far as the populous was concerned, Luna was there, and then she wasn't. She was already being ignored by her subjects, and that continued to be the case for another 1,000 years, with exception to a holiday that could be argued as very unwarranted. The only real impact was that Celestia may have chosen to relocate the capital to Canterlot as a result. There was no visible build up, no cult following, and no prolonged conflict. Just a solar eclipse and some damage to the castle. No real consequences, no serious impact. I was overjoyed when we finally got to see the transformation, but it could've been so much more. Because of that, this is an area of canon I'm willing to ignore for the sake of better story telling, so long as alternatives maintain a sense of realism.

 

The benefit to not knowing most of Equestria's history is that it permits us the chance to fill it in ourselves, but I personally think too often, people go off the rails with this. Rather than simply applying paint to a canvas, they splatter it on the wall behind it, going outside of the barriers, creating a mess. We can and should draw inspiration from outside of the show and within ourselves, but if it can't hold some basis within, then I don't think it belongs.

For example, I like to look at the history of MLP as closely reflecting ours. This became more difficult as the show went on in later seasons, particularly with maps changes, and I go decently far by having thigns like the world wars in some form still take place. But I base everything to do with that, based on something I've seen within the show. Here and there are technological, architectural, and military aspects that reflect such things, and I make full use of them, with a simple fix of leaving certain things forgotten or limited, because they were so terrible, and in the right hooves could happen again.

History has room for flexibility, but it's not gymnastics.

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

3 hours ago, Latecomer said:

Whi not just beleive what uou want too? It's fiction after all - what uou inagine and what the showrunners create is equally made up. 

Because then a conversation about the cartoon becomes pointless. You need to at least figure out if you agree with the  other person if something is canon or not. Yes, it is fiction, but internal logic is a thing.

[Latecomer 438]

12 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

Because then a conversation about the cartoon becomes pointless. You need to at least figure out if you agree with the  other person if something is canon or not. Yes, it is fiction, but internal logic is a thing.

I understand that, but can't both sides acknowledge the lack of a certain answer, like when the relevant facts have not been stated in canon?

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

3 hours ago, CypherHoof said:

Yup. But my own take is that tales recounted within the show are subject to contradiction; even the show itself does this - look at Stygian's treatment by the Pillars, and the true story behind that.

Clearly, the characters of the three leaders are deliberately exaggerated into caricatures; the cave itself may not have existed - it may have been an allegory for how expeditions (not just two ponies) from each tribe (or possibly the entire tribes) travelled to what is now Equestria, and attempted to claim different parts of the land for their own tribe's exclusive use - probably many acres of land, and with substantial encampments upon them while they squabbled over borders, just as they had in the previous lands.

So how did Clover the Clever, Private Pansy and Smart Cookie really get together and kindle the flame of friendship? Well, that too may have been analogy; As advisers and secretaries to their respective leaders, they probably had to interact frequently to hammer out agreements and resolve disputes between the three tribes. It would not have been unreasonable that those three were already friends, and rather than having a single magical "flame of friendship" event, hammered out an agreement to share Equestria equally without borders.

Are Windigos therefore real? Well, maybe. Mythical Wendegos are greed spirits, associated with winter, famine and starvation. We also have the example of the Sirens that were tricked into a portal to the world of the Equestrian Girls - but fed on negative emotions from their enslaved "audience" so we know emotion-feeding monsters are valid in Equestria. So it isn't unreasonable that Windigos, who feed on strife and discord, and bring with them cold and snow, are actual monsters in Equestria.

So an epic tale, sweeping in scope, great enough to fill a large volume, and ending with the creation of two alicorn princesses to symbolize the union of all three tribes, with the strength of an earth pony, wingpower of a pegasus and magic of a unicorn... And a play with a simplified version of the story for little fillies to enjoy, and learn why the three tribes must remain together in harmony to survive.

Yes. Again. By this logic, nobody should complain if someone writes a story about the 'the true story' what contradicts the tale. Problem is that people treat that story as though it is the events word for word. Which is my answer to what the OP said.

And they have a good argument to that: how can you say that the leaders weren't exaggerated caricatures when most characters in the show were like that? Particularly antagonists? 

How can you say that something was simply an analogy when magic makes impossible things real? The Elements of Harmony, Rainbow Power...  Even within the cartoon's own internal logic. Windigos are perfectly within the realm of normal in a world where Discord exists and horses move the sun with magic.

There is nothing in the tale itself that says that it is necessarily a legend. At the same time, I agree with you that there is nothing that says that it was real either.

This is the problem with this brand of 'epic' in MLP. You can't know what is legend and what is history. I won't even go into this idea of the alicorns because I think it is stupid too. This is why we earthlings tell stories and tales like that often with anthropomorphic animals. It is obvious that they are not real characters because cats aren't nazis, yet the story told in Maus is of heavy historical significance. In MLP, there isn't a separation between the tale and reality. It bothers some people, like the one that was talking to OP in FIMFiction.

in the end, I guess it's about personal preference. As is everything in this fandom.

6 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

I understand that, but can't both sides acknowledge the lack of a certain answer, like when the relevant facts have not been stated in canon?

Yes. That is what we are doing here.

[CypherHoof 26,479]

2 hours ago, SharpWit said:

I was overjoyed when we finally got to see the transformation, but it could've been so much more

Well, there, we are supposed to accept that Twi had a magical vision of the past; that is going to be more reliable than just a story, and this is in an area where historically, there is a fair bit of fictionalization taking place (when there are multiple candidates to the throne, often the "winner" is described in glowing terms and the other candidates, at best, described as inadequate if not explicitly demonized.)

If it had been a vision of Celestia's memories though, the reality could have been much different - because we self-edit our memories over time, especially if we need to self-justify something we feel guilty for.

1 hour ago, Metemponychosis said:

There is nothing in the tale itself that says that it is necessarily a legend. At the same time, I agree with you that there is nothing that says that it was real either.

as @nightshroud96 points out, We already know at least part of the depiction is false - Clover the Clever was male (although you could argue that's EqG canon, that's still grasping at straws) and frequently, Commander Hurricane and Chancellor Puddinghead are depicted as male also.

the idea of the "flame of friendship" being a fiery heart may even have been Twi's invention; we only see it twice in the show (as far as I know - I could be wrong?) - once here, and once in a S8 episode as a tree topper at Twi's school.

Really the play put on by the mane 6 reminds me more of a pantomime than a historical reenactment, "principal boy" and all; that this was perfomed by amateurs rather than a professional troupe may also be part of a theatre tradition around this play - which would explain why the mane 6 were given this honour in S2, rather than an actual Canterlot troupe - although we are somewhat lacking in seeing Big Mac in one of Granny Smith's girdles as "widow twanky" which I now recognise is lacking here

Edited March 23, 2020 by CypherHoof

[Metemponychosis 1,236]

1 hour ago, CypherHoof said:

as @nightshroud96 points out, We already know at least part of the depiction is false - Clover the Clever was male (although you could argue that's EqG canon, that's still grasping at straws) and frequently, Commander Hurricane and Chancellor Puddinghead are depicted as male also.

the idea of the "flame of friendship" being a fiery heart may even have been Twi's invention; we only see it twice in the show (as far as I know - I could be wrong?) - once here, and once in a S8 episode as a tree topper at Twi's school.

Really the play put on by the mane 6 reminds me more of a pantomime than a historical reenactment, "principal boy" and all; that this was perfomed by amateurs rather than a professional troupe may also be part of a theatre tradition around this play - which would explain why the mane 6 were given this honour in S2, rather than an actual Canterlot troupe - although we are somewhat lacking in seeing Big Mac in one of Granny Smith's girdles as "widow twanky" which I now recognise is lacking here

I don't even have to consider EG not canon. You could put an actor of a different gender to portray a historical character and not change the events at all. The point here is that none of that is necessarily historical or not. Picking at small details doesn't change anything at all. Again... That flag!

The Fire of friendship could have been donkey color for all I care in reality and this detail wouldn't change the fact (or legend) that those ponies did something or not.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no way to argue correctly for one way or another unless the cartoon had come out one episode and said that the story was real or not.

And again:

2 hours ago, Metemponychosis said:

This is the problem with this brand of 'epic' in MLP. You can't know what is legend and what is history. I won't even go into this idea of the alicorns because I think it is stupid too. This is why we earthlings tell stories and tales like that often with anthropomorphic animals. It is obvious that they are not real characters because cats aren't nazis, yet the story told in Maus is of heavy historical significance. In MLP, there isn't a separation between the tale and reality. It bothers some people, like the one that was talking to OP in FIMFiction.

The point is that you can't say for sure, one way or another, based on what canon tells you, if it was history or legend.

[Latecomer 438]

41 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

The point is that you can't say for sure, one way or another, based on what canon tells you, if it was history or legend.

Not in a way that removes the need for you to make a decision, no.

[Thrond 3,257]

In general, I don't see a show leaving room for imagination as a positive quality; it's neutral at best. I watch shows for the shows, not for inspiration to write my own fiction. This is actually an unusual case, though, because My Little Pony is a toy brand first and a TV cartoon second, so leaving room for kids to make up stories is probably for the best. In that respect my preferences aren't important. 

Still, I think the vagueness of the show's backstory hurts it when stories rely on that history. I never cared about the Pillars, for instance, because their backstory struck me as uninspired. That stuff needed more flavour rather than more detail, but detail could have at least given me more to chew on. Similarly, the vague backstory of Griffonstone actively hurt the story of the "Lost Treasure of Griffonstone" episode. Without more detail, I found the premise that Griffonstone fell because griffons abandoned friendship difficult to believe. 

I think "Hearth's Warming Eve" is actually an example where you can work out the broad strokes of what happened, but at the same time I always get distracted wondering exactly what the nature of that play is. That episode isn't an entirely coherent story, and a little more clarity wouldn't ruin the mystery of it. The incoherence is in the way - this show isn't abstract art or pure surrealism, so it ought to be grounded in something. But that story isn't about history in the same way that "Lost Treasure of Griffonstone" and "Shadow Play" are, so it's not a huge deal to me. When the show is mostly about personality and humour, plot deficiencies don't really matter, but it's different when that stuff is in the spotlight. 

[Latecomer 438]

28 minutes ago, AlexanderThrond said:

In general, I don't see a show leaving room for imagination as a positive quality; it's neutral at best. I watch shows for the shows, not for inspiration to write my own fiction. This is actually an unusual case, though, because My Little Pony is a toy brand first and a TV cartoon second, so leaving room for kids to make up stories is probably for the best. In that respect my preferences aren't important. 

Still, I think the vagueness of the show's backstory hurts it when stories rely on that history. I never cared about the Pillars, for instance, because their backstory struck me as uninspired. That stuff needed more flavour rather than more detail, but detail could have at least given me more to chew on. Similarly, the vague backstory of Griffonstone actively hurt the story of the "Lost Treasure of Griffonstone" episode. Without more detail, I found the premise that Griffonstone fell because griffons abandoned friendship difficult to believe. 

I think "Hearth's Warming Eve" is actually an example where you can work out the broad strokes of what happened, but at the same time I always get distracted wondering exactly what the nature of that play is. That episode isn't an entirely coherent story, and a little more clarity wouldn't ruin the mystery of it. The incoherence is in the way - this show isn't abstract art or pure surrealism, so it ought to be grounded in something. But that story isn't about history in the same way that "Lost Treasure of Griffonstone" and "Shadow Play" are, so it's not a huge deal to me. When the show is mostly about personality and humour, plot deficiencies don't really matter, but it's different when that stuff is in the spotlight. 

I think a lot of this is based on the idea that more detail would be the good kind of detail. While it;s not impossible - there are some kid's shows with prettu fancy worldbuilding - this has never been a show that really loved exposition. And of course, the audience limits both the adultness and complexitu of explanations - grown-up resons can onlu fit in the gaps.

 

Were uou one of those opposed to the epilouge, bi the way? or am i mixing you up with someone? 

[Thrond 3,257]

28 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

I think a lot of this is based on the idea that more detail would be the good kind of detail. While it;s not impossible - there are some kid's shows with prettu fancy worldbuilding - this has never been a show that really loved exposition. And of course, the audience limits both the adultness and complexitu of explanations - grown-up resons can onlu fit in the gaps.

That's kinda why my refrain in the later seasons was just that I don't care about the worldbuilding. In season 7 especially I kinda wish they hadn't doubled down on mythology at all; I think the show is weaker for it, not stronger. 

28 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

Were uou one of those opposed to the epilouge, bi the way? or am i mixing you up with someone? 

I have complicated feelings on the topic. I like that specific episode but don't really like how some of the characters turned out. I guess I feel it makes the most of some terrible ideas. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by AlexanderThrond

[Latecomer 438]

14 minutes ago, AlexanderThrond said:

That's kinda why my refrain in the later seasons was just that I don't care about the worldbuilding. In season 7 especially I kinda wish they hadn't doubled down on mythology at all; I think the show is weaker for it, not stronger. 

I have complicated feelings on the topic. I like that specific episode but don't really like how some of the characters turned out. I guess I feel it makes the most of some terrible ideas. 

Well I have mixed feelings myself - since mi headcanon became more rigid over time, I lived in fear of contradiction, but at the same time there were some things (like the Pillars) I enjoyed and could fit well enough. 

 

As for the epilogue, i don't think this is quite the place for it, but if uou PM me or something I'd love to hear more about uour opinions. 

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

I think when a story heavily relies on the events happened outside of the screen (in all kinds of media), it is more likely to be a weaker story. Of course there are great classics that are heavy on past events and history and lore, but it's easier to mess up and a harder strategy. I think what happens now in a story is most important, and past stories / lore / history should be explained at minimum and only at absolute necessity for complementing the main plot in a relevant context and method. Simply put, it depends on the story you tell. Of course the story shouldn't make the audience feel like the writer is just making thing up along the way for convenience without thinking it through.

I think MLP is guilty of both. Sometimes explaining too much of the things that aren't meant to be explained (and lingering on it for too long), and sometimes not meeting the minimum of necessary explanation of the background and history. In many cases, MLP tried to exploit the feeling of being (physically and practically) involved in something great and big, but without the solid proper background and setup for that. Sometimes, it was obvious they were setting things up but stepped back and tried to make it a campfire tales and shy away from it. So we see hands throwing balls, hand catching balls, but don't see the ball flying which is the important part. The end result is an inconsistent lore of little pieces of every season's made up settings stitched together. I wouldn't have minded it only if the show didn't took itself too seriously.

The story of how Equestria was made fits because what it represents and what it means is still relevant, and we care about the characters who is playing a role. It is a shorter and easier way than giving the new past characters an introduction. It is also an experience of how Equestrian fillies are being taught about history, so it is a more genuine way of storytelling than some people give credit for.

I think the history and lore of season 1 is kind of balanced well. The Nightmare Moon and Windigos. Season 4's premiere flashback potion was unnecessary and just for the fanservices. The Christmas Carol episode was too much for the sake of fanservices and lacked relevance. (The timeline paradox of the finale of S6 was like that too.) I'm not a fan of season 7's method, and season 8 and 9 was when things really start to fall apart.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Sepul-Coloratura

[Latecomer 438]

15 minutes ago, Sepul-Coloratura said:

I think MLP is guilty of both. Sometimes explaining too much of the things that aren't meant to be explained (and lingering on it for too long), and sometimes not meeting the minimum of necessary explanation of the background and history.

Mostlu what is given id ust what is necessary for the present storu, but sometimes theu do give a bit more as an extra.

What about 7/8/9's method do uou dislike?