Why The Redemption Of Villains In MLP Should've Stopped

[Latecomer 438]

1 minute ago, Sepul-Coloratura said:

Well, MLP should have stopped relying on big events of world ending scenarios and focused more on little pony stuff like a party going wrong or a messed up dress or just friendship. Canterlot invasion sounds interesting the first time, but several more times are just ridiculous (and the princesses and Discord doesn't help for obvious reasons) and loses it's impact. Later seasons tried to explain themselves, tried to explain their unintended mess with afterthoughts like creating Canterlot defense system and including princesses, pillairs and Discord in the premiere/finale, but we all know what happened.

I think the first two seasons were fine because they were more about the characters we care, but later on, I think they got too carried away and started to focus more on the spectacle (and amazed by themselves of how big they could go for a girls cartoon TV show, which is ironic) and took themselves too seriously.

The redeeming villain problem comes from the need for conflict without necessity. First they needed a big fight and adventures, so they created new (or returning) villains, and they end up in a same kind of conclusion because the character was expendable, uninspired and they were aiming for the same kind of result in the first place.

Another example : Naruto

Most of the seasons are devoted to the other stuff - the epic conflicts are only at the beginning and end, and even than not always.

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

Just now, Latecomer said:

Most of the seasons are devoted to the other stuff - the epic conflicts are only at the beginning and end, and even than not always.

Yeah, but we get introduced with those villains with premieres and finales. 4 episodes out of 26 might not be so mamy, but after nine seasons and nearly 10 years, it kinda got old. We can't expect around 18 (9 seasons*2) villains in a show, 18 world ending scenarios and expect them to manage it without being repetitive. Some of the premieres/finales should be other than villains and epic battles, which they did, I'd say more.

[Latecomer 438]

1 minute ago, Sepul-Coloratura said:

Yeah, but we get introduced with those villains with premieres and finales. 4 episodes out of 26 might not be so mamy, but after nine seasons and nearly 10 years, it kinda got old. We can't expect around 18 (9 seasons*2) villains in a show, 18 world ending scenarios and expect them to manage it without being repetitive. Some of the premieres/finales should be other than villains and epic battles, which they did, I'd say more.

Well there are some without real villains - like the 4, 6 and 8 openers - and even without big crises, like the 7 and 8 openers and 1 and 3 closers.  

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

Tempest Shadow reminds me of Jewish Kapos in concentration camps in some way, because she was helping an evil regime persicuting her own people.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Sepul-Coloratura

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

6 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

Well there are some without real villains - like the 4, 6 and 8 openers - and even without big crises, like the 7 and 8 openers and 1 and 3 closers.  

I'd say more. And many of them weren't with villains, they were still about world ending scenarios. For me, only two (Best Night Ever, Celestial Advice) counts. Maybe also The Crystaling. And many of the others still are like a recycled trope.

[Goat-kun 2,498]

7 hours ago, Latecomer said:

But uou just state things without backing them up all the time. Like here.

I mean, I agree antagonists can be a boon to a storu, but that's me just sharing uour opinion.

I have the combined history of kid show antagonists to back me up going all the way to Tom cat and Dick Dastardly.

[Latecomer 438]

9 hours ago, Sepul-Coloratura said:

I'd say more. And many of them weren't with villains, they were still about world ending scenarios. For me, only two (Best Night Ever, Celestial Advice) counts. Maybe also The Crystaling. And many of the others still are like a recycled trope.

I don' t recall School Daze being a world-ending scenario. And actuallu, Starlighv's debut was prettu small-scale despite being a villain ep.

 

2 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

I have the combined history of kid show antagonists to back me up going all the way to Tom cat and Dick Dastardly.

 

Doesn't that historu include pointless and timewasting antagonists too?

[Goat-kun 2,498]

3 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

Doesn't that historu include pointless and timewasting antagonists too?

Define pointless and time-wasting antagonists. Are they truly pointless from the perspective of their shows and the goals those shows wished to achieve?

[Latecomer 438]

6 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Define pointless and time-wasting antagonists. Are they truly pointless from the perspective of their shows and the goals those shows wished to achieve?

 

An intersting question. So in short, a show should have the antagonists that fit iv's premise, no more and no less?

[Goat-kun 2,498]

11 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

An intersting question. So in short, a show should have the antagonists that fit iv's premise, no more and no less?

In a way, but it's more than that. The antagonists should be a part of the philosophy that puts success before ideology. And success can be measured, its secrets studied.

[Latecomer 438]

3 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

In a way, but it's more than that. The antagonists should be a part of the philosophy that puts success before ideology. And success can be measured, its secrets studied.

 

If the secrets of sucess were knowable in detail, fewer shows would fail. And in any case, there's usual more than one metric for it anywau - bi some of them, losing the show's ideologu is a failure.

Care to explain this philosophy more?

 

[Goat-kun 2,498]

56 minutes ago, Latecomer said:

If the secrets of sucess were knowable in detail, fewer shows would fail. And in any case, there's usual more than one metric for it anywau - bi some of them, losing the show's ideologu is a failure.

Care to explain this philosophy more?

 

Of course. That is why I hinted at the dying comic book industry and Disney Star Wars. These are prime examples how you forsake financial success in favor of leftist intersectional ideology. In Marvel Comics, they not only substituted all major Marvel Universe heroes with multi-kulti LGBT people of color with personalities that were so immoral and obnoxious they were practically indistinguishable from terrorists, but they also felt the need to completely destroy the classic heroes. Captain America was a Nazi all along, Thor became unworthy of his hammer etc, and all the classic heroes instantly liked the new politically correct versions of themselves that were also inexplicably more capable than the originals. Enter ComicsGate, a ragtag group of individuals with variable degrees of experience working within the comic industry who became increasingly unsatisfied with the direction of said industry and the increasingly frequent Nazi witch hunts led by the official comic book creators against anyone who would dare oppose them. What was at first only a clash of opinions on the internet grew into its own indie comic book industry with people like Richard C. Meyer (Ya Boi Zack) and Ethan Van Sciver who have put listening to the comic fans before having any sort of ideology in their stories. That has turned out to be a very successful strategy as ComicsGate have been outperforming their big name counterparts even before Corona-chan.

 

Moral of the story: be a hot dog salesman who gives people what they want and do not preach at your audience.

 

So now we have to ask ourselves: what do the little girls, who are the main audience of MLP, want?

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

2 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

So now we have to ask ourselves: what do the little girls, who are the main audience of MLP, want?

I think Hasbro misunderstood the main audience (and what they actually need) as adult MLP fans aka Bronies, and tried to appeal more and more to them (should I say us?).

Little they knew, there were adult audiences who liked little girls stuff, wait, isn't that exactly what the adult MLP audiences were there for?

Edited April 13, 2020 by Sepul-Coloratura

[Sepul-Coloratura 756]

4 hours ago, Latecomer said:

I don' t recall School Daze being a world-ending scenario. And actuallu, Starlighv's debut was prettu small-scale despite being a villain ep.

Yeah, I should have said it more coherently. Those episodes are about politics, diplomacy, bureaucracy, national security and authoritative racism. You get the gist of what I'm saying.

Season 8 was ao bad, I actually forgot what made it to not work. School Daze is not a rehashed idea, so it might be an exception. Chancellor Neighsay isn't the kind of villain we have seen before in MLP. But they made Cozy Glow in S8 my god.

Season 8 started with trying something new, which is good, but eventually ended up with a fightable villain and a world ending scenario.

Starlight would have been better if she was just in the first two episodes.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Sepul-Coloratura

[Goat-kun 2,498]

28 minutes ago, Sepul-Coloratura said:

I think Hasbro misunderstood the main audience (and what they actually need) as adult MLP fans aka Bronies, and tried to appeal more and more to them (should I say us?).

Little they knew, there were adult audiences who liked little girls stuff, wait, isn't that exactly what the adult MLP audiences were there for?

I think we've all misunderstood what we Bronies fancy, and what the direction of girl brands (yes, I'll call them what they are, deal with it lefties) should be. I blame Faust for being a delusional feminist and H-Bro for having no balls as is the golden standard for giant corps. Faust has always been trying to make girl IPs more empowering for girls, whatever that means. The only thing she had managed to achieve is switching the appeal a bit from girls to boys, just enough for Bronies to become a thing. H-Bro was probably ecstatic at the notion that they had a progressive show with stronk female character. Too bad FIM hasn't been doing so hot in the financial department since 2015, and now they are trying to double down on the same formula Faust originally had (hacks indicate emphasis on fantasy) while trying to intentionally increase their audience diversity. Everything we've been seeing so far in regard to entertainment industry indicates that they should instead simmer down and choose to increase the numbers of consumers by catering to a single large group: little girls. If Bronies remain attached, so be it. If not, who cares. It's the same with Transformers and G.I. Joe. Make no mistake, those are boy franchises and they should remain as such. If girls like them, then by all means they should like them. I see no reason why we should change anything due to a minority that already likes something just the way it is.

 

Now, someone could mention that I come across as two-faced since I advocate for dark fantasy and cosmic horrors. Indeed I do; however, I also advocate for a schism. If they want to cater to many groups they should produce content that is separate and directed at those groups. Like how we are (hopefully) getting two He-Mans: one reboot for kids and one a darker conclusion of the old show for adult fans. One could also say that Bronies like girly stuff specifically, yet there are many fanfics and general impressions that can dispute this claim.

[Latecomer 438]

2 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

I think we've all misunderstood what we Bronies fancy, and what the direction of girl brands (yes, I'll call them what they are, deal with it lefties) should be. I blame Faust for being a delusional feminist and H-Bro for having no balls as is the golden standard for giant corps. Faust has always been trying to make girl IPs more empowering for girls, whatever that means. The only thing she had managed to achieve is switching the appeal a bit from girls to boys, just enough for Bronies to become a thing. H-Bro was probably ecstatic at the notion that they had a progressive show with stronk female character. Too bad FIM hasn't been doing so hot in the financial department since 2015, and now they are trying to double down on the same formula Faust originally had (hacks indicate emphasis on fantasy) while trying to intentionally increase their audience diversity. Everything we've been seeing so far in regard to entertainment industry indicates that they should instead simmer down and choose to increase the numbers of consumers by catering to a single large group: little girls. If Bronies remain attached, so be it. If not, who cares. It's the same with Transformers and G.I. Joe. Make no mistake, those are boy franchises and they should remain as such. If girls like them, then by all means they should like them. I see no reason why we should change anything due to a minority that already likes something just the way it is.

 

 

 

Now, someone could mention that I come across as two-faced since I advocate for dark fantasy and cosmic horrors. Indeed I do; however, I also advocate for a schism. If they want to cater to many groups they should produce content that is separate and directed at those groups. Like how we are (hopefully) getting two He-Mans: one reboot for kids and one a darker conclusion of the old show for adult fans. One could also say that Bronies like girly stuff specifically, yet there are many fanfics and general impressions that can dispute this claim.

 

Well, I certainlu undestand uour philosphu better now, and perhaps it will serve Hasbro well as a business. I can't consider them following it a good thing though. But then, I'm not a company - I care about things other than money.

[YoungJustice12334 51]

On 3/28/2020 at 9:09 AM, Princess of Hearts 💛🧡 said:

It's a children show. Chillax loool. If it was intended for an older audience, I'm sure that the storylines would have been darker and more exciting and there would be less sappy redemptions. But due to this being a show about friendship, you can't blame Hasbro for doing those redemptions. 

I'm sure that everyone would have loved more serious villains, but since it isn't the purpose of the show, I think that the writers have done a good job with most villains and indeed a great job with Discord and Sunset. The only villain that I really found useless was Cozy Glow but even then the idea of draining all the magic from Equestria was a good one. 

I see, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what I've been saying. The absolute worst thing about the trope of redeeming villains In MLP, and I started having this issue when Starlight was redeemed, is that it takes the responsibility away from the bad guy's actions. It basically tells the audience that it's not okay to be angry at someone who's hurt you and your friends and it's your responsibility to make them better people. The problem is not the idea of villains being redeemed, it's just the way MLP Started doing it.

The worst example of this to me was Wallflower Blush, who created her own problem, done psychological torture on Sunset Shimmer who had nothing to do with it, does no effort to make her situation better, but still gets her happy ending free of charge. Wallflower's motivation was entirely selfish, spiteful, childish, envious. And born of simple hatred. What's even more, it would appear that she was the cause of it all. She complained of people forgetting her, yet it was her own fault that people did not remember.

I mean, sure, Redemption is a good lesson to teach sometimes and that there are always two sides to a story and that compassion can go a long way but when you start telling the victims that it's their responsibility to fix their abusers and being Angry for their actions towards them in any way is bad, it's just an unacceptable lesson to teach.

[Latecomer 438]

7 minutes ago, YoungJustice12334 said:

I see, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what I've been saying. The absolute worst thing about the trope of redeeming villains In MLP, and I started having this issue when Starlight was redeemed, is that it takes the responsibility away from the bad guy's actions. It basically tells the audience that it's not okay to be angry at someone who's hurt you and your friends and it's your responsibility to make them better people. The problem is not the idea of villains being redeemed, it's just the way MLP Started doing it.

The worst example of this to me was Wallflower Blush, who created her own problem, done psychological torture on Sunset Shimmer who had nothing to do with it, does no effort to make her situation better, but still gets her happy ending free of charge. Wallflower's motivation was entirely selfish, spiteful, childish, envious. And born of simple hatred. What's even more, it would appear that she was the cause of it all. She complained of people forgetting her, yet it was her own fault that people did not remember.

I mean, sure, Redemption is a good lesson to teach sometimes and that there are always two sides to a story and that compassion can go a long way but when you start telling the victims that it's their responsibility to fix their abusers and being Angry for their actions towards them in any way is bad, it's just an unacceptable lesson to teach.

I'd say there are some villains with that issue, but I wouldn't say it about Wallflower, who is presented veru simpatheticallu.

[KH7672 1,604]

18 minutes ago, YoungJustice12334 said:

I see, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what I've been saying. The absolute worst thing about the trope of redeeming villains In MLP, and I started having this issue when Starlight was redeemed, is that it takes the responsibility away from the bad guy's actions. It basically tells the audience that it's not okay to be angry at someone who's hurt you and your friends and it's your responsibility to make them better people. The problem is not the idea of villains being redeemed, it's just the way MLP Started doing it.

The worst example of this to me was Wallflower Blush, who created her own problem, done psychological torture on Sunset Shimmer who had nothing to do with it, does no effort to make her situation better, but still gets her happy ending free of charge. Wallflower's motivation was entirely selfish, spiteful, childish, envious. And born of simple hatred. What's even more, it would appear that she was the cause of it all. She complained of people forgetting her, yet it was her own fault that people did not remember.

I mean, sure, Redemption is a good lesson to teach sometimes and that there are always two sides to a story and that compassion can go a long way but when you start telling the victims that it's their responsibility to fix their abusers and being Angry for their actions towards them in any way is bad, it's just an unacceptable lesson to teach.

It's interesting because you kinda do have a point with the execution of certain reformations, Wallflower especially. However I do want to analyze the writing for each reformation real quick just to show some context you are missing.

From the Cutie Re-mark Part 2 right when Twilight, Starlight, and Spike return back and the Mane 5 find them:

Quote

Applejack: Uh... what's she doin' here?

Twilight Sparkle: Actually, it's kind of a long story.

[muffled voices]

Rainbow Dash: I mean, I knew my rainboom was awesome, but I never thought all of Equestria depended on it!

Pinkie Pie: Or on us!

Twilight Sparkle: I think it's more than that. Friendship connects all of Equestria, and undoing one group of friends made its magic less powerful.

Applejack: I can't believe y'all were able to travel through time like that.

Pinkie Pie: That Starlight must be pretty magical!

Twilight Sparkle: She obviously has more talent for magic than almost anypony I've seen. My magic couldn't stop her. I had to convince her to stop on her own. Once I realized that, everything fell into place.

Applejack: But if she's as powerful as all that, we can't just send her on her way, can we?

Twilight Sparkle: Actually, I kind of have something else in mind.

[door opens]

Starlight Glimmer: [gulps, exhales] I know there's no excuse for what I did, but I want you all to know that I'm ready for whatever punishment you think is fair.

Twilight Sparkle: I've been thinking a lot about how badly Equestria fared without just one group of friends. Because even when one friendship dies, the results can be disastrous.

Starlight Glimmer: I know first-hoof how true that can be.

Twilight Sparkle: And that's why I've asked you here. If you're willing to learn, I'm willing to teach you what I know. You'll have the power to make Equestria an even better place.

Starlight Glimmer: [hushed] How do I start?

Twilight Sparkle: Starting is easy! All you have to do is make a friend! And you've got seven of them right here.

Notice how Twilight gets to explain the situation to the others and come to her own conclusion with their support. Starlight has no sympathetic influence on the decision to mentor her. Twilight's words also why not explicitly saying what she did was wrong when Starlight accepts punishment doesn't say what she did was understandable and right either. Instead she takes a higher ground and offers Starlight a choice to better herself under her tutelage. Starlight isn't absolved of responsibility of what she did and Twilight doesn't take responsibility for what she did. Instead both parties just agree to look past it and forge ahead with a reformative path in mind to make up for the mistakes that were made.

Now Wallflower after Sunset gets her memories back and finally defeated has this exchange:

Quote

Wallflower Blush: I'm so ashamed. When I first found the Memory Stone, I only erased little things – awkward hellos, saying the wrong thing, literally any public speaking...

Twilight Sparkle: I've had plenty of awkward moments I wish I could erase, too.

Wallflower Blush: But it's no excuse. I was so used to erasing memories that I got completely carried away. I'm sorry for everything.

Sunset Shimmer: It's okay. I'm sorry, too. I may have stopped being mean, but a Great and Powerful friend helped me realize I still wasn't very nice to you. Everyone matters, Wallflower. No matter how insignificant or invisible they feel.

Wallflower apologizes but you're right that immediately afterwards Sunset does too. This is where I can see what you're talking about. Wallflower tries to take all the responsibility for her actions, but Sunset turns around and says it's okay. That can definitely be misconstrued as saying Wallflower did what she did understandably fine and Sunset has to accept some responsibility for her actions. And yet there are certain parts this apology makes sure to avoid to keep the implications as evident. Sunset at least doesn't say it was wrong for her to be mean or not to forgive. Wallflower doesn't justify further that she should be forgiven or emphasized with saying things like "you have to understand" and Twilight just gives empathy herself. There is less of a choice between the act of forgiveness between the victim and the wrong-doer but that may be what the point was to teach from Sunset is to make that kind of decision when you do have some part in it granted however small it may be in the long run. It's tough to say as unlike Starlight where she impacted a lot more of the world, you said it yourself Wallflower was mainly causing a problem for herself and only herself until Sunset came along. So when Sunset does find shared responsibility in her actions and expresses it logically it's not explicitly telling the audience that Wallflower has no blame but that you can make a choice to forgive and help someone who is hurting themselves when they just happen to lash out at you.

[YoungJustice12334 51]

On 5/12/2020 at 9:50 AM, KH7672 said:

It's interesting because you kinda do have a point with the execution of certain reformations, Wallflower especially. However I do want to analyze the writing for each reformation real quick just to show some context you are missing.

From the Cutie Re-mark Part 2 right when Twilight, Starlight, and Spike return back and the Mane 5 find them:

Notice how Twilight gets to explain the situation to the others and come to her own conclusion with their support. Starlight has no sympathetic influence on the decision to mentor her. Twilight's words also why not explicitly saying what she did was wrong when Starlight accepts punishment doesn't say what she did was understandable and right either. Instead she takes a higher ground and offers Starlight a choice to better herself under her tutelage. Starlight isn't absolved of responsibility of what she did and Twilight doesn't take responsibility for what she did. Instead both parties just agree to look past it and forge ahead with a reformative path in mind to make up for the mistakes that were made.

Now Wallflower after Sunset gets her memories back and finally defeated has this exchange:

Wallflower apologizes but you're right that immediately afterwards Sunset does too. This is where I can see what you're talking about. Wallflower tries to take all the responsibility for her actions, but Sunset turns around and says it's okay. That can definitely be misconstrued as saying Wallflower did what she did understandably fine and Sunset has to accept some responsibility for her actions. And yet there are certain parts this apology makes sure to avoid to keep the implications as evident. Sunset at least doesn't say it was wrong for her to be mean or not to forgive. Wallflower doesn't justify further that she should be forgiven or emphasized with saying things like "you have to understand" and Twilight just gives empathy herself. There is less of a choice between the act of forgiveness between the victim and the wrong-doer but that may be what the point was to teach from Sunset is to make that kind of decision when you do have some part in it granted however small it may be in the long run. It's tough to say as unlike Starlight where she impacted a lot more of the world, you said it yourself Wallflower was mainly causing a problem for herself and only herself until Sunset came along. So when Sunset does find shared responsibility in her actions and expresses it logically it's not explicitly telling the audience that Wallflower has no blame but that you can make a choice to forgive and help someone who is hurting themselves when they just happen to lash out at you.

Are you saying you agree or disagree with what I'm saying how The Villain redemptions are bad?

[YoungJustice12334 51]

On 5/12/2020 at 9:50 AM, KH7672 said:

It's interesting because you kinda do have a point with the execution of certain reformations, Wallflower especially. However I do want to analyze the writing for each reformation real quick just to show some context you are missing.

From the Cutie Re-mark Part 2 right when Twilight, Starlight, and Spike return back and the Mane 5 find them:

Notice how Twilight gets to explain the situation to the others and come to her own conclusion with their support. Starlight has no sympathetic influence on the decision to mentor her. Twilight's words also why not explicitly saying what she did was wrong when Starlight accepts punishment doesn't say what she did was understandable and right either. Instead she takes a higher ground and offers Starlight a choice to better herself under her tutelage. Starlight isn't absolved of responsibility of what she did and Twilight doesn't take responsibility for what she did. Instead both parties just agree to look past it and forge ahead with a reformative path in mind to make up for the mistakes that were made.

Now Wallflower after Sunset gets her memories back and finally defeated has this exchange:

Wallflower apologizes but you're right that immediately afterwards Sunset does too. This is where I can see what you're talking about. Wallflower tries to take all the responsibility for her actions, but Sunset turns around and says it's okay. That can definitely be misconstrued as saying Wallflower did what she did understandably fine and Sunset has to accept some responsibility for her actions. And yet there are certain parts this apology makes sure to avoid to keep the implications as evident. Sunset at least doesn't say it was wrong for her to be mean or not to forgive. Wallflower doesn't justify further that she should be forgiven or emphasized with saying things like "you have to understand" and Twilight just gives empathy herself. There is less of a choice between the act of forgiveness between the victim and the wrong-doer but that may be what the point was to teach from Sunset is to make that kind of decision when you do have some part in it granted however small it may be in the long run. It's tough to say as unlike Starlight where she impacted a lot more of the world, you said it yourself Wallflower was mainly causing a problem for herself and only herself until Sunset came along. So when Sunset does find shared responsibility in her actions and expresses it logically it's not explicitly telling the audience that Wallflower has no blame but that you can make a choice to forgive and help someone who is hurting themselves when they just happen to lash out at you.

So Do you agree or disagree with what I'm saying how The Villain redemptions are bad?

[KH7672 1,604]

17 hours ago, YoungJustice12334 said:

Are you saying you agree or disagree with what I'm saying how The Villain redemptions are bad?

 

2 hours ago, YoungJustice12334 said:

So Do you agree or disagree with what I'm saying how The Villain redemptions are bad?

No need to double post to get my attention. I'm just not on here too much everyday to respond right away.

Anyway the tldr of my analysis is to say that your read of the villains that are redeemed being absolved of all responsibility and the victims taking it are not entirely accurate like in the terms of Starlight's both parties agree to look past the repercussions and in terms of Wallflower, the victimized party does find some fault in herself to be apologetic for.

In terms of redemption I don't even agree Starlight was redeemed at that moment anyway. And for Wallflower I can agree more to the poor word choice in the execution of the redemption as being not good, but the logic behind the characters actions are still sound enough for me to be at least okay with the over all outcome.

In even shorter: no I've never agreed with your feelings on redemption but I can find parts of your analysis true that can be looked at differently to still be okay with redemptions.

[RDDash 18,864]

Sometimes antagonists should stay as antagonists, but then Hasbro struggles with milking a pointless revenge plots of some vilains.

Edited May 16, 2020 by RDDash

[YoungJustice12334 51]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:58 AM, KH7672 said:

 

No need to double post to get my attention. I'm just not on here too much everyday to respond right away.

Anyway the tldr of my analysis is to say that your read of the villains that are redeemed being absolved of all responsibility and the victims taking it are not entirely accurate like in the terms of Starlight's both parties agree to look past the repercussions and in terms of Wallflower, the victimized party does find some fault in herself to be apologetic for.

In terms of redemption I don't even agree Starlight was redeemed at that moment anyway. And for Wallflower I can agree more to the poor word choice in the execution of the redemption as being not good, but the logic behind the characters actions are still sound enough for me to be at least okay with the over all outcome.

In even shorter: no I've never agreed with your feelings on redemption but I can find parts of your analysis true that can be looked at differently to still be okay with redemptions.

If you disagree, that's fine, but I still hated those 2 characters, and I still hated how easily forgiven Starlight was. I'll talk with you more on Starlight later, but I just rewatched the Fame and Misfortune episode, and here's my reasons on why I hated it:

I know the Fame & Misfortune episode was supposed to be A commentary-type of episode, but it failed terribly at it. Firstly, I noticed the journal was written to show the events of Season 4-5 and Not before or after. So any arguments made about the mane six at the time in the episode don't really apply anymore. Maybe people didn't like Rarity at the time, but I don't think she's that hated now.

The guy talking about how Twilight would've been more interesting if she stayed in Canterlot makes no sense since the journal starts after Twilight became an Alicorn. And that also invalidates the "Twilight was better before she got wings". Twilight decides to use the experience of her and her friends to spread the message of Friendship and it backfires because Equestria is populated by impulsive idiots, and a good portion of the episode is devoted to showing us just how over-zealous the readers are as they basically ruin the lives of the Mane-6 in a matter of a single day.

I Hated witnessing Applejack’s home getting invaded, Pinkie Pie being laughed at by everypony whenever she talks, Rainbow Dash never getting two seconds of peace, Rarity’s business getting boycotted, and Fluttershy getting harassed in the streets.

The episode was basically saying “Screw the adult fans,the kid fans are way better and smarter” and I found it to be very insulting. We never needed the episode to be honest, and the Mane 6 never deserved the terrible treatment they received from Ponyville, I mean come on, They saved Equestria multiple times throughout the show, and that's the way Ponyville repays them?! .

Yeah, people complained that Fluttershy learned the same thing over again, but the writers fixed the problem. That fact makes how the show treats the argument very confusing now that I think about it. The writers themselves recognized this as a problem and made Fluttershy more aggressive. That'd be like if season 4 had an episode calling out Twilight giving out every lesson. Not only would that be outdated, but it'd have been a problem that the writers themselves recognized and fixed.

Secondly, there are times where the arguments are just plain wrong and downright stupid. This mostly just applies for Rarity's backlash. The only reason given is that Rarity apparently stated that she think she did all the work in Simple Ways when that's not true. She said she put in a lot of work and that it was the hardest thing she'd ever done, but she didn't say she did all the work.

The only other argument is that they don't think Rarity has learned any of her lessons. 1. How would they know? and 2. They could say that for any of the mane six. It honestly makes me think the writers couldn't think of a good reason for things to go wrong for Rarity so they just made stuff up.

Thirdly, the friendship journal has a different purpose than the TV show. The journal is obviously a metaphor for the TV show, but that doesn't work because the purpose of the journal is solely as an educational tool while the TV show is also to entertain. All of the talk about the mane six like characters don't work because the journal is not entertainment. Any criticisms against the mane six made from the book are automatically bullshit because the journal only documents the lessons made at the end of each episode. The journal does not set out of make characters and tell stories. It's autobiographical and is made to share lessons.

The TV show on the other hand is fiction. It does set out to tell stories and create characters. A fair comparison for the journal would be if the TV show was just the friendship lessons from seasons 4-5. Not the rest of the episodes. Just the lessons. If that was true, this episode shouldn't have been made because there'd be no fan criticism to base it on. You can't criticize something like that unless it gives a rancid moral. But that's not one of the criticisms that the episode goes for. Only the stuff that makes no sense in universe. So yeah. As a commentary on the fanbase, it came across as insulting and just terrible.

When Ponyville argued that the mane six aren't real characters, It doesn't work when complaining about the criticisms of this show. It brings up arguments that make no sense in the show's universe and expects the audience to take the episode seriously when it takes the arguments down. By the end, the episode gives such little of a shit about justifying these arguments in universe that they are literally using words like "character".

Honestly, if the writers had such a big problem with the fans about the criticisms of the show, they should've sent out a tweet talking about it or something like that and start to accept Some criticisms from the fanbase and write better episodes for MLP to educate Kids and adults about relationships, friendship and stuff like that.

I never liked the episode One Bit because The way Ponyville acted was Just awful. Another reason why I found the Fame & Misfortune episode to be absolutely awful because Not only was it horribly written, it also made Ponyville, The LITERAL Hometown The Mane 6 protected since the beginning of the show, into complete Idiotic and heartless morons. I get it, they aren't the way you would want them to be, but that still doesn't give them the right to act like that, especially considering how much they have done to protect Equestria.

The way Ponyville treated The Mane 6 after what they've done to protect Equestria it came across to me as petty and incredibly immature, which are the two traits that describe the writers for making this episode. The writers were pretty stupid to go like "Yeah, let's dedicate an entire episode towards taking shit about the fandom that made your show go far beyond typical "Kid's Show" syndication" I am not saying the fandom was the sole reason but my points are still valid.

I’m not that much of A fan of M.A. Larson's work, but he did NOT deserve to get screwed over here, and the fact that he was forced to write the episode makes me question Hasbro a lot. I also found the episode to be a staple of the pride and hubris of the later show-runners. There are a lot of Bad MLP Episodes, but the episode Fame & Misfortune took the title with ease. It also felt like A stupid Teen Titans Go! episode trying to make its critics look like idiots.

I also found the episode to be a staple of the pride and hubris of the later show-runners. I still didn't like Starlight and she served no purpose to the narrative, and could've been easily replaced with Spike.

Oh, and I found the "Flawless" song to be poorly thought-out song that really only addresses maybe Fluttershy, Rarity, and Rainbow’s perceptions, and by the time the credits role, the idiots are still screaming on the front lawn! Why would I want to watch an episode that spends the majority of it’s time making the main characters miserable only to NOT HAVE AN ENDING?!!!!!!

[Singe 2,109]

On 4/7/2020 at 7:29 PM, Rushing cash said:

Neighsay: he wasn't really a big villain, he just had bias(understandable biases considering what happened prior) against non ponies, but while misguided he had equestrias best interests at heart. I was okay with this.

Neighsay wasn't really a villain. He just had opposing view points and concerns given the prior history, that the show never addressed. Plus he was holding Twilight accountable for mismanagement. I think he was made to play on the current political climate at that time.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Singe