02-16-2012, 03:26 PM | #751 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
__________________
|
02-16-2012, 08:07 PM | #752 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Well, Talon, without spoiling anything for you, Season 2 basically takes away from Season 1's method of storytelling and starts to focus on individual characters instead for character building each one piece by piece. At times, it works okay, and at other times, it doesn't, but in an intriguing way the new season definitely adds depth to characters where season one was lagging behind in that department. That isn't to say that season one didn't have any character building, it definitely did (Sonic Rainboom, Best Night Ever, Party of One, Cutie Mark Chronicles, just to name a limited few, all immediately come to mind).
That's why there are more arguments this season about being out of character or controversies about changes in personality, etc. And Kairne, you're right, that episode is essentially just shit in the writing department. Not to say that it wasn't a bad episode in terms of premise, because I thought Mare Do-Well had a very fun idea behind it, but it was botched with terrible character. I blame the writer for being new to the team, and taking their personalities and pushing them to new extremes. Still doesn't change my view on RD though, even though I will admit that I enjoy her tomboyish antics from time to time. I will also admit I thought her performance in Read It and Weep was well done, too, and actually redeemed her a bit for me. Also: |
02-16-2012, 08:54 PM | #753 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I never said that either season was lacking in character development: I said that, Season 1 at the very least (as that's all that I've seen), does not produce what you could call deep characters. There's a difference. Well-established doesn't necessarily equal deep. Charlie Brown is a remarkably well-developed (i.e. well-established) character. In the 20+ years of comics and television specials he was in, we saw it all with Charlie Brown. Yet he was never, ever what you would call a deep character. He's no Edmond Dantčs. Spongebob Squarepants probably has more character background development than half of the mane six put together yet you wouldn't call him deep either. He's no Elim Garak. When you call a character "deep," you are implying that he or she has multiple layers and that his or her actions are often the result of a complex interplay between conflicting personality traits or desires. When you call a character "shallow" or "uni-dimensional," you are implying that a character's actions are remarkably predictable, that everything they do conforms to the stereotypical behaviors associated with that character, etc. For example, Steve Urkel is not a deep character. Even though we know a lot about him, we can count on him to be the nerd, the weakling, the hopeless romantic, and to say "Did I do that? " whenever he breaks something. I would sooner lump Pinkie Pie or Rainbow Dash in with Steve Urkel, in spite of episodes like "Sonic Rainboom" or "Party of One," than I would lump them in with Cao Cao or King Arthur. That doesn't necessarily mean that I dislike them. I like Steve Urkel and Charlie Brown too. It just means that I wouldn't call them "deep" on the sole basis of their having had character-dedicated episodes that flesh out their pasts.
__________________
|
02-16-2012, 09:53 PM | #754 |
Night Man
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
|
well there is only really Four basic personalities, and i always thought applejack and rainbow dash were fairly similar from the start. so /shrug, they're both "loyalty" edit: thought about it some more, perhaps twilight and rarity arent that similar so just removed it
__________________
I'm an old school Poke-BALLER. ”Fee, fie, foe, fum the End are Near at thou Bobbum. Time me open Bobbum Van trunk, for ruin Bobbum wif Equipmunk.” Last edited by GrJackass; 02-16-2012 at 10:14 PM. |
02-16-2012, 09:58 PM | #755 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
And then suddenly everybody started arguing. Can we just say Talon is right?
Characters in this show are deep and complex by children's television standards. They are average to shallow in comparison to something more plot-based (like anime, which by the way Talon is an enormous fan of - yay evaluating for bias! I will do well on my AP exam), and have all the backstory and personality quirks of your average turnip when compared to heavy literary works by authors like Jane Austen, Alexandre Dumas, and Charles Dickens. If you were to watch this show expecting something like Avatar, Tale of Two Cities, or Fullmetal Alchemist to happen, prepare for disappointment. If you watch Barney the Dinosaur for two hours and then progress to MLP, it'll be like HOLY **** MAN THAT'S SO DEEP! Protip: everything is better after watching barney for two hours. the fun gets exponentially better the longer you watch barney and the better the activity. except sex because you're never going to get a woman/man/jellyfish to sit and watch two hours of barney the dinosaur just so it feels more exciting.
__________________
|
02-16-2012, 10:16 PM | #756 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
*cough*, back on topic. How many episodes until Season 2's finished? Seven?
__________________
|
|
02-16-2012, 11:20 PM | #757 | |||||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by deoxys; 02-16-2012 at 11:23 PM. |
|||||
02-16-2012, 11:37 PM | #758 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
On the contrary, you're the one making mountains ("they're so deep! And you should know that! Let me list off all the episodes you've seen which prove how unfathomable they are!") out of molehills (shallow-as-a-kid's-swimming-pool characters). This quoted text is about as bad as the 180° spin unownmew sometimes puts on things in Debate. I'm the one telling you to knock it off with the mountain business and then you come in and tell me, "QUIT MAKING MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS!"? Absurd. What can I do but to laugh?
__________________
|
02-16-2012, 11:46 PM | #759 | ||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Okay Shuckle, now it's an argument.
Quote:
You're completely exaggerating what I was saying. I posted a quote regarding RD and it took the thread into the direction of discussing character depth in the show, so I posted one comment with my thoughts on the matter (hit the spoiler to see which one!) Spoiler: show I listed a few examples of episodes from season one that show character growth. Also, if you had seen my comment prior to that one, I listed at the end: Quote:
Last edited by deoxys; 02-16-2012 at 11:49 PM. |
||
02-16-2012, 11:53 PM | #760 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Shuckle and I had effectively the same argument. (He just reiterated what I had said earlier.) So if you took issue with him making mountains out of molehills, you took issue with me doing it too. Which, y'know, you'd have realized if you'd actually read both of our posts. "Heeeeey ... they said pretty much the same exact thing! So that's why Talon responded to my response to Shuckle as though I'd responded to him!"
Alternatively, it's possible that you read my posts and yet have no idea who Edmond Dantčs, Cao Cao, or Yuri Zhivago are. In which case, they're main characters from The Count of Monte Cristo, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and Dr. Zhivago, respectively. Y'know, those "great literary works" you spoke of earlier.
__________________
|
02-17-2012, 12:17 AM | #761 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
More to the point, it wasn't just you. There were plenty of other people who were also claiming that MLP is deeper than it actually is. Kairne and Rangeet, for example. I was simply providing an answer to that in "Hey! These awesome things are deeper than MLP! Not saying it's not complex in a number of ways, but you really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that!"
__________________
|
|
02-17-2012, 12:18 AM | #762 | ||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
I did read your post, Talon, I just didn't feel the need to respond to it. I would disagree that you and Shuckle didn't have the same argument, because I actually agreed with your post. Hence why I didn't feel the need to debate it and therefore respond to it. I didn't feel the need to say "Of course there is a given personality to each character that allows for predictability, much like your example of Steve Urkel or Charlie Brown", because you already said it and I didn't feel the need to become redundant. Shuckle's post was similar to what you said, but not the same. Mostly because he came across as an ass, at least how I read it. This line here, for instance: >I would sooner lump Pinkie Pie or Rainbow Dash in with Steve Urkel, in spite of episodes like "Sonic Rainboom" or "Party of One," than I would lump them in with Cao Cao or King Arthur I didn't take as comparing the show's characters to literature, even though I suppose that was the intent. I read it more as in regards to general examples of known characters from other fictional works. There wasn't an argument here. If this is what Shuckle was trying to say essentially, then so be it, because I completely read his argument in a different way, and in a different tone. Quote:
|
||
02-17-2012, 12:32 AM | #763 | |||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
I think what this whole discussion boils down to is different interpretations of the word "depth". We're discussing personalities and character growth of ponies here, not Jack Shepard. i.e. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by deoxys; 02-17-2012 at 12:35 AM. |
|||
02-17-2012, 12:41 AM | #765 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Remember that "Smile" song that was leaked?
Calling it now. |
02-17-2012, 12:53 AM | #766 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Well, we didn't completely agree. But he more or less was reiterating what I had said.
(click to read on) Spoiler: show I guess if we were to try and bring the discussion back into MLP and quit worrying about how it compares with other things ... which characters, if any, do you feel are deepest in the MLP universe and why? Some have been saying that Rainbow Dash is a cardboard cutout while others have been saying that she's gotten one hell of a character development treatment from the writers this season. So what'll it be? Is Rainbow Dash the deepest of the Mane Six? The shallowest? If she's not the deepest, then who is and why? This isn't necessarily a "who's your favorite Mane Six pony?" poll. Your favorites may also be ones you think are very 2-dimensional. I'm just curious to know who people would rank deep and who they would rank shallow. If we act like no other stories exist and it's just the MLP universe we're dealing with, then somebody has to go at the very top of the depth spectrum at 10 and somebody else has to go at the very bottom at 0, with everybody else falling somewhere in between. Given that, I guess this'd be my list based on Season 1 ... Spoiler: show EDIT: Ninja'd by Deoxys and T-dos both. Well, if you want to completely table the conversation, I'm 100% cool with that. Disregard this post. Will leave it here for those who wanted to read it.
__________________
|
02-17-2012, 01:01 AM | #767 |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Holy shit, I had not heard of this until now. Listening to it now and it's awesome.
__________________
|
02-17-2012, 02:08 AM | #768 | ||
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Take no offense, I'm not ignoring the first portion of your post, I just don't really want to debate it any further, not because I can't, but because I really don't want to and that it's starting to drown the thread in negativity. There are parts I agree with, and parts I disagree with, and I think it'd be better if I just left it at that. Also, I'm sorry for having acted like an ass myself either. It was rather hypocritical of me, but I'm sure you know me enough by now to know that that's not uncommon for me to do (or maybe you don't? )
Anyway, I'll gladly discuss the latter part with you, although I will say it's not going to be easy. I guess I didn't really realize it until I thought about it, but S2 episodes really flesh out characters a lot more than S1, so this won't be easy. I wish you were caught up so this discussion could be more fruitful, because being 17 episodes behind doesn't help, especially given quite a few changes from the way S1 handled things. Quote:
Quote:
Spoiler: show S1+S2 (no details like S1, very brief, no spoilers) Spoiler: show |
||
02-17-2012, 02:29 AM | #769 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Hi Talon. Guess which part I have beef with. Surprise, it's the part where you insist we can't call MLP a deep show because it's not in the whole scheme of things.
Whoa nelly, it looks like I agree with you: His Dark Materials MLP is not. But that's like saying "You call this 8 year old boy intelligent? Well he's not. Intelligent is the guy who got into college at age 12." Surprise, surprise, people- even when they use language!- have different standards for different things. It is, in fact, not fair to compare MLP with works of literature, because holy fuck, it's not a work of literature. It's incredibly deep for a kid's show(I haven't watched Avatar so). In fact I think it's about the ONLY show I've seen which actually shows characters with faults. And...fixing them. And..they're not villains. Terminology be damned, MLP is a deep show with DEEP CHARACTERS, not because the characters have more facets than diamonds, but because they might as well given the genre. tl;dr: You can't call MLP not deep if you're comparing it with anything that's not a kid's show. MLP is deep, Avatar is (probably) deeper.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
02-17-2012, 02:32 AM | #770 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
A little bit of Talon rubbed off on ya.
deoxys: Gerroffme! *rubs nothingness off of his shoulders* Anyway, what's funny to me is that you made a big deal about "Oh, you haven't seen S2 yet, so you don't know ..." ... and then your S2 list ended up being pretty much the same. I mean, seriously: Spoiler: show Also, while I haven't seen S2 yet, true, I don't get why you guys keep saying "OMG, S2 is so character-of-the-week! S1 wasn't like that at all! " Uh, what the hell? S1 was totally like that. It's just that you guys, I think, are excited that not every episode features cameos from all (or even many) of the Mane Six, from what I hear, whereas in Season 1 all six ponies (or at least five of the six ponies) would show up in every episode. But seriously: how can you look at S1 and not tell me that those episodes are character-centric? S1E01: all six, arguably Twilight episode S1E02: all six, arguably Twilight episode S1E03: all six, leans heavily towards Twilight episode S1E04: Applejack episode S1E05: Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie shared episode S1E06: Twilight Sparkle and Trixie shared episode S1E07: Fluttershy episode S1E08: Applejack and Rarity shared episode S1E09: all six, arguably Apple Bloom episode S1E10: Pinkie Pie episode S1E11: Twilight episode S1E12: CMC episode S1E13: Applejack and Rainbow Dash shared episode S1E14: Rarity episode S1E15: Twilight Sparkle and Pinkie Pie shared episode S1E16: Rainbow Dash episode S1E17: Fluttershy and CMC shared episode S1E18: CMC episode S1E19: Rarity episode, arguably Spike shared episode S1E20: Rarity and Fluttershy shared episode S1E21: all six, arguably an Applejack episode since they're there on account of her and her family but ... S1E22: Fluttershy episode S1E23: all six plus CMC S1E24: Spike episode, arguably shared with Twilight S1E25: Pinkie Pie episode S1E26: all six Granted, there's a lot of duets in Season 1, something I get the impression from fans isn't what's happening in Season 2 where it sounds like there're many more solos. But still: even if the precise nature of the story presentations differs between the two seasons (S1 = main girl + her five buds show up, S2 = main girl with few or none of the other ponies showing up), I think it's preposterous to keep up this attitude of "S1 totally was all about the group all the time, S2 is where you really start to get pony-centric episodes." No no no no no no. Since episode 4 (at the latest), this franchise has had pony-centric episodes. EDIT: Ninja'd by Rangeet. Two words for you Rangeet: good grief.
__________________
|
02-17-2012, 02:40 AM | #771 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
Talon, I think this is one of these things you really can't compare without seeing it. Like I said, there's deep and deeper; there's also pony-centric and more pony-centric. I think deoxys will agree with me. *chorus*Watch Season Two for the sake of Celestia, Talon!
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
02-17-2012, 02:51 AM | #772 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I'm waiting for the
__________________
|
02-17-2012, 02:58 AM | #774 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
And because S2 is wildly different. There are maybe four episodes total out of the seventeen so far in which there are "all six". It's... I don't know. I feel like we should discuss this again once you've seen them, but I have a feeling at this point you'll come back and say "Sorry deo, but I was right!" But, the mood just shifts. Very narrow field of vision in terms of character focus. Not that that's bad, a lot of people don't like it, I feel like it's still as strong as S1 a lot of the time... It becomes more about focus on blatant character flaws and how to fix them, and then building the episode around that, as opposed to Faust's method of building and episode and then inserting the rest. It works well, don't get me wrong, but.... I don't know. Guess you'll wait and see. |
|
02-17-2012, 06:26 AM | #775 |
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Patches made this cool Charmander pumpkin
Posts: 1,203
|
Friendship is truly magic.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|