UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Entertainment

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-16-2012, 03:26 PM   #751
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:07 PM   #752
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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:

BORKED
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:54 PM   #753
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
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).
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:53 PM   #754
GrJackass
Night Man
 
GrJackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post

BORKED

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.
GrJackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:58 PM   #755
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:16 PM   #756
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Protip: everything is better after watching barney for two hours.
I sorely doubt this. By this same logic, everything would be better after watching Teletubbies for 2 hours. In other news, haven't seen Teletubbies in years. Seeing it now, I am reminded of just what an acid trip this show is.

*cough*, back on topic. How many episodes until Season 2's finished? Seven?
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:20 PM   #757
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
And then suddenly everybody started arguing. Can we just say Talon is right?
We're not arguing, we're discussing a show we like. There's nothing bad about having a light hearted debate every now and then.

Quote:
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.
No one here is trying to compare MLP to any great literary works by any means, don't make mountains out of molehills.

Quote:
If you were to watch this show expecting something like Avatar, Tale of Two Cities, or Fullmetal Alchemist to happen, prepare for disappointment.
Sorry, breaking rule one here, but... no shit.


Quote:
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.
Okay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87
How many episodes until Season 2's finished? Seven?
Uh, we're on... what, 18 this Saturday, so after that... 8, if we're going to 26 episodes, 10 if the rumors of having a three part finale turn out to be true.

Last edited by deoxys; 02-16-2012 at 11:23 PM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:37 PM   #758
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
No one here is trying to compare MLP to any great literary works by any means, don't make mountains out of molehills.
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?
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:46 PM   #759
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Okay Shuckle, now it's an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
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?
Maybe if you had actually read my post Talon, you would see I was telling Shuckle to not make mountains out of molehills, not you.

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
Quote:
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.


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:
"OR MAYBE WE'RE JUST OVER ANALYZING A CHILDREN'S SHOW"
But, you know... you're always right! I should know my place. Sorry I stepped out of it.

Last edited by deoxys; 02-16-2012 at 11:49 PM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 11:53 PM   #760
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:17 AM   #761
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Shuckle

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
No one here is trying to compare MLP to any great literary works by any means, don't make mountains out of molehills.
But I thought you wanted mountains!

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!"
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:18 AM   #762
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
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!"

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:
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.
I've read Monte Cristo. I haven't read the others. And don't be an ass.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:32 AM   #763
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
But I thought you wanted mountains!

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!"
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't see why anything else needed to be brought into the discussion in the first place. MLP and the prior given examples are apples and celery stalks. They don't even deserve to belong in the same discussion together. It's like trying to compare the depth of Tintin or Yoh Asakura to that of John Watson or Gandalf. They both have a certain degree of DEPTH, but in completely different ways and different definitions of the same word.

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:
"Applejack went from being a stubborn character who didn't need the help of anyone else, to slowly learning to accept the help of her friends when it was needed, and that sometimes, you can't do everything on your own"
not
Quote:
"Jack Shepard went from being a spinal surgeon who lives with regret after having killed patients in surgery by mistake and having a fallout with his father just before he died whilst not being able to move on or accept that sometimes you have to have faith when you can't find it, to being a tried and tested emotional character who found peace with his father after death and learned to accept that fate and coincidence are not the same thing, therein eventually leading to his redemption through his own death."

Last edited by deoxys; 02-17-2012 at 12:35 AM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:36 AM   #764
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Looking forward to Saturday's ep. A somewhat lengthy Pinkie song and dance sequence would make my life.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:41 AM   #765
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Remember that "Smile" song that was leaked?

Calling it now.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:53 AM   #766
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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
He just drew a few extra lines in the sand so as to try and justify that "Amongst the pantheon of children's television, MLP:FiM is deep." (Compared against Spongebob and Garfield, yes. Compared against Avatar: the Last Airbender and Batman: the Animated Series, hell no. )

My argument wasn't restricted to literature, was another thing. (But I don't think his was intended as such either.) I specifically mentioned, and gave examples from, other media like film and video games. But I think literary examples formed the backbone of my argument, so if you're wanting to say "It's not fair to compare a children's cartoon with high literature! ;-;", then I guess you've as much argument with me as with Shuckle. I don't really see this in terms of fair or not fair for the media being compared: I see it in terms of fair or not fair for the terminology being used. To me, what's unfair (to other works) is to call MLP:FiM "deep" or any of its characters "deeply developed." 1984 this is not. No Exit this is not. Tales of the Heike this is not. It'd be pretty cruel and childish to those works and their authors to place them on the same pedestal as MLP:FiM and to say, by way of declaring certain ponies to be "deep" characters, that the characters in those classic stories are no more deep than the stuff pumped out by freelance writers for a toy company's home media outlet. No offense to MLP's writers, but nothing they've shown us deserves to be passed along for centuries to come. As Shuckle has pointed out, if we want to restrict the comparison of MLP:FiM to only other 21st Century children's cartoons, then sure, it's in the top 70th percentile if not even higher. From what little I've seen of it and of kids' television nowadays, I'd certainly agree that it's deeper than most. But that's like saying "a 3-inch-deep pool of water is deeper than a 1-inch pool." Yes, yes it is, but it's still remarkably shallow from a grander scope.

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
0 anchor (shallowest character): random background ponies who have literally 0 development?

10 anchor (deepest character): Luna?

Mane Six rankings: I have no idea where I'd put them numerically, but as far as placing them in some kind of order, from shallowest to deepest, they would be:

Applejack < Rainbow Dash < Rarity < Fluttershy < Twilight Sparkle < Pinkie Pie (all thanks to her backstory episode and Party of One, otherwise she'd have come in dead last)

The problem is, this list requires a lot of clarification. Twilight isn't deep so much as she is complex. However, she's easily the show's most complex character imo, so she has to go near the top. Pinkie Pie is at the apex of the list but only because of her rock farm backstory and Party of One. Without those two episodes, she is the single most 2-dimensional character in the entire group. Like Pinkie Pie, Fluttershy isn't exactly "deep" without the help of episodes like The Staremaster and The Best Night Ever, episodes which Muyo's people say break her character and which my people say flesh out her character. So not only is that like Pinkie's situation (where Fluttershy's otherwise pretty darn 2-D) but it's even contentious. As for the final three, none of them have really had anything in the way of backstory that has lent them to being seen as "deep" to me. The only real justification for ranking them the way I did was "Whose outward personality is more of a veneer and is less of a true representation of who they really are?" If one can call that "depth," then it's Rarity before RD and RD before Applejack.

I guess I would say of my list, "Feel free to rearrange the first three, and feel free to rearrange the final three, but don't bother moving anybody past the halfway line." Like, I don't feel that Rarity belongs in 1st or 2nd, and don't really want to argue that she's in 3rd. Likewise, if you feel Twilight's in 3rd or 4th, fine, I don't really care, but 5th or 6th is just ridiculous to me. If you feel like Pinkie Pie belongs in 6th Place, go right ahead: I just think you're choosing to ignore her the two major arguments for her earning a higher place. Wish I could do the same.


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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 01:01 AM   #767
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Remember that "Smile" song that was leaked?

Calling it now.
Holy shit, I had not heard of this until now. Listening to it now and it's awesome.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:08 AM   #768
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
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:
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.
You raise some good points. It's not easy. I'll try to list going based off of S1 standards, and then I'll make my points going based of S1 and S2 standards and spoil it, but I won't reveal any plot points or anything important to the show, just updated opinions, this way you can read it if you'd like without having to worry about spoilers, but if you don't want to, I'll understand. First:



Quote:
Spoiler: show
0 anchor (shallowest character): random background ponies who have literally 0 development?

10 anchor (deepest character): Luna?

Mane Six rankings: I have no idea where I'd put them numerically, but as far as placing them in some kind of order, from shallowest to deepest, they would be:

Applejack < Rainbow Dash < Rarity < Fluttershy < Twilight Sparkle < Pinkie Pie (all thanks to her backstory episode and Party of One, otherwise she'd have come in dead last)

The problem is, this list requires a lot of clarification. Twilight isn't deep so much as she is complex. However, she's easily the show's most complex character imo, so she has to go near the top. Pinkie Pie is at the apex of the list but only because of her rock farm backstory and Party of One. Without those two episodes, she is the single most 2-dimensional character in the entire group. Like Pinkie Pie, Fluttershy isn't exactly "deep" without the help of episodes like The Staremaster and The Best Night Ever, episodes which Muyo's people say break her character and which my people say flesh out her character. So not only is that like Pinkie's situation (where Fluttershy's otherwise pretty darn 2-D) but it's even contentious. As for the final three, none of them have really had anything in the way of backstory that has lent them to being seen as "deep" to me. The only real justification for ranking them the way I did was "Whose outward personality is more of a veneer and is less of a true representation of who they really are?" If one can call that "depth," then it's Rarity before RD and RD before Applejack.

I guess I would say of my list, "Feel free to rearrange the first three, and feel free to rearrange the final three, but don't bother moving anybody past the halfway line." Like, I don't feel that Rarity belongs in 1st or 2nd, and don't really want to argue that she's in 3rd. Likewise, if you feel Twilight's in 3rd or 4th, fine, I don't really care, but 5th or 6th is just ridiculous to me. If you feel like Pinkie Pie belongs in 6th Place, go right ahead: I just think you're choosing to ignore her the two major arguments for her earning a higher place. Wish I could do the same.
S1:

Spoiler: show
You're definitely right about Luna, although whether she's deepest or not, I'm not sure. It's funny because, even though she only had a grand total of about a minute not counting NMM form, her downward spiral through hatred and jealousy leading up to her banishment is definitely a crazy one with a lot of history, some the fans are expected to leave up to the imagination. Which leads to the second point: Celestia. The one who actually did the banishing, and she is seemingly without age, blemish, or imperfection. She's essentially god at this point, and her entire history is an enigma, more than deep. So, she really isn't deep, she's just a princess Twilight writes to for the sake of morals. But she has potential to be a lot more, given her sister's history, too.

Now for the mane cast: Not easy. Applejack wasn't given much development in S1; She's a stubborn farmer with an attitude and tomboyish tendencies, very much like Rainbow. There are a few things about her character which could lead to depth but are never explained. Where are her parents? Well, Faust says that they were originally going to have them written in as having died when she was young, but then they decided to not do anything with it at all. Assuming they did die, this means she grew up alone. It may have even contributed to why she left to live with her relatives and become a city girl. That didn't last long though, did it? Unfortunately this is about the line for her character. She's a stubborn pony who is interchangeably honest/loyal, farms for a living and sells apples to make money, and lives with her grandmother, brother, and younger sister to work the farm. In fact, rather cliched, to a degree.

Wow that was longer than it ever needed to be and I'm sorry. I'll try to keep the others short.

RD: Typical tomboy, craves attention. It's like a drug to her. The problem is, her insecurity kicks in when she realizes that a lot of the time, she's put on a front and she can't live up to it, at least in terms of her behavior. Sonic Rainboom, for instance, she'd rather hide at the end of the line curled up in the fetal position because she knows she can't live up to the expectations she's put on (basically, she's a liar). Out side of this, she does actually have some, doesn't she? We know that she looks up to and idolizes the Wonderbolts, hoping to someday join their ranks. She stood up for Fluttershy when she was being pick on, because she's her friend; but back to her attention, she is basically her own self fulfilling prophecy with an attitude. She's also incredibly blunt, something no one else can claim...

Twilight: As you say, the you and me. The realist. Perhaps one of the deeper characters, too. She keeps to herself, doesn't have time for friends or anything. She is obsessed with knowledge and learning, and would probably grow old and die alone, being married to her books. Forced to Ponyville by Celestia, she enters groaning and not wanting to have anything to do with it. Flowers and rainbows and unicorns? Really? Who has time for that? Who cares about any of that? Well, she opened her mind a bit and got friends out of it. Now she's the librarian of the town and continues studying her magic. Celestia no doubt saw something in her when she was at that test, and exploded into her avatar mode. It's quite possible she's an evil enchantress the most powerful magic user in the world. She's cynical, sometimes arrogant with her knowledge. She puts logic and reason before blind faith (although she gave in to this when unable to explain 'Pinkie Pie Sense', which may or may not have been out of character). There is way too much more, and I'd say this is due to the fact that she had the most screen time in season one.

...God, what the hell is wrong with me? I have no life. Here I am, typing paragraphs about PONIES.

Pinkie: Arguably the most two dimensional character, except towards the end. Then it changes. But nevertheless my favorite for being so filled with joy. It wasn't until her back story was revealed that she was fleshed out a bit. She has Pinkie Pie Sense, some sort of ESP or magic unexplainable by anypony. In Party of One, it is shown that she very likely has deep psychological issues that she suppresses with happiness, and when she isn't happy, what lies beneath reveals itself. And it ain't pretty. Whatever she is. Or maybe she doesn't have psychological problems and just went insane from the lack of happiness in her life? Who knows. Definitely an enigma, but anything else is just "Pinkie Pie being Pinkie Pie".

Rarity: Also one of the deeper characters, however unlikable (to me at least). Generous? Certainly. It was shown plenty of times, however, she's also quite greedy as well, so both ends of the spectrum. Very upstanding, sees herself on a tier above everyone else. Very stuck up, haughty, elitist. Why? We don't know the answer to that, other than that's just who she is. Her back story was one of the worst, as it didn't add hardly anything to her character (one day her horn glowed and drug her to a rock filled with gems. The end. ) But that's okay, she makes up for it later. Her pinnacle moment and crowning achievement is in the finale when she snaps and disgraces Prince Blueblood , "What's the matter? AFRAID TO GET DIRTY?", something she never would have said before. The growth to that point could be evidenced as well in A Dog and Pony Show.

Fluttershy: Not deep, but not two dimensional. Somewhere in the inbetween. She grew quite a bit right at the get go in "Dragonshy" when she overcame her fear of dragons and, for the first time, spoke up, when she saw her friends hurt. She didn't do this again until the finale, where she grew frustrated that her dreams of socializing with the animals weren't coming true, something all of us can relate to. She "broke character", although I think it helped her character bloom a bit, showing there's more to her than we realize. "COME OUT!" and "You're... going to LOVE ME!" were hilarious, sure, but her expectations were completely crushed that night, and out of sadness, anger, and frustration and confusion, she showed the loud side of her that no one had ever seen. Some of this was exhibited a bit in "Staremaster" though, since she was shown to give a rather threatening stare at animals to bend them to her will. There's definitely a lot more to her than we realize, and I think we're only getting started with that.

So. For season one, I'd say AJ<RD<Flutter<Pinkie<Rarity<Twilight



S1+S2 (no details like S1, very brief, no spoilers)

Spoiler: show
Quite different from before... RD<Flutter<Pinkie=AJ<Rarity. I don't even know where to rank Twilight, but she'd most likely still be at the end. It's not easy to tell given how the season has progressed. You'll see.

A lot of characters grow in unexpected ways, as the season takes a huge turn from S1 and has "character centric" episodes, in which a lot of episodes feature only one or two characters, centering around one in particular. This fleshes out a lot of imperfections and sheds light on new things about them and their personality we didn't know before, some of it is surprising. Other characters fix problems they had, and some fix problems and develop new ones. There's so much more...
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:29 AM   #769
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
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
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:32 AM   #770
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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
Your S1 list: Applejack < Rainbow Dash < Fluttershy < Pinkie Pie < Rarity < Twilight
Your S2 list: Rainbow Dash < Fluttershy < Pinkie Pie < Applejack < Rarity ?<? Twilight

All that changed in your list was that Applejack leapt out of sixth place and into third. That's it. Now, I'm not saying that the six characters didn't all develop further in S2. I'm sure they did. I'm sure that, if things were numerically scored as well, we'd see how everybody's numbers have gone up. But my point is, in terms of pure rankings, all that changed for you was Applejack's placement. This suggests (to me, anyway) that:
  1. my ability to join in the conversation with just Season 1 knowledge isn't quite too too bad, and
  2. the writers didn't surprise you guys with too much
Sure, they may have developed all six, but what I'm saying is, it's not like Twilight went from most 3-dimensional to most 2-dimensional or like Applejack and Rainbow Dash together went from sixth and fifth to first and second. There was no upheaval, is what I'm getting at. Simply ... people's opinions about Applejack's character depth changed between seasons enough to warrant her promotion up the list and that's it. ^^;

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:40 AM   #771
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
EDIT: Ninja'd by Rangeet. Two words for you Rangeet: good grief.
Good grief is an exclamation of anything from joy to sadness to anger to shock. While it sums up MLP, I don't think it's a good answer to my post. >:O

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
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:51 AM   #772
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
I'm waiting for the batch torrent entire thing to be out. I like being able to watch things like this at my own pace.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:53 AM   #773
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Then, quite frankly, you can't comment on season 2. It's different in a...different way. :O
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 02:58 AM   #774
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post

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: all six, Fluttershy developed.
S1E08: Applejack/Rarity/Twilight
S1E09: all six
S1E10: all six
S1E11: all six, Twilight focused
S1E12: Applebloom episode
S1E13: Applejack and Rainbow Dash shared episode
S1E14: Rarity episode
S1E15: Twilight Sparkle and Pinkie Pie shared episode
S1E16: all six, Rarity/Rainbow Dash focus
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
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.
I fixed your list.

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.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 06:26 AM   #775
Char
Banned
 
Char's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Patches made this cool Charmander pumpkin
Posts: 1,203
Friendship is truly magic.
Char is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Entertainment


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.