2. I disagree, that moment simply reinforces their completely basic motivations. 3. I disagree, it subtracts life. 4. I disagree, you've offered no demonstration that they have any personality to speak of past a single character trait for each. 5. I disagree, characterless generically seeking redemption girl Sunset is much worse. 6. I disagree, the Rainbooms didn't need any prodding because they're awful friends from the get-go. Remember when they're at Applejack's and still at each other's throats? No stress form the Dazzlings there. 7. I disagree, it doesn't. 8. I disagree, you're just being dramatic. 9. I disagree, and I mean this 100% honestly, after Twilight begins trying to write the counterspell I already knew immediately how the film would end, with the school and the Dazzlings, Sunset and everyone else, Rainbow and Applejack, Applejack and Rarity, Twilight and the counterspell, etc. etc. The only thing I didn't see coming was Vinyl. That's precisely the problem with introducing all the conflicts in act one and saving them for the climax. The first movie avoids that because, for example, you have no way of knowing that Snips and Snails would destroy the auditorium (a conflict added in the middle of the movie). 10. I disagree, that's just her being stupid. See? When you don't actually use specific scenes and demonstrate how this works better than that, your opinions can easily be dismissed since you have no facts to back up your points.
The problem with this thread is that you're asking for reasons why the movie was better, then dismissing the reasons given because they're just opinions. Of course they're opinions. The entire concept of quality is subjective, and based entirely on opinions. The quality of any piece of work, be it a book, a painting, or a movie, is judged by the viewers of said work. For example, the Mona Lisa is considered a masterpiece because the majority of its viewers agree that it's a masterpiece. The majority of the viewers of Rainbow Rocks agree that it's better than the first movie. You may not share their opinion, but according to thousands of years of human history... the majority rules.
You're completely misunderstanding what an opinion is. Saying "I prefer rock to pop" is not an opinion, it's a simple fact and a preference. Saying "This narrative flows better than that narrative" is an opinion, but a very weak one without any support. However, saying "Discord is the best written villain in the series" and then going on to demonstrate why you think that would be a strong opinion, one backed up by facts. It may not be demonstrably true, but anyone who disagrees will have to contend with actual facts rather than simply dismissing the opinion outright. You have absolutely no idea how critical analysis works. If you think that the only reason the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece is because a lot of people like it, you're delusional. Ask any artist why the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece and they'll tell you exactly why, and it will have nothing at all to do with their personal preferences, or "Well I just think it looks good", and definitely nothing like "majority rule". If you think critics do nothing but spout baseless opinions and happen to agree that things that fit their preferences are brilliant, you really haven't put any thought at all into what makes something good. Everything you just said is 100 wrong.
Opinion - Noun - A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. I know exactly what an opinion is. It's kinda hard not to, when I have easy access to a dictionary. Stating a preference is, in fact, expressing an opinion. When I say that I prefer Coke to Pepsi, I am stating a fact, but it's a fact about my opinion. Saying that "x" character is the best written in the series is a difficult argument to make under any circumstances. As I mentioned earlier, preferences are based on opinions, and people's opinions of what makes a character "well-written" differ. I also know how critical analysis works. Somebody who's considered an expert in their field analyzes a piece of art, be it a painting, movie, book, or song. They give their opinion of the work, and explain why they came to that conclusion. They then present their analysis to masses, who either agree or disagree. Sure, a lot of people can tell you why the Mona Lisa is a masterpiece, but the fact remains that it wouldn't be as famous as it is if the majority of people didn't like it. I see pieces of fanart every single day that show a degree of artistic skill that's equal to anything the world's most famous artists have produced. They'll will never be recognized as great because the majority of people will never even see them. Also, I'd like to point out that the statement that I was one hundred percent wrong... is just your opinion.
Saying whether or not something is an opinion isn't a matter of opinion (and is instead a matter of fact) is factually correct but doesn't contradict the original sentiment that the opinion is still an opinion. It's a fact that it's an opinion, which makes it an opinion, and debating otherwise is awfully silly.
Then how are you still getting it wrong? Factually incorrect. So you're trying to admit you were wrong in the most evasive and dishonest way possible. Just admit what you said was wrong and cut your losses, man.
OK, I can see this turning into a kerfuffle as, quite frankly, Dulset Tarn doesn't appear to be playing by the same rules as everyone else so I gotta put my Admin hat on. Dulset, I'm really not sure what your on about, but your perception of what you think you're doing is skewed. You aren't breeding helpful discussion or discourse, you're leading this conversation towards a bust up because you appear to believe that 'opinion' has no basis within critique, leading you to accuse everyone else of invalid points when it's subjectivity that forms the basis of modern critique and consumer advice today. I'm an amature critic myself on this site so I tend to think I got a good grip on this as well as a qualification in English Literature. I've done this stuff front to back and I'm saying you haven't got this quite right. And I say that you're ruining what could have been something enjoyable. Lean back on defending the first movie and actually listen. An opinion isn't inadmissible here. It's pretty much the best we've got. Please remember that.
I'm the one asking for opinions, and I never once suggested that an opinion has no basis in critique. This is the second time I've been misrepresented here. If I'm gonna get in trouble for something, I just hope it would be something I've actually done. Remember though, I'm looking for reasons to enjoy Rainbow Rocks. All I'm saying is that simple statements that "this is better than that", "I prefer this over that", or "Hey that's just your opinion" do nothing at all toward helping me see why others think the film is good. I'm the kind of person who is more than ready to change my opinion based on the facts, but those facts simply haven't been presented yet. In fact, I'm almost certain you guys can explain it better with a little more thought, which will help me see your point of view as more than a simple preference. I don't believe you all "just like it", you have your reasons and that's what I'm looking for. I just need to hear it in a bit more depth.
I will make this clear: THERE ARE NO COLD HARD FACTS ON THIS! THAT IS THE EVIDENCE AND WE'VE ALL BEEN GIVING REASONS WHY WE THINK THE WAY WE DO! I'm not sure what exactly you think your asking for but I assure you, we have been answering you straight and correctly. These are the reasons we like it. We have preferences that the movie appeals to. Apparently, the movie doesn't push any of your buttons so, leaves you cold. That's how this works and while we can attempt to present thesis upon thesis about what could be considered to be superior or inferior, but it cannot ever be fully divorced from personal opinion, no matter how much you tell us likewise. While it's very good of you to actively ask about a movie you didn't like, ultimately, it's down to you if you ever change your mind on Rainbow Rocks because different things hit people differently. Trust me, I do this sort of thing for fun and follow a ton of people that do this professionally. I know what I'm talking about.
That's a very cynical and dismissive worldview. It's also just your opinion, so maybe you could leave the thread be, and let other people try to give their own take? Just because you think you can't persuade me doesn't mean I'm not listening to anyone. I do truly thank you for your time and input, you did all you could and I appreciate that, but if it's frustrating you maybe you should focus elsewhere. You're dead wrong about one thing though. There ARE facts here. The facts are "the movies". The films, the events, the characters and scenes, the lines and the conflicts, those are the bedrock, the immutable, undeniable facts of the conversation. If you point to a specific line or scene, I certainly can't claim it was just your opinion, man!
Yes, there was a movie. But surely everything else is subjective because a line or a character design choice could strike different people differently. You can't just assume that a human being is like some sort of constant. It's a random pile of thoughts and beliefs that colour everything about media. Your suggested ideal and position, as I understand it, makes criticism and comparison almost pointlessly mute as all we can say about a thing is that it existed within that logic. We gain no emotional context and so cannot attempt to form an opinion upon it other than bland banal facts. "There was a line. There was a character called Twilight and she certainly did a thing. The stone statue she emerged out of was made of stone." Barreft of personal context, this thread would be that for as long as people could stand it. Because unless there's some sort of mixup somewhere, you appear to be asking us to both remove and consider the emotional context of a line even though it's completely subjective and dependant on the person, yet you suggest that you think there's a clear cut definitive answer on ever part, detail and decision upon the comparison that you have asked us to talk about. AAAH! Is my nose bleeding? I just don't know any more. I'm going to go stream computer games on the Radio. See you later.
The idea here is that some of the facts are simply not apparent at first glance. The ideal scenario is that something clever about the movie is revealed to me which I hadn't noticed before. Going with my previous example, a lesser known fact about Return of Harmony is that Discord used Twilight's own character weakness to cause her to make three fatal assumptions which all led to her losing her friends, only one of which was the openly stated "You thought the elements were in the labyrinth?" I could then use this fact to support the opinion that Discord is the most cleverly written villain, because his plans are much deeper and more meaningful than they appear at first glance. Another example would be Suited For Success' subtext about the creative process and the relationship between writers and bad producers who mean well. This is why I asked to keep the songs, Sunset's cuteness, and fanservice out of the discussion. I'm completely aware of those things, and they have no persuasive power.
OK. That's a neat quirk of the material if you look at it from one perspective. That's still not objective, that's still coloured by the notion that Discord is intelligent. He could just be a massive tool and making it up as he goes along. It's a well known thing about the human mind: it likes to find patterns. I can say that, and it would be valid. I can also say he's a complete jerk. I can also say he represents the idle wealthy. People who have no identity but instead attempt to cobble one together from other sources. Their wealth means they can just snap their fingers and whatever they want is just right there. Bored, powerful, and looking for a state of constant flux to keep themselves occupied, regardless of what others think. And that's just as valid. You can tell me I'm wrong till I'm blue in the face but that's what creative interpretation is all about and has been for centuries. So, if there's something specific you want, I suggest you try working with us rather than shooting down everything we attempt to discuss with you. If you want some deep, underlying underpinning of the entire work, stop killing the conversation stone dead with accusations that we're getting our ikky preferences on everything. Maybe then, we'd be more inclined to drill down past the surface fluff to the core of the film.
I'm interested in the implications of whether the movie actually is a literal battle between Rock and Pop with the writer coming heavily down on Rock's side. After all, a pop group that utilises song and what you could interpret as a more 'sexual' tone to beguile a perspective audience against the plucky, fun-loving Rock Band that only wants to entertain and have a good time. One is completely a performance while the other is genuine, blah blah blah. Though...we do now have something of a power vacuum in the school, now that Sunset Shimmer has been dethroned as Queen Bee.
Following that logic, you could say the writer finds Rock heavily egotistical and self-aggrandizing. Trixie's song was still the best though.
Hmm... as someone who doesn't quite understand myself why people think so highly of Rainbow Rocks, when I first saw this thread I was quite looking forward to an interesting discussion about this matter. Reading this thread however left me with a sour taste as instead of a "kindred spirit" I found the rhetoric equivalent of an anti-aircraft gun, ready to shoot down any possible counter-argument before they even get the chance to turn into something potentially enlightening. Shouldn't have come as a surprise, given that... oh well... Now I'm torn between wanting to throw in my take on the matter to the discussion and not wanting to add fuel to the fire (which I'm aware I may have very well already done by publicly posting this). But well, to ensure that I'm actually contributing something to this discussion instead of just complaining, here are my main... *sigh*... complaints about Rainbow Rocks. And sorry if these points had been addressed before. I may have overlooked them within all the bickering that was going on. First of all, and I've mentioned it before, I'm actually one of the seemingly few people who actually enjoyed the first movie. Now, I don't think that it was a very good movie per se, but for what it was, I found it surprisingly entertaining. Seeing Twilight awkwardly trying to interact with other characters in an unfamiliar world while trying to get used to being in an unfamiliar body was genuinely funny, at least for me. But Rainbow Rocks simply lacked this quality, maybe understandably so as they could obviously not rely on the same source of humor for the sequel, but what did we get instead? A lot of deliberately awkward moments, not funny awkward but more "Spike tries to sing the Cloudsdale anthem" kind of awkward. Whether it's the Mane 6 trying to confront the Dazzlings for the first time or Twilight's interactions with a brainwashed Flash or the Rainbooms performing the bad counterspell or simply watching the behavior of the brainwashed "supporting" cast, I found the movie just painful to watch at times. And speaking of painful - the Mane 6 in this movie were some of the most horribly one-dimensional caricatures of what the characters were actually supposed to be like I've ever seen. Remember back when we saw the first few episodes of MLP and thought of Rarity as the somewhat shallow and mostly unrelatable character of the bunch who's only interest is in fashion and general girlyness? Remember how positively surprised we were when we realized that, while not entirely inaccurate, there was more to Rarity than just that? Well, surprise surprise! Shallow "I talk about fashion every time I open my mouth"-Rarity is making her full debut in Rainbow Rocks. And somehow, she still manages to be more "interesting" than Rainbow Dash, who's only topic of interest is... well... "Rainbow Dash". Yeah, we all know she's supposed to have a big ego, but man, in this movie, even her ego has an ego. Wasn't she also supposed to be loyal? And then there's Twilight, who is so desperately clinging onto the idiot ball you'd think her life depends on it. Trying to weave a counterspell based on the Magic of Friendship without prior experience in this matter? Of course she has to do it all by herself, because that's what friendship is all about, right? Not even the kitchen scene - definitely my favorite scene in the whole movie - could make Twilight drop the idiot ball. The movie finally had the chance to change things up a bit, to make the bonding between Twilight and Sunset actually mean something, but no, all of the characters had to remain stupid for the rest of the movie until Sunset finally had the chance to state what should have been obvious from the very beginning. And lastly, Spike. Oh Spike, what happened to you? What happened to the supportive, helpful, competent Number 1 assistant who was one of the strongest points of the first movie? Nowhere to be seen here, sadly, as his only contribution is to put additional pressure on Twilight. Stupid characters, all of them, with the possible exception of Sunset Shimmer... maybe. Although she spends a big part of the movie being ridiculously passive, I can at least understand why she acts the way she does. And then there's the plot. Yeah, it was a bit more coherent than the first one's plot, but it still wasn't interesting (mean girls trying to take over the school... again) nor did it make much sense. Just look at how the magic works: it's supposed to be the Magic of Friendship (it even gets called this in the movie), yet it activates only when the characters play music, with friendship being entirely optional as evidenced by Rainbow Dash almost triggering the transformation even at her most selfish moment. And no, I'm not content with Rainbow Dash basically saying "who cares how it works as long as it looks cool". Sorry movie, but I care. Don't tell me I shouldn't care because you couldn't be bothered to make any sense (and no, I don't think that a story should have to explain every little detail, but I do think that it should make the viewers believe that it could if it wanted to, and I just don't believe that here). So then, what are the points that speak for the movie? Better animation? Yeah, it has improved for the most part, but it doesn't really help with everything else being so awkward. Better music? Yeah, the songs are catchy, but as with the animation, good music doesn't necessarily make a good movie. If I'm missing something here, please tell me. I just don't get it.
Heh, I could point out a lot more problems, but this thread isn't for that unfortunately. What concerns me most is that people think I'm just blasting down their opinions and not listening to their points. Seriously, point me to one time where I did that please. Every time someone gives me an unsupported opinion, I've only ever asked for more substance, more basis, more "Point to the actual part of the movie that demonstrates this". Is not simply being immediately convinced by "The villains were more threatening" or "Sunset's arc was great" or "The pacing was better" without any actually demonstrating it really the same as "an anti-aircraft gun, ready to shoot down any possible counter-argument before they even get the chance to turn into something potentially enlightening"? I'm completely open to being convinced here. Tyro may be convinced that baseless opinions are literally all there is, but I hope reading these posts proves that I haven't shot down anyone's opinion without asking for it to be simply bolstered with more substance.
