I can't believe the season is about to end. This season has been a crazy ride. We saw Rarity and Rainbow make great strides in their ambitions, we saw unexpected redemptions with Gilda and Diamond Tiara, and we saw the Cutie Mark Crusaders get their cutie marks. New friends were made, broken friendships were mended, and we learned more about the world we've grown so fond of.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Season 6 brings us. (I bet we'll get a full fledged Diamond Tiara episode next season, exploring more about her now that she's out of the bully role.) I imagine we'll get to see the CMC meet an interesting pony or two who's lost their way. I'm curious about what next season's story arc will be too.
Finale speculation:
That finale promo is something. Nightmare Moon sitting on a throne, Celestia leading the guards, Pinkie and Fluttershy have either gone tribal or are leading a resistance... Sweet Apple Acres is an industrialized mess.
I don't think Starlight realizes just what a bad idea her tampering with the Mane 6's past is. I hope we finally learn the event that twisted her so badly and caused her to view cutie marks as evil.
I seem to recall that Lauren Faust's original storyline for Season 1 was a protracted siege by Nightmare Moon that the Mane Six had to survive and forge friendships within before they ultimately defeat her. I wonder how much of Alt!Equestria borrows from that.
Huh, that would be cool if they drew on those notes for the bad future.
Finale ramblings:
I suspect Twilight will have to win over her altered friends. And of course some people are going to whine about things falling apart because the Mane 6 are scattered. They really seem to be hinting all six of them are special, not just Twilight. Maybe Twilight's the one that became an alicorn princess, but the Tree of Harmony gifted them with a castle with thrones for all of them.
Plus, things seem to be heavily hinting Starlight will regret this. When she see how utterly broken the world is, that may be the moment she finally wakes up to how wrong she's gone. I can easily see Starlight realizing she must help Twilight put things right. I doubt her reform being easy or complete. Part of her punishment will likely involve her becoming Twilight's student due to that chapter book coming that calls her such. Plus Twilight smiling at the Starlight Glimmer silhouette on the S5 poster. The Gameloft game describes her as learning an important lesson. And the new toyline "Explore Equestria" has another Starlight toy in it.
I need to make that Rainbow Dash version of "Jingle Bells" my ringtone through the holidays.
Well, that was an interesting finale. Fun ride, but I think last season's was slightly better.
The Cutie Re-mark:
I wasn't expecting us to get a whole string of bad futures. Considering Twilight's time loops comment from Friendship Games I should have, but I guess I was thinking she kept getting boomeranged back to the same one. All of those alternate outcomes were just sad and dark, and they kept getting worse. I'm amazed with what they got away with, especially with war against Sombra timeline. (Considering it featured a Rainbow with a chunk out of her ear and a prosthetic wing.) I still wonder what caused the last one... That empty wasteland was the most haunting. At least in the others there was still life, even if it sucked.
It felt like there needed to be a third part. Twilight and Spike spent less time in each successive alternate future. And I would have liked a better explanation for how earlier threats got dealt with when later threats dominate. For example, the Sombra timeline still needs both Nightmare Moon and Chrysalis to have been defeated, so how did those Mane-Six-less Equestrias get past those points?
But that's something I wouldn't really have minded. Starlight's conversion on the other hand felt rushed. It seemed like Twilight dragging her into one of the futures she created and Starlight showing what gave her such a bad impression of cutie marks was the beginning of her turning. Like she was starting to see an alternate path, but wasn't ready to admit her wrong-doing. And then BAM she's sorry.
So I find myself hoping that her redemption has some rocky elements to it, to make her conversion seem more natural (hmm, same boat as Diamond Tiara, I guess).
I also wish they'd somehow made it explicit that it was at this point that Friendship Games happened. A glowing journal, a glimpse of Twilight's constructed gateway, something.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
I am getting tired of evil unicorns, when are going to see evil pegasi and earth ponies.
There's some wiggle room on how "evil" they are, but Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon were, until recently, some pretty awful earth ponies. Likewise, Lightning Dust was far from being a very nice pegasus.
Pinkie Pie can break the fourth and has psychic powers, Fluttershy has a gaze attack that so far only doesn't work on Discord, Maud Pie can break rocks and throw rocks humdreds of yards and lets not forget Rainbow Dash's sonic rainboom. It is possible for non-unicorns to have special abilities that make them interesting and in the wrong hooves dangerous.
I really wish they would explain why Starlight Glimmer has more magical power then Twilight who's gift is magic and is a Alicorn.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mostly because it's fun to debate, I can't resist getting into this a bit.
Dragon78 wrote:
Pinkie Pie can break the fourth and has psychic powers
Her breaking the fourth wall is nebulous in terms of what that means from an in-character standpoint; moreover, it doesn't seem to have much in the way of practical uses, other than her Loony Tunes-like applications (e.g. already being at every location that Cranky fled to).
Insofar as her "psychic powers" go, they're limited to danger sense (for herself, but sometimes for others). That's basically a wild talent, since she has just one and can't otherwise control it.
Quote:
Fluttershy has a gaze attack that so far only doesn't work on Discord
Which is to say, she has a modestly-high score on her Intimidate skill.
Quote:
Maud Pie can break rocks and throw rocks humdreds of yards
And yet she can't push Holder's Boulder back up from the ravine, even with her family helping.
For that matter, it's not like "amazing strength" is that rare for earth ponies. Big Mac once dragged a house behind him when he was under the effects of a love poison, and even some mare in Cheerilee's class had "amazing strength" (as Diamond Tiara once called it) that let her lift the entire schoolhouse. So having this isn't going to give any sort of major advantage that you couldn't find somepony else to counter.
Quote:
and lets not forget Rainbow Dash's sonic rainboom.
Which is just a sonic boom with some cosmetic effects thrown in.
Quote:
It is possible for non-unicorns to have special abilities that make them interesting and in the wrong hooves dangerous.
I don't necessarily disagree, particular with regards to them being "interesting." But if you're looking for otherwise-normal earth ponies or pegasi that have abilities that can vault them up to the level of major villains alongside the ranks of Nightmare Moon or Queen Chrysalis, then I think you're going to be disappointed. There's a reason why the only "normal" ponies that have pulled that off have been unicorns (e.g. King Sombra, Sunset Shimmer, and now Starlight Glimmer).
Quote:
I really wish they would explain why Starlight Glimmer has more magical power then Twilight who's gift is magic and is a Alicorn.
My takeaway was that she doesn't have "more" magic than Twilight per se, but rather that she's comparable to her...which is impressive, given that Twilight is incredibly skilled herself. However, I don't think that's necessarily something that's so odd that it requires explanation.
There's been no indication that Twilight has made any particular progress in using her "alicorn magic" since she flat-out admitted to having just barely started learning about it in the season four finale. So from that we can presume that Twilight is using her magic much in the same way she was before her transformation; as a unicorn. A very skilled unicorn, to be sure, but so far she's not really taking advantage of whatever additional powers her alicorn status has given her.
Throw in that we've seen other unicorns that have been intimated to also be spellcasters of exceptional prowess (e.g. Sunset Shimmer), and it's not hard to come to the conclusion that Starlight is another such prodigy (I also suspect that both Starlight's and Sunset's cutie marks - as well as their names - are indicative that they, like Twilight, have a talent for magic; heck, even Starlight's childhood friend Sunburst seemed to have magic as his special talent, hence her saying that he left for Canterlot to, well...study magic. It's not like two ponies can't have the same special talent, after all; just look at Pinkie and Cheese Sandwich). She might have a slight edge on Twilight in terms of raw skill, but that seems to be about it, since they were apparently evenly matched in their battle.
Hopefully Starlight will be part of the "mane" cast in season six, and we'll get to see more of what she can do.
Sunset Shimmer was taught by Celestia. So even though she had to have talent to begin with she was still taught by a very experienced caster.
I hope Starlight Glimmer doesn't become part of the main six. I would like to see Sunset Shimmer become part of the main six since that world is supposed to have a Sunset Shimmer of there own.
Fluttershy was able to counter a cockatrice's gaze attack with her gaze. That is far beyond a simple intimidate check.
Just like there are unicorns with powers and gifts far greater then there normal kin I am sure the other two kinds of ponies can have such power houses as well. It would be interesting to see a evil Pegasus general with a like minded army or a Pegasus with heighted weather control. Maybe a earth pony with telekinetic powers or earth based powers.
Fluttershy was able to counter a cockatrice's gaze attack with her gaze. That is far beyond a simple intimidate check.
Druids do get good fort saves...
As for intimidate...
Greater wild empathy: Benefit: You gain a +2 insight bonus on wild empathy checks, and you may use wild empathy to duplicate an Intimidate check rather than a Diplomacy check.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Sunset Shimmer was taught by Celestia. So even though she had to have talent to begin with she was still taught by a very experienced caster.
That seems to be less important than having the requisite level of talent to begin with. Having an experienced teacher can help draw out your potential, but if you don't have potential to start with then that won't matter.
In that regard, it might be more impressive that Starlight got where she was without that the same degree of tutoring that Twilight and Sunset had, but ultimately that doesn't make that much of a difference. What's more notable is that she had that much potential at all.
Quote:
I hope Starlight Glimmer doesn't become part of the main six. I would like to see Sunset Shimmer become part of the main six since that world is supposed to have a Sunset Shimmer of there own.
Given that both Equestria-Sunset and a speculative "world of Canterlot High"-Sunset are both on the latter world, the odds of Sunset joining the Mane Six seem pretty low. (It doesn't help that they deleted the sub-plot about Sunset Shimmer considering returning to Equestria from The Friendship Games.)
Quote:
Fluttershy was able to counter a cockatrice's gaze attack with her gaze. That is far beyond a simple intimidate check.
I disagree with the idea that she "countered" anything, per se. The petrification effect of the cockatrice's gaze was pretty clearly naturally slow-acting, rather than being instantaneous (much like the petrification effects in 4E). She simply intimidated it into leaving before the effect was complete.
Quote:
Just like there are unicorns with powers and gifts far greater then there normal kin I am sure the other two kinds of ponies can have such power houses as well. It would be interesting to see a evil Pegasus general with a like minded army or a Pegasus with heighted weather control. Maybe a earth pony with telekinetic powers or earth based powers.
I suspect that we've already seen earth ponies and pegasi with powers greater than their normal kin, such as Rainbow Dash or Maud.
I agree. Some villianous Pegasi and Earth Ponies of Equestria-level threat would be nice. True, they might not have the magic themselves to be such a threat, but there are ways around that. Imagine if Daring Do were just as swashbuckling and adventurous, but with the goal of using all those magic artifacts for evil ends. Or if an Earth Pony were just as intelligent as Starlight Glimmer, and able to manipulate the Mirror Pool beyond what Pinkie Pie stumbled onto. Such a pony might be able to foster a villainous criminal empire not seen since Professor Mare-iarty.
...And now I want Professor Mare-iarty to be a thing.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Okay, I'm going to rant for a bit here, just because I've been thinking about this for some time and I want to get it off my chest.
Remember that episode from early in the fourth season, Flight to the Finish? The heartwarming episode about Scootaloo learns not to think less of herself, and that nopony thinks less of her, just because she can't fly? That episode that has, insofar that I've seen, universal appeal for it's message towards those with disabilities?
Yeah, I hate that episode. I really, truly do. I hate it with...well, I was going to say "the heat of a thousand suns," but that's a bit too much. I still really don't like it, though.
But why? Well, because I took a slightly different message away from that particular episode than most people did. Specifically because of a few lines in particular:
Spoiler:
Quote:
Scootaloo: If we wanna win, I'm gonna have to fly!
Sweetie Belle: Is that even possible?
Apple Bloom: And by tomorrow?
Scootaloo: Maybe I can win if I work twice as hard. See? Oof! Maybe... three times as hard.
Quote:
Scootaloo: Come on, Scootaloo! Do it for Ponyville! Just got to try twenty times as hard! Thirty times as hard...! Oof! Just... a little... harder!
Scootaloo: I can't fly. I just... can't.
Quote:
Scootaloo: ...and Pegasi. But Rainbow Dash... what if... what if my wings never grow? What if I never fly?
Most people seem to have taken those scenes - in what was probably how they were intended - to arouse sympathy for Scootaloo, knowing the futility and inevitable disappointment of trying to overcome her disability through sheer perseverance. But what those scenes said to me was different:
Scootaloo doesn't know why she can't fly.
She honestly has no idea why her wings don't work, or at least not enough to get her off the ground. That she thinks she can overcome the problem with sheer effort is evidence of that, but I suppose that could simply be childishness in terms of refusing to accept something she knows to be true. Except that last scene quoted above dispels that interpretation; she asks "what if" she's never able to fly, which pretty clearly signals that she doesn't know the reason why her wings aren't working already.
And it's not like she shouldn't be able to fly at her age. Season one's The Cutie Mark Chronicles make it pretty clear that foals that are of comparable age to Scootaloo should be zipping through the air. Even Fluttershy, as a foal, was still able to get off the ground (albeit not very well) as a filly.
All of this seemed to point to one likely conclusion: Scootaloo has never seen a doctor for her flightlessness.
(One alternate theory could be that she did see a doctor and they didn't know why her wings haven't grown, but in an entire episode dedicated to this very topic, you'd have expected that to come up at least in passing.)
At first glance it seems improbable that she's never been to a doctor for this, given that not only does Ponyville have a hospital (e.g. season two's Read It and Weep), but a society that's so idyllic should have had somepony rush Scootaloo there once they realized that two of her limbs weren't functioning correctly. After all, it's not like everyone would have just shined on a disabled child, right?
Except...is that really so difficult to believe? Equestria is a land that puts personal fulfillment at the forefront of its cultural values. Is it possible that their philosophy of "you're fine just the way you are" could be taken so far that it simply never occurred to anypony that Scootaloo's flightlessness was something that required medical attention? That their first instinct was to tell her to make peace with her condition, rather than trying to figure out a way to change it? (This is somewhat compounded by the fact that Scootaloo doesn't seem to have any parents or guardians that we've ever seen, as they'd be the most likely ones to suggest that she see a professional.)
I recognize that this episode is trying to promulgate that people with disabilities aren't defined by those disabilities. In essence, it's telling us the first part of that old prayer - "give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change" - but it's forgetting that there's more to it than that, particularly when it comes to being able to tell the difference between the things that can't be changed and those that can. This episode hasn't first established that Scootaloo's inability to fly is something that can't be changed. It has a vague nod in that direction by her failure at brute-forcing the problem away, but that's not nearly enough to rule out the possibility altogether. At what point does medication, surgery, and/or physical therapy enter the picture? Heck, what about magic medical practices to help her stunted wings grow?
Put in that light, this episode's lesson becomes rather upsetting, if not downright horrifying. It's important to accept yourself for who you are, but that doesn't mean that you should do so to the point of potentially ignoring other avenues for change.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
The Stare is enough of a magical/mental connection that it provided a channel for Twilight's spell to backfire along in Bats!
I just can't see that being true for a simple Intimidate check.
There's nothing to suggest that Fluttershy's stare created any sort of "channel" for Twilight's magic to backfire. Even Twilight doesn't suggest that, as noted in the episode itself:
Quote:
Twilight Sparkle: Okay, so this is me, these are the bats, and this is Fluttershy doing her Stare. The spell was supposed to go right onto the bats like this, but somehow the spell must have backfired. It took the vampire fruit bats' desire to be vampire fruit bats and transferred that desire into Fluttershy. C'mon! We'll reverse the spell and make it right!
In other words, Fluttershy was doing the stare when Twilight cast her spell, but there's nothing to suggest that that was anything more than a coincidence. (In my opinion, Fluttershy's proximity to - and empathy for - the vampire fruit bats were more likely factors.)
They don't explicitly say the word "channel", no, but in Twilight's explanation graphic, we see red lines emanating from Fluttershy representing The Stare. After the spell goes off, those same red lines emanate back from the bats to Fluttershy, carrying the bat image with them.
I don't know about you, but to me that reads as the magic rebounding back along the path of The Stare.
Plus, you know, it's not the stare, it's The Stare.
Also plus, none of the critters she uses The Stare on become unfriendly toward Fluttershy 1d6X10 minutes later.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
They don't explicitly say the word "channel", no, but in Twilight's explanation graphic, we see red lines emanating from Fluttershy representing The Stare. After the spell goes off, those same red lines emanate back from the bats to Fluttershy, carrying the bat image with them.
I don't know about you, but to me that reads as the magic rebounding back along the path of The Stare.
Except, by that logic, the Stare had already ended, since the use of the red lines emanating from Fluttershy to the vampire fruit bats had already ceased in Twilight's graphic before we saw lines going from the bats to Fluttershy. Ergo, there was no "path" for it to follow, since the graphic doesn't show it being extant at that point.
In other words, the fact that the same graphic was used doesn't definitively establish anything, particularly since the accompanying verbal explanation makes no suggestion of the Stare being magical, either explicitly or implicitly.
That's leaving aside the fact that we know that pegasi such as Fluttershy shouldn't have any magic aside from their inherent magic as pegasi, which lets them walk on clouds, fly, etc. (as demonstrated in Twilight's Kingdom, Part 2). The sole exception to this being the magic of their cutie mark, but we've been told that Fluttershy's cutie mark lets her communicate with animals (as demonstrated in The Cutie Map, Part 2). So suggesting that her Stare is yet another magical ability, with no real explanation for how or why she'd have it, is an idea that's dubious at best.
Now, you can absolutely interpret it that way, but that runs against everything that has been suggested over the series' run so far. If you hold the show to its internal consistency, and make as few assumptions as possible, then it's very hard to deny that the Stare is non-magical.
Quote:
Plus, you know, it's not the stare, it's The Stare.
That's a semantic distinction that doesn't really affect the issue of whether or not it's a magical effect.
Quote:
Also plus, none of the critters she uses The Stare on become unfriendly toward Fluttershy 1d6X10 minutes later.
Given that the creatures she used it on typically aren't present 1d6 x 10 minutes later (e.g. the red dragon, the cockatrice, etc.), there's really no way of presuming that to be true.
But that's largely beside the point; the issue is that she's non-magically intimidating her opponents, rather than using any sort of magical power on them. It doesn't need to work exactly the way that Pathfinder game rules does.
Dragon78 wrote:
Also the sound effect they use when Fluttershy uses "The Stare" is the same effect used for supernatural or psychic effects in old movies/shows.
Having a leitmotif doesn't mean something is magical.
Like I said, it doesn't definitively establish anything, but the use of the same graphic does suggest that the magic jumping to Fluttershy was related to The Stare, rather than being simply a matter of Fluttershy's proximity.
And an Earth Pony like Pinkie Pie shouldn't have any unusual abilities aside from those related to her Cutie Mark, and yet she has Pinkie-sense. You're willing to write that off as a "wild talent", why not do the same for Fluttershy's Stare?
Fluttershy has used The Stare on Angel at least once, to get him to eat his food. And yeah, the fact that it doesn't conform strictly to Pathfinder rules is obviously not a deal-breaker, but you were the one framing the conversation in terms of PF Rules.
You are correct that a leitmotif doesn't make something magical. But a leitmotif evocative of psychic abilities was surely chosen for a reason?
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Like I said, it doesn't definitively establish anything, but the use of the same graphic does suggest that the magic jumping to Fluttershy was related to The Stare, rather than being simply a matter of Fluttershy's proximity.
I don't believe that it does, but even if we grant that particular premise, there's nothing in particular in that explanation to suggest that her Stare is necessarily magical because of that.
Quote:
And an Earth Pony like Pinkie Pie shouldn't have any unusual abilities aside from those related to her Cutie Mark, and yet she has Pinkie-sense. You're willing to write that off as a "wild talent", why not do the same for Fluttershy's Stare?
Because the show goes out of its way to highlight that Pinkie's Pinkie Sense is anomalous. An entire episode is devoted to Twilight trying to figure out how Pinkie has an ability that, by all rights, she shouldn't have. Moreover, she's unable to come up with an answer, eventually having no choice but to admit that she doesn't know what it is and can't figure it out. Fluttershy's stare isn't given that same regard as an unknown power.
Quote:
Fluttershy has used The Stare on Angel at least once, to get him to eat his food. And yeah, the fact that it doesn't conform strictly to Pathfinder rules is obviously not a deal-breaker, but you were the one framing the conversation in terms of PF Rules.
Angel isn't a very good example, since there are plenty of instances of him treating Fluttershy pretty badly (e.g. slapping her across the face when she first tried to get him to eat his food).
Likewise, I did talk about the Stare in terms of d20 mechanics, but that was as a shorthand; it was never meant to be understood that the entire world was framed in d20 rules. (It can be though, albeit not by Pathfinder.)
Quote:
You are correct that a leitmotif doesn't make something magical. But a leitmotif evocative of psychic abilities was surely chosen for a reason?
It was posited that that leitmotif was the same one used for psychic/magical powers in old TV shows, but that hasn't been definitively established. Likewise, I really don't think it's a good idea to presume what the staff's reasons are for what they do, since there's no real way of confirming anything (short of asking them outright).
We don't get a full episode with Twilight being baffled by The Stare, (but of course Stare Masters came out after Feeling Pinkie Keen, so maybe Twilight already learned her lesson).
What we do get, though, is her friends acting like The Stare is a strange and unusual power. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the capitalization--the other ponies talk about The Stare like it's something unique and noteworthy, they have given The Stare a proper name (just like Pinkie-sense has a proper name).
And I'm sure you'll point out that that, on its own, doesn't prove anything. But I think you're getting hung up on the details, and missing the bigger picture. When you take all the little bits of evidence together, it paints a picture.
-Fluttershy defeats petrification with The Stare (Twilight, a powerful mage, was petrified so fast she still had a startled expression on her face)
-The other ponies treat The Stare like it's an unusual ability
-The Stare has a psychic leitmotif (it totally does, classic sci-fi theremin riff, I checked!)
-Weird magical effects tie in with The Stare in Bats!
-For that matter, The Stare doesn't actually seem to intimidate the bats in Bats!, rather, they appear transfixed or enthralled.
-Stares and eye contact have a pretty extensive place in real world mythology and mysticism--see Paizo's Mesmerist for an example.
On their own, each of those might be weak arguments, but taken together they paint a pretty suggestive picture.
But I suspect the only thing that will convince you is if the show outright explicitly states that The Stare is supernatural, yes?
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
We don't get a full episode with Twilight being baffled by The Stare, (but of course Stare Masters came out after Feeling Pinkie Keen, so maybe Twilight already learned her lesson).
Except the idea that Twilight finds the Stare to be an unusual power and doesn't say or do anything about it is a presumption, one with no particular basis beyond "if she did that there, she'd do it everywhere." That's also pretty clearly not the case, since Twilight maintains her inquisitive nature towards new magic (e.g. investigating the unfinished spell that led to the events of Magical Mystery Cure).
Quote:
What we do get, though, is her friends acting like The Stare is a strange and unusual power. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the capitalization--the other ponies talk about The Stare like it's something unique and noteworthy, they have given The Stare a proper name (just like Pinkie-sense has a proper name).
They don't act like it's strange or unusual, they act like it's something to be feared and respected, which isn't the same thing. Likewise, giving it a proper name isn't indicative of anything, except that her friends have named it.
Having a particular action, look, gesture, or anything similar can very well earn a particular nickname among close friends, whether it's a particular looked being called "The Stare" or a particular hand gesture being called "The Cobra." It can be noteworthy, but that doesn't make it magical.
Quote:
And I'm sure you'll point out that that, on its own, doesn't prove anything.
Quite right.
Quote:
But I think you're getting hung up on the details, and missing the bigger picture. When you take all the little bits of evidence together, it paints a picture.
And I think you're seeing something that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Evidence isn't a gestalt, forming a conclusion that's greater than the sum of it's parts; rather, each part is looked at unto itself, and if there's a preponderance of evidence that can't be explained otherwise, then a conclusion can be formed.
In that regard, let's look at what you've listed below:
Quote:
-Fluttershy defeats petrification with The Stare (Twilight, a powerful mage, was petrified so fast she still had a startled expression on her face)
That Twilight was a powerful mage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it (there's certainly no indication that how powerful you are has anything to do with how fast you're petrified). For that matter, we don't even know that Twilight knew what a cockatrice was when she ran into one (she didn't know what para-sprites were, after all).
For that matter, Fluttershy didn't "defeate petrification" with the Stare. She intimidated the cockatrice into undoing its petrification, rather than undoing it herself. She flat-out stated "Now you go over there, and turn Elizabeak and my friend Twilight back to normal" to it, and we see it comply.
Quote:
-The other ponies treat The Stare like it's an unusual ability
Again, that's not the case. They treat it as something to be afraid/respectful of. They don't treat it like it's something unknown or beyond their understanding.
Quote:
-The Stare has a psychic leitmotif (it totally does, classic sci-fi theremin riff, I checked!)
You've been leaning on this one pretty hard, so I did some checking of my own. When Fluttershy first uses the Stare in Stare Master, the sound effect that I'm pretty sure you're referring to is a whistling one. That particular sound effect is usually associated with something that's "spooky" rather than "psychic" or "magical."
What undercuts this particular argument far more than that, however, is that the use of that particular sound effect is inconsistent. Specifically, when Fluttershy uses the Stare on Discord in Keep Calm and Flutter On. In fact, she tries it twice, and in neither case is that particular whistling effect heard. (To be fair, it is heard when she uses it on the vampire fruit bats in Bats!, but that makes a total of four times that it's used, with that sound effect used in only half of them.)
Given that inconsistency in its use, it seems far and away more likely that the initial instance of that sound effect is the audio version of a "sight gag" rather than being particularly indicative of anything; if it was meant to be a sound effect that connotes particular information to the audience, it would likely have been consistently used. (And even when it is used, it seems more to indicate something fearsome rather than something psychic.)
Quote:
-Weird magical effects tie in with The Stare in Bats!
Except we've already established that there is no particular "tie-in" besides Twilight using the same graphic in her chart. Particularly since the accompanying verbal explanation is notably lacking in anything to put forward the idea of any such connection.
Quote:
-For that matter, The Stare doesn't actually seem to intimidate the bats in Bats!, rather, they appear transfixed or enthralled.
They do, but that isn't particularly conclusive either. Some animals freeze when frightened.
Quote:
-Stares and eye contact have a pretty extensive place in real world mythology and mysticism--see Paizo's Mesmerist for an example.
This isn't evidence of anything; saying that "eyes and eye contact have a place in real-world mysticism" in no way connotes anything about Fluttershy's stare in Equestria.
Quote:
On their own, each of those might be weak arguments, but taken together they paint a pretty suggestive picture.
No, they don't. Each of them are weak arguments, and collected into a bundle they simply become a bundle of weak arguments.
Quote:
But I suspect the only thing that will convince you is if the show outright explicitly states that The Stare is supernatural, yes?
Given that I'm looking for reliable evidence and conclusive criteria, that would be one such instance of that - though certainly not the only one possible - so yes.
Until something to that degree is presented, however, I prefer to stick with the guideline that, when attempting to explain something, it's better to go with the explanation that makes the fewest possible assumptions. Given that each of the points you put forward is based on making more assumptions than alternative-but-equally-plausible explanations can provide, I don't find them very compelling.
We don't get a full episode with Twilight being baffled by The Stare, (but of course Stare Masters came out after Feeling Pinkie Keen, so maybe Twilight already learned her lesson).
What we do get, though, is her friends acting like The Stare is a strange and unusual power. This is what I was getting at by bringing up the capitalization--the other ponies talk about The Stare like it's something unique and noteworthy, they have given The Stare a proper name (just like Pinkie-sense has a proper name).
Its a +25 wild empathy check, with the greater wild empathy feat to grant the option to use it as intimidate
Considering none of the creatures she has used it on have become hostile it is not an intimidate check and since it works on dragons(that can talk) and magical beast, it is not a wild empathy check.
Spooky of course comes from the word "Spook" which is a ghost or specter. Google defines it as "sinister or ghostly in a way that causes fear and unease."
synonyms: eerie, sinister, ghostly, uncanny, weird, unearthly, mysterious;
Yep, sounds totally mundane to me :)
I'm making assumptions, yes, but they're based on evidence. You're ignoring (or rationalizing away) evidence because it doesn't fit your conclusion--that non-unicorns can't have special powers (outside of their cutie mark abilities).
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Considering none of the creatures she has used it on have become hostile it is not an intimidate check and since it works on dragons(that can talk) and magical beast, it is not a wild empathy check.
Actually, Fluttershy's instance of intimidating a dragon (in the episode Dragonshy) does not involve a use of the Stare.
Moreover, we've never seen Fluttershy interact with a creature that she's previously used the Stare on (with two exceptions, as noted below).
In fact, we've only seen Fluttershy use the Stare a grand total of six times throughout the series:
She uses it twice in Stare Master, once on several chickens that won't go to bed (we never see her talk to any of these chickens in that same episode, except for Elizabeak, and there's no indication that she was one of the chickens that she initially used it on), and once on a cockatrice (that we never see again).
We see her use it once in Putting Your Hoof Down on Angel Bunny, at the end of the episode. Now, Angel does interact with Fluttershy in subsequent episodes, but he's always vacillated back and forth between being nice to Fluttershy and treating her poorly, so we can't rule out that his attitude did become Unfriendly later on.
We see her use it twice (in rapid succession) on Discord in Keep Calm and Flutter On, but it's a moot point because he's completely unaffected by it.
Finally, we see her use it on several vampire fruit bats in Bats!, but we don't see Fluttershy interact with said bats throughout the rest of the episode (or ever again, for that matter), so there's no indication that they aren't still Unfriendly towards her.
So there's no reason why it can't be an Intimidate check, or a wild empathy check (particularly since the latter ability can be used to influence magical beasts (albeit at a -4 penalty) that have an Intelligence of 1 or 2, which a cockatrice might very well have).
But as noted, that's largely beside the point. The use of d20 mechanics is used as a shorthand (or at least that's how I was using them) to indicate that the Stare is non-magical, rather than being a magical ability.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
So it's "Spooky", not psychic. Great!
Spooky of course comes from the word "Spook" which is a ghost or specter. Google defines it as "sinister or ghostly in a way that causes fear and unease."
synonyms: eerie, sinister, ghostly, uncanny, weird, unearthly, mysterious;
Yep, sounds totally mundane to me :)
That is totally mundane, by which I mean non-magical; no smiley is necessary, since there's no hidden meaning there. You can have a facial expression that's sinister in a way that causes unease.
That said, if you're trying to say that anything that could be characterized as "spooky" must therefore have some sort of supernatural aspect to it, then you're simply being disingenuous.
Quote:
I'm making assumptions, yes, but they're based on evidence. You're ignoring (or rationalizing away) evidence because it doesn't fit your conclusion--that non-unicorns can't have special powers (outside of their cutie mark abilities).
I'm not ignoring any of the points you've brought up; I've addressed each and every notation you've made. Likewise, I've looked at each one and used them to draw a conclusion - the only person who is ignoring evidence that doesn't fit a predetermined conclusion is yourself.
For that matter, using rational inquiry and eschewing assumptions wherever possible is not "rationalization." Rather, that's how one comes to a finding based on what's there, rather than what we want to be there.
I'm smiling because you're saying the music isn't evocative of the supernatural, but rather is "spooky", a word that's strongly associated with the supernatural. It is, in fact, derived from a word for ghosts <--A notable supernatural creature.
You actually haven't presented any evidence to support your interpretation. Your sole argument is "there is no evidence," which is wrong.
If your argument was "the evidence is circumstantial, and I am not yet convinced" then I'd have no disagreement with you. But you've chosen to rationalize (it's spooky, not supernatural!) and move goalposts (Ponies can't just have powers! Ok, Pinkie can, but only if there's an episode about it!).
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I'm smiling because you're saying the music isn't evocative of the supernatural, but rather is "spooky", a word that's strongly associated with the supernatural. It is, in fact, derived from a word for ghosts <--A notable supernatural creature.
It doesn't matter if you're smiling or not. The sound effect isn't evocative of anything supernatural; I characterized it as being "spooky" because that's strongly associated with something meant to evoke a fearful feeling, not anything explicitly supernatural in nature. Likewise, the etymological history of that particular word doesn't prove anything.
In other words, the sound effect is meant to suggest fear. But rather than acknowledging this, you've taken a synonym for that, and presumed that anything that could be characterized as that must therefore be supernatural in nature.
If that's the argument you're putting forward in support of your stance, well...I'm the one who has reason to smile, then.
Quote:
You actually haven't presented any evidence to support your interpretation. Your sole argument is "there is no evidence," which is wrong.
Again, when attempting to ascertain an explanation for something, the guideline is to go with the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions. Saying that her Stare is magical is an assumption, since I've demonstrated why your evidence is lacking; hence why you yourself characterized your own arguments as being weak.
Quote:
If your argument was "the evidence is circumstantial, and I am not yet convinced" then I'd have no disagreement with you. But you've chosen to rationalize (it's spooky, not supernatural!) and move goalposts (Ponies can't just have powers! Ok, Pinkie can, but only if there's an episode about it!).
Again, rational analysis and scrutinizing your points is not rationalization. You've proposed that her Stare is magical, and put forward your points to support this. I've demonstrated that your points are not conclusive, and that there are alternative explanations for each and every one of them that make fewer assumptions about what's happening. Ergo, your conclusion remains unsupported.
It's also a mischaracterization to suggest that any goalposts were moved, since the show itself characterized Pinkie's Pinkie Sense as anomalous. Deliberately pointing out that something is an exception tends to highlight that there's a rule in the first place.
Spooky is not simply fear, it's explicitly fear inspired by or relating to the strange and uncanny.
Also, for the record, I don't find your refutation of the Bats! episode very persuasive. Twilight specifically calls out Fluttershy using her Stare, and makes special effort to include a representation of that element in her visual aid. She then talks about the magic backfiring using the same visual element as the Stare. The implication is clear to me that the two are related.
You talk a lot about parsimony--if The Stare is unrelated to the magical backfire, why mention it? It only complicates the narrative.
When you place that into context with the spooky (yes, spooky!) sound effect, the fear and respect with which characters treat The Stare, and the real-world mystical beliefs regarding stares (in a show that takes a lot of inspiration from real world mythology) that points to The Stare being in some way Uncanny. Maybe not even "magical", since you seem hung up on that word, but certainly supernatural.
Edit:
Re: Goalposts:
First you said it can't be magical because non-unicorns don't have magic powers (aside from the normal ones).
Then, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you changed your argument to that it can't be magical because non-unicorns can only have magic powers when they're specifically called out as anomalous.
That feels like a moved goalpost to me, but maybe I misunderstood you.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
You're arguing that spooky doesn't mean spooky!
Incorrect. I'm pointing out that "spooky" does not inherently mean "supernatural in nature," since it doesn't. Your argument is that it does - that any instance of anything "strange or unusual" must include a supernatural element - and that is flat-out wrong.
Again, the operative part of this description is that it's disturbing or eerie, neither of which connote a necessarily-supernatural explanation.
Quote:
** spoiler omitted **
And this is where your argument completely falls apart, since none of the definitions you linked to suggest that the supernatural must necessarily be present for something to be labeled "spooky."
Quote:
Spooky is not simply fear, it's explicitly fear inspired by or relating to the strange and uncanny.
You seem to be trying to suggest that things cannot be "strange" or "uncanny" without being necessarily supernatural in nature, which is self-evidently false.
But the more germane point is that, even if you were to successfully redefine the word, it wouldn't change the larger point regarding Fluttershy's Stare being non-magical. Characterize the sound effect with a different word - "frightening" instead of "spooky" - and it shows how this entire tangent doesn't change anything.
Quote:
Also, for the record, I don't find your refutation of the Bats! episode very persuasive. Twilight specifically calls out Fluttershy using her Stare, and makes special effort to include a representation of that element in her visual aid. She then talks about the magic backfiring using the same visual element as the Stare. The implication is clear to me that the two are related.
If you want to place that much stock in that particular explanation, then you need to pay just as much attention to what isn't said. Twilight specifically does not suggest that the Stare has anything to do with what happened to Fluttershy. Further, your suggestion is that there was a "channel" that was extent at the time Twilight used her magic, even though the graphic itself suggests the opposite, since the red lines from Twilight to the bats wasn't there when the red lines from the bats to Fluttershy was shown.
Beyond that, I won't say that I don't understand the point you're making with regards to the visuals used in Twilight's graph. I just don't believe that that point alone - which is fairly inscrutable at best, and without any other evidence to support that idea (and plenty of alternative explanations that rely on fewer assumptions) - that it's a very compelling one.
Quote:
You talk a lot about parsimony--if The Stare is unrelated to the magical backfire, why mention it? It only complicates the narrative.
It doesn't complicate the narrative. It's entirely plausible that Twilight mentioned that Fluttershy was using her Stare as a shorthand way of expressing when her change into "Flutterbat" happened. Remember, she was making this explanation over a day later; saying "this is Fluttershy using her Stare" notes precisely when the effect happened, since she only used the Stare on the bats once.
Now, that's one possible interpretation, but it's no less plausible than mentioning the Stare because of some sort of unspoken and unexplained "magical connection" happening because of it.
Quote:
When you place that into context with the spooky (yes, spooky!) sound effect, the fear and respect with which characters treat The Stare, and the real-world mystical beliefs regarding stares (in a show that takes a lot of inspiration from real world mythology) that points to The Stare being in some way Uncanny. Maybe not even "magical", since you seem hung up on that word, but certainly supernatural.
Except you've created that context whole-cloth from nothing. The spooky sound effect may indicate that the Stare is uncanny, but things can be uncanny without being supernatural - suggesting that they can't is flatly disingenuous. Moreover, trying to claim that instances of eye-based magic in real-world mythology necessitate that such a thing is happening in that particular instance is a weak claim to make. MLP draws off of mythology when it's convenient, rather than doing so to an extent where it's necessarily bound by it (to say nothing of the idea of being bound to broad tropes, rather than specific points) which means that we can discount that point altogether.
Quote:
Edit:
Re: Goalposts:
First you said it can't be magical because non-unicorns don't have magic powers (aside from the normal ones).
Then, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you changed your argument to that it can't be magical because non-unicorns can only have magic powers when they're specifically called out as anomalous.
That feels like a moved goalpost to me, but maybe I misunderstood you.
You did; your misunderstanding comes from the fact that my argument never changed. Insofar as the show has told us, non-unicorns don't have any magical/supernatural abilities outside of their inherent racial powers and the powers granted to them by their cutie marks. The show deliberately calls out Pinkie Pie as being an exception that proves the rule. Her Pinkie Sense is a power that she flat-out shouldn't have, hence why Twilight becomes obsessed with figuring it out; the Stare has no such connotation, particularly in light of any other lack of compelling evidence that it's supernatural in nature (and that Twilight's desire to learn and experiment is otherwise undiminished).
I thought you might try that, so I held off on this one.
Uncanny:
Merriam-Webster
a : seeming to have a supernatural character or origin : eerie, mysterious
b : being beyond what is normal or expected : suggesting superhuman or supernatural powers
Wiktionary
Strange, and mysteriously unsettling (as if supernatural); weird.
Dictionary.com
having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary:
Free Dictionary
Mysterious or impossible to explain, especially when causing uneasiness or astonishment.
So Fluttershy's ability is strange, eerie, uncanny, spooky, and probably a dozen other words we could go through that are basically the opposite of mundane, but by Celestia, it can't be supernatural, because that's almost a breath away from magical and we can't be having that.
I go off on this Spooky digression because it's the clearest example of what I'm interpreting as your unwillingness to engage in the discussion honestly.
When Dragon78 pointed out the nature of The Stare's leitmotif, you initially dismissed it with "Having a leitmotif doesn't mean something is magical."
Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, since Dragon's point was about the nature of that leitmotif, not its mere presence.
When you got called on that, you then switched to denial. You doubted the leitmotif was even as we described it. You quibbled that it didn't evoke the supernatural, but rather it was "spooky."
Now that you've been confronted with the actually dictionary definitions of spooky which don't at all seem to fit your impressions of the ability, you're trying to change your answer from "spooky" to "frightening", dismissing the whole thing as an irrelevant tangent, and accusing me of redefining the word "spooky".
Bats!
Doesn't "when I cast my spell to remove the bats' hunger" adequately explain when the essence transfer took place? She only used that spell once. If The Stare is unrelated to Fluttershy's transformation, then it's unnecessary to include it in the explanation.
If you're still not clear on what I'm suggesting the graphic shows, I'd be happy to go over it again, but I feel like the problem is you're over-analyzing it.
Context
Alzrius wrote:
The spooky sound effect may indicate that the Stare is uncanny, but things can be uncanny without being supernatural - suggesting that they can't is flatly disingenuous.
Alright, fair enough. Her Stare isn't supernatural, it's uncanny, just like the Uncanny X-Men. Can we agree then that Fluttershy is a mutant? Because I'm totally on board with that :)
And I've never argued that real world stare mythology necessitates The Stare be supernatural. I'm establishing that there is a precedent for magical stares. Magical or psychic stares exist (or are at least as real as dragons), therefore it is possible for Fluttershy's Stare to be magical.
Psychic abilities (such as stares that influence the minds of others) are a common trope in old sci-fi and horror movies.
The theremin leitmotif that accompanies Fluttershy's Stare is very similar to the theremin music famously employed by old sci-fi and horror movies.
Therefore, it is likely that the leitmotif is a reference to old sci-fi/horror movies, and possible that the ability is itself a reference to the abilities portrayed in those films.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I thought you might try that, so I held off on this one.
** spoiler omitted **
As expected, you've realized that you can't mangle the definition of "spooky," so you've moved on to try the same tactic with a different word. But that will have the same result:
Quote:
Merriam-Webster
a : seeming to have a supernatural character or origin : eerie, mysterious
b : being beyond what is normal or expected : suggesting superhuman or supernatural powers
In the first definition, you've ignored the "seeming" aspect of the sentence, which denotes that it is like something without actually being it. In the second definition, you've ignored the first part of the sentence, which is that it's simply beyond what's normal or expected; likewise, to suggest something isn't to say that it's definitively there.
Quote:
Wiktionary
Strange, and mysteriously unsettling (as if supernatural); weird.
Again, the "as if" is to denote that it's like that, but actually is not. Unless you think that something cannot be "strange, and mysteriously unsettling" without being supernatural, then you're wrong.
Quote:
Dictionary.com
having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; beyond the ordinary or normal; extraordinary:
You've ignored the "or inexplicable," not to mention all of the other definitions.
Quote:
Free Dictionary
Mysterious or impossible to explain, especially when causing uneasiness or astonishment.
Again, you've ignored the part that comes before the "or" in the beginning, which is an alternative explanation.
Quote:
So Fluttershy's ability is strange, eerie, uncanny, spooky, and probably a dozen other words we could go through that are basically the opposite of mundane, but by Celestia, it can't be supernatural, because that's almost a breath away from magical and we can't be having that.
You seem to be under the impression that any adjective that connotes that something is unusual must necessarily indicate that it's therefore possessed of supernatural properties. In essence, you're denying that something can be unusual, strange, or otherwise notable unless it also has an inherently-magical aspect to it. That fails to survive even the most basic level of common-sense scrutiny.
Quote:
I go off on this Spooky digression because it's the clearest example of what I'm interpreting as your unwillingness to engage in the discussion honestly.
It's more correct to say that you've gone off on this digression because playing games with twisting definitions is the only point that you can still bring up. After all, you've abandoned almost every other point that's under discussion about the nature of the Stare in and of itself.
Instead, you've elected to get into selectively bolding parts of definitions for fan-used characterizations of a sound effect that's used half of the time for that particular power. In other words, the point your arguing has gone so far that it's lost virtually all relevance to the topic at hand.
Quote:
When Dragon78 pointed out the nature of The Stare's leitmotif, you initially dismissed it with "Having a leitmotif doesn't mean something is magical."
Which is correct.
Quote:
Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, since Dragon's point was about the nature of that leitmotif, not its mere presence.
Not so. Holding that the nature of the leitmotif is relevant to understanding the power itself requires that you presume that the leitmotif is a relevant factor in that regard in the first place. I don't believe that particular premise can be granted, hence why I pointed that out.
That the nature of the leitmotif itself also doesn't support that particular conclusion is secondary, though also worth noting.
Quote:
When you got called on that, you then switched to denial.
There was no "calling on" anything. It was correct to note that the nature of the leitmotif was irrelevant; to point out that it was also not as it was characterized is a separate point.
Quote:
You doubted the leitmotif was even as we described it. You quibbled that it didn't evoke the supernatural, but rather it was "spooky."
See above; that's because it doesn't evoke the supernatural. It evokes a reference to fear, which is what "spooky" means.
Quote:
Now that you've been confronted with the actually dictionary definitions of spooky which don't at all seem to fit your impressions of the ability, you're trying to change your answer from "spooky" to "frightening", dismissing the whole thing as an irrelevant tangent, and accusing me of redefining the word "spooky".
My accusation is correct; you are redefining the word. As per the definitions that have been posted, none of them mean that something is inherently supernatural. They mean that it's scary, frightening, eerie, or any other adjective that you care to use. To suggest that "any use of spooky necessarily references ghosts, and therefore references supernatural forces, ergo any characterization of something as spooky must mean that you're admitting that it's a supernatural force" is wrong.
In other words, not only is this an irrelevant tangent, but even insofar as the tangent goes you're still being intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Bats!
Doesn't "when I cast my spell to remove the bats' hunger" adequately explain when the essence transfer took place? She only used that spell once. If The Stare is unrelated to Fluttershy's transformation, then it's unnecessary to include it in the explanation.
That's not what she says, though:
Quote:
Twilight Sparkle: Okay, so this is me, these are the bats, and this is Fluttershy doing her Stare.
Further, note the next line (emphasis mine):
Quote:
The spell was supposed to go right onto the bats like this, but somehow the spell must have backfired.
So in fact, she's not indicating the time in her initial sentence except for deliberating noting Fluttershy using her Stare.
It's also worth noting that the fact that she says "somehow" indicates that the cause of it backfiring was unknown, and given that she mentioned in the previous sentence that Fluttershy was doing the Stare, that would seem to suggest that it didn't play a part in said backfiring.
Quote:
If you're still not clear on what I'm suggesting the graphic shows, I'd be happy to go over it again, but I feel like the problem is you're over-analyzing it.
I'm very clear on what it shows, but I feel like the problem is that you're not analyzing it enough.
Quote:
Alright, fair enough. Her Stare isn't supernatural, it's uncanny, just like the Uncanny X-Men. Can we agree then that Fluttershy is a mutant? Because I'm totally on board with that :)
Again, you're taking a selective meaning. If you think that any instance of describing something as "uncanny" means that they're necessarily possessed of supernatural (or mutant) abilities, you're going to be shown to be wrong.
Quote:
And I've never argued that real world stare mythology necessitates The Stare be supernatural. I'm establishing that there is a precedent for magical stares. Magical or psychic stares exist (or are at least as real as dragons), therefore it is possible for Fluttershy's Stare to be magical.
You haven't established said precedent, though. That eye-based magic is present in one particular continuity doesn't mean that it's the same in another. MLP:FiM has its own internal logic and consistency, which does not depend upon any particular real-world mythology. It liberally borrows from said mythology (and plenty of other things), but it's not bound by them, nor does it hold that anything that's true in those will be true for MLP because of that.
If you want to establish the possibility of something being true in MLP, you need to look to MLP for evidence and confirmation.
Quote:
Psychic abilities (such as stares that influence the minds of others) are a common trope in old sci-fi and horror movies.
The theremin leitmotif that accompanies Fluttershy's Stare is very similar to the theremin music famously employed by old sci-fi and horror movies.
Therefore, it is likely that the leitmotif is a reference to old sci-fi/horror movies, and possible that the ability is itself a reference to the abilities portrayed in those films.
I didn't make up any of that context.
Saying that A has similarities to B, and that B has similarities to C, and that therefore a reference to C is really a reference to A does not follow. That's because the ways that A is similar to B are not necessarily the same ways that B is similar to C.
Psychic abilities are a trope that get used in various genres of fiction; insofar as movies go, they're used in sci-fi films more often than in horror films.
That particular leitmotif is essentially the same one as from old horror films. This is where your line of logic derails, because the presence of this particular leitmotif for something that's supposed to evoke fear does not inherently correlate with the presence of psychic/magical/supernatural powers. Rather, that particular sound effect is simply used when something is presented in a manner that's supposed to be spooky/eerie/frightening, etc.
Ergo, it is not particularly likely that that leitmotif is meant to invoke any sort of supernatural powers.
If you want to look for evidence that the Stare is supernatural in nature, you'll be better served to look within the context of MLP itself, rather than trying to play connect-the-dots with various meta-contextual elements. But as noted, there's not much evidence of that.
I let some things drop because I don't have the stamina to write a novel in each post, and because sometimes it feels like I'm arguing with a brick wall. Plus, I'm on drugs (got my wisdom teeth pulled this week!) The last few posts I've made already strained my patience, so I'll make this one brief.
'Seeming supernatural', 'as if supernatural', 'beyond the ordinary', 'impossible to explain', 'extraordinary'--these are all descriptors you feel are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability? Word choice is important!
Oh man, I just figured it out! The piece you're missing is connotation.
Spooky, uncanny, eerie, these things all have supernatural connotations. Is English your primary language (not sarcasm, genuinely curious?)
Alzrius wrote:
Not so. Holding that the nature of the leitmotif is relevant to understanding the power itself requires that you presume that the leitmotif is a relevant factor in that regard in the first place. I don't believe that particular premise can be granted, hence why I pointed that out.
You didn't address that premise at all. You shot him down with a snarky line about leitmotifs. Look:
Alzrius wrote:
Having a leitmotif doesn't mean something is magical.
"Having a leitmotif"--nothing there about whether the idea that the choice of a particular leitmotif is relevant is a valid one or not.
You talk a big game on logic, but this was either straight up dishonesty or a huge logic fail.
Bats!
Dude, I know that's not what she says. That's my point.
If, as you assume, the spell backfiring into FS was purely a matter of proximity, then TS could address the issue much more simply by saying "When I cast my spell to remove the bats' hunger, it somehow backfired and passed their hunger into Fluttershy!"
That sets the time frame, and explains what happened, without bringing The Stare into it.
The fact that she doesn't say that, that she does bring The Stare into it, either muddles the narrative or indicates that The Stare had some role in the event.
Alzrius wrote:
I'm very clear on what it shows, but I feel like the problem is that you're not analyzing it enough.
You're just saying the opposite of what I said. That's not an argument. Are you trolling me? If so, man, I didn't catch it until just now, so good on ya!
Alzrius wrote:
Psychic abilities are a trope that get used in various genres of fiction; insofar as movies go, they're used in sci-fi films more often than in horror films.
That particular leitmotif is essentially the same one as from old horror films. This is where your line of logic derails, because the presence of this particular leitmotif for something that's supposed to evoke fear does not inherently correlate with the presence of psychic/magical/supernatural powers. Rather, that particular sound effect is simply used when something is presented in a manner that's supposed to be spooky/eerie/frightening, etc.
I'd like to take a poll to see how many people associate theremin music with sci-fi, vs. horror.
I bet you more associate it with sci-fi, or if they do associate it with horror, its sci-fi themed horror (like old 50's monster movies).
Hell, probably the most famous use was The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is about an alien with unusual powers.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I let some things drop because I don't have the stamina to write a novel in each post, and because sometimes it feels like I'm arguing with a brick wall.
Passive-aggressive comments don't make your points any more cogent. I'm unconvinced by your assertions because I don't find them to be convincing.
Quote:
Plus, I'm on drugs (got my wisdom teeth pulled this week!) The last few posts I've made already strained my patience, so I'll make this one brief.
As you like.
Quote:
'Seeming supernatural', 'as if supernatural', 'beyond the ordinary', 'impossible to explain', 'extraordinary'--these are all descriptors you feel are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability? Word choice is important!
Quite frankly, yes I do think that they are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability. Characterizing something as being extraordinary in nature does not mean that you're seriously suggesting that it has a non-natural aspect to it.
Quote:
Oh man, I just figured it out! The piece you're missing is connotation.
Again, your premise is flawed. I'm not "missing" that, but rather pointing out that a connotation does not rise to the level of being a suggestion, let alone an indication of something (to say nothing of being evidentiary).
Quote:
Spooky, uncanny, eerie, these things all have supernatural connotations. Is English your primary language (not sarcasm, genuinely curious?)
I don't believe that they do. I'm also ignoring your question because it's a rather poor attempt to cast aspersions on my reading comprehension, which is rather ironic given that you're misrepresenting the nature of words.
Quote:
You didn't address that premise at all. You shot him down with a snarky line about leitmotifs. Look:
Alzrius wrote:
Having a leitmotif doesn't mean something is magical.
"Having a leitmotif"--nothing there about whether the idea that the choice of a particular leitmotif is relevant is a valid one or not.
You're incorrect with regards to the line being snarky, and similarly incorrect with regards to addressing the premise.
The original statement was predicated on the idea that the leitmotif's nature was indicative of the nature of the ability in question. I didn't grant that premise by pointing out that said underlying presumption is not true.
That's a separate issue from (if the underlying premise is granted) whether or not it's indicative of supernatural abilities.
Quote:
You talk a big game on logic, but this was either straight up dishonesty or a huge logic fail.
I don't need to "talk a big game" about logic, since I'm presenting it. You, by contrast, are making snarky statements like this, which do not speak to the point of contention at all. This in addition to your earlier admission that your own arguments are weak.
Quote:
Bats!
Dude, I know that's not what she says. That's my point.
If, as you assume, the spell backfiring into FS was purely a matter of proximity, then TS could address the issue much more simply by saying "When I cast my spell to remove the bats' hunger, it somehow backfired and passed their hunger into Fluttershy!"
Here you're noting what she didn't say, and then presuming to know the reason why she didn't say it; that's not evidence of anything.
Quote:
That sets the time frame, and explains what happened, without bringing The Stare into it.
It would have, if she had said that. But she didn't.
For whatever reason, when Twilight set up her explanation, she didn't include any references about activity or time with regard to herself or the bats, instead setting up Fluttershy's activity as the only frame of reference. Why she set that up that way is speculative; it's more germane to focus on the fact that she did.
Quote:
The fact that she doesn't say that, that she does bring The Stare into it, either muddles the narrative or indicates that The Stare had some role in the event.
You've asserted that, but you haven't put forward anything to indicate why it is that's necessarily the case. Furthermore, the idea that the Stare must have been part of what happened subsequently is an unnecessary assumption, as compared to noting that the Stare was given to indicate when it happened.
Quote:
You're just saying the opposite of what I said. That's not an argument. Are you trolling me? If so, man, I didn't catch it until just now, so good on ya!
Except that I've demonstrated why it is that you're not analyzing it enough. Meaning that you either failed to comprehend my point, or you did and are being disingenuous (once again) with your "trolling" remark.
Quote:
I'd like to take a poll to see how many people associate theremin music with sci-fi, vs. horror.
I bet you more associate it with sci-fi, or if they do associate it with horror, its sci-fi themed horror (like old 50's monster movies).
Hell, probably the most famous use was The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is about an alien with unusual powers.
You can, but as I've previously noted that's a tangent of a tangent, and not particularly indicative of anything, for multiple reasons.
The question about what language you speak was not meant as an aspersion on your reading comprehension. Connotation is difficult to pick up on for non-native speakers and that's not a flaw on their part. English is a big, hairy, language.
And you're right, the brick wall line was probably out of line, I shouldn't have let my frustration get the better of me.
Regardless, based on this:
Alzrius wrote:
Quote:
'Seeming supernatural', 'as if supernatural', 'beyond the ordinary', 'impossible to explain', 'extraordinary'--these are all descriptors you feel are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability? Word choice is important!
Quite frankly, yes I do think that they are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability. Characterizing something as being extraordinary in nature does not mean that you're seriously suggesting that it has a non-natural aspect to it.
I'm going to say you and I do not have any common ground on which we can have a meaningful conversation.
I'll part by reiterating that while I agree with you that the show does not definitively state that the ability is (or is not) magical/supernatural/whatever, the show does suggest an unnatural aspect to The Stare. And that's my final word on the matter.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
The question about what language you speak was not meant as an aspersion on your reading comprehension. Connotation is difficult to pick up on for non-native speakers and that's not a flaw on their part. English is a big, hairy, language.
The implication was that I didn't agree with you because I didn't understand some aspect of what you were saying, rather than because I'd examined your reasoning and found it lacking. I understood your point with regards to connotation just fine; I simply don't place much stock in it, for reasons that I've previously mentioned.
Quote:
And you're right, the brick wall line was probably out of line, I shouldn't have let my frustration get the better of me.
Thank you for saying so.
Quote:
Regardless, based on this:
Alzrius wrote:
Quote:
'Seeming supernatural', 'as if supernatural', 'beyond the ordinary', 'impossible to explain', 'extraordinary'--these are all descriptors you feel are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability? Word choice is important!
Quite frankly, yes I do think that they are perfectly suitable for a mundane, non-magical ability. Characterizing something as being extraordinary in nature does not mean that you're seriously suggesting that it has a non-natural aspect to it.
I'm going to say you and I do not have any common ground on which we can have a meaningful conversation.
I think we have plenty of common ground for having a conversation (questions of meaningfulness aside). We just don't agree.
Quote:
I'll part by reiterating that while I agree with you that the show does not definitively state that the ability is (or is not) magical/supernatural/whatever, the show does suggest an unnatural aspect to The Stare. And that's my final word on the matter.
I don't agree, at least insofar as presuming that "unnatural" suggests any sort of magical/psychic/supernatural aspect to the Stare. It's certainly possible that it is, but upon examining what evidence can be found within the source material itself, I don't believe that it paints a very compelling picture in that regard.
Some sections of the fandom are having a meltdown about Princess Flurry Heart being an alicorn foal. Others are calling her ugly. (I think she's kind of cute personally.)
But poor Shining and Cadance. They're going to have to deal with a foal who can have magic surges from all three tribes. Crazy magic, random flight, and probably spontaneous super strength.
The drama never dies... Next round of drama will be when we start getting more info about the next Equestria Girls movie.
I can't wait for the next Equestria Girls. I hope the next one we finally find out were Sunset Shimmer's human world version will be. I would love for the pony world's Sunset Shimmer to return to Equestria and maybe even become the 7th element(forgiveness, understanding, etc.)
I just hope the 6th season will have...
-Information about alicorns.
-A backstory about Celestia and Luna's past, especially childhood.
-A Celestia focused episode.
-A episode about Applejack's parents.
-A episode about Fluttershy's family.
-That they will finally meet Starswirl the Bearded.
-A episode about Spike's origin and parents.
-That spike will actually get wings.
-That we get to see Scorpan.
-The return of Queen Chrysalis.
-The return of King Sombra.
-Seeing Sunset Shimmer visit at least once.
-Discord actually being helpful when they need it most.
-Finally seeing some merponies/sea ponies.
-Spike finally giving up on his crush for Rarity and start liking a pony around his own age such as Sweetiebell.
Hmm..so this season's theme is "Explore Equestria". I can't help but imagine that much of this season will be even more about world building that ever. So I expect a lot of adventure episodes this time around.
With that clip I do kinda hope they address the born v. ascended alicorn thing. Not at all surprised that the baby is one, though the reaction implies that this is something that just doesn't happen. Love the fact that Shining and Cadence have that "frantic/exhausted new parents" look.
I do have the inkling this may either be the last season of this generation or next to last. Though I seriously doubt Hasbro will let the money engine that is pony die anytime soon. I"m predicting a time advancement in the same world with the younger characters introduced in the show to become the primary protagonists.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
