 |
| "Why no, of course we fans didn't take anything here to heart!" |
My original rating: ★★★★
IMDb score: 7.8
Thoughts: Perhaps the most controversial episode in the show's entire run, mostly for M. A. Larson's unhappiness about what went out with his name on it, but also partly for the way the ponies themelves behave in-ep. The first is a real issue for me. The second? Less so.¹ I do think it's dated a little bit, in that you only get the full impact if you were in at Peak Fandom and recognise some of the specific dramas being poked at,² and those are far less common in today's quieter fandom. It's also arguable that it went back to the "hi there, bronies" well too often, when "Slice of Life" (especially) and "Stranger than Fan Fiction" had already been there. But as someone who was there, do I still find it funny? Yes, and on occasion hilarious. Do I find it mean-spirited towards this fandom? No, not especially. I still feel a few of those jabs were actually needed. I appreciate Starlight being the voice of reason, Toola Roola was a nice surprise, and after growing on me a lot "Flawless" is now one of my favourite songs. The way Larson was treated will always rankle, Spike's unexplained absence is odd and the townsponies being jerks towards the Mane Six for so long is pretty out-of-character for Ponyville – but the episode as it appears on-screen was an entertaining ride in 2017, and for me at least it's still that way today. As I've said, it has dated a little, so it's losing a bit from its score. Not much, though, and it's still a top-end three.
¹ Reading the EqD comments is interesting: a slanted source of course, but most commenters liked the episode in 2017.
² I'm damn sure the mass "Yee-ha!" from the Sweet Apple Admirers is a nudge to the fandom (over)doing "Fun! Fun! Fun!"
Choice quote: Pearly Stitch: "Twilight was better before she had wings!"
New rating: ★★★
Next
time, we'll be back to a slightly less controversial episode – and one with Spike very much present – when "Triple Threat" hoves into view. Join me then!
As a concept, this was fine, but I found it overblown, and not in an entertaining way. I've probably only watched it in reruns once, and little of it was memorable enough to stick in my head. I didn't find it offensive, just boring. Probably two stars for me.
ReplyDeleteYou know the meta-commentary's rubbish when one major line of dialogue is Twilight insisting they didn't produce this thing for money. Yeah right, Hasbro's PR department. Pull the other one.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Logan: Count me firmly in the "I hate this frigging thing from the ground up" camp. I just don't see such a cynical concept working in an optimistic world like Equestria, so it's both D.O.A. and completely unappealing to me (I watch pony in part to get away from real-life nonsense like this). So that's an existential "hard NO" already.
To say nothing of the godawful clumsy execution. This episode makes no distinction between legitimate criticism, different opinions, and jerkass behaviour, so there's way too much collateral damage caught in the crossfire and no counterbalance except two stunningly on-again-off-again little terrors. Hell, I heard a couple of my opinions implicated in there (much as I love Fluttershy eps, I'm willing to concede they could stand to be more diverse), and I was NOT happy about being lumped in with celebrity-harassing psychos for it, nor the show's weak attempt to pretend the criticism doesn't count because it can offer a single counter-perspective. Weak.
Also, the intended satire's comparison makes no sense anyway. MLP:FiM is a fictional show judged as such; the journal comes across more like a memoir of in-universe real heroes. Conflating the two means either trivializing the latter or overhyping the former. And Hasbro really have a high opinion of themselves and a low opinion of the fandom either way.
And DannyJ, as usual, points out a couple more unfortunate implications in his blog reviews, but I think you get the gist of it.
Terrible idea, terrible execution, terrible betrayal of the whole ethos of the show, and terribly smug writing to boot. As far as I'm concerned, Larson does well to treat it like the insufferable garbage it is.
Can I put you down as a "Don't Know", then? ;)
Deleteooh, say it again and louder! :O
Delete> This episode makes no distinction between legitimate criticism, different opinions, and jerkass behaviour
should I be concerned that I immediately thought, "Just like Fluttershy Leans In" and then realized, oh yeah, also kind of the one with the ponies from India. >_> One might start to think this is an issue of the show runners overall...
I felt the episode was a bit fan-bashing at the time, but I still detest "Flawless" :')
ReplyDeleteFrom one of the show's best ever episodes to one of its absolute worst. So many have called it the low point of season seven, but me? There's only one episode that I find worse.
ReplyDeleteFame and Misfortune is an ugly episode on many fronts; from its concept to execution, Hasbro should never have forced this upon M.A. Larson in the first place. Especially since they've already done an episode like that the previous season that was far superior on every level! And it was called Stranger Than Fan Fiction.
Also, "Flawless" has got to go down as one of the show's worst ever songs as it's literally the higher-ups sticking their fingers in their ears and going "We're not listening!" It's also pointless as the ponies go right back to arguing after it's over.
Had Fame and Misfortune never been commissioned to begin with, we would've lost nothing of value. It's cruel, unfunny, mean-spirited and just outright worthless in every way possible. Its mere existence is a real misfortune in and of itself.
FWIW I'm probably slightly biased in this episode's favour in that one of my friends is in the fandom (without which they wouldn't be) by friend because of "Flawless". I know I'm in s a smallish minority nowadays (though I really wasn't back in 2017) but I've never found this episode worthless. Still, I'm glad to be past it now.
DeleteThere's a rule of thumb for creative people that has become commonly accepted wisdom: Never argue with critics/reviewers, because there is no possible good outcome. If the critics completely off-base or indulging in an attack for personal reasons, you only give them legitimacy by responding. If they are correct in their criticisms, your response will sound like the weak excuse that it is.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to push back at criticism, when your ego is too fragile to simply ignore/accept it and move on, is to ignore the substance of the critiques and make a personal attack against the critic(s), which is what this episode is all about. Showing how wrong and stupid the strawponies are is a very big and cowardly brush.
Were some fans completely stupid and vicious about their responses to—well, nearly everything? Oh yeah, big-time! But the thing is, every reasonable person in the fandom knew that and was mostly on the side of the show writers and staff. After Fame and Misfortune tarred the whole adult fandom with its shotgun approach, a lot of that goodwill evaporated.
Never argue with critics/reviewers
DeleteWell, that'd make my job around here a very quiet one! :D (Yeah, I'm cherry-picking. What did you expect? :P )
It's interesting, though: back in 2017 the comment you made on my original review was pretty positive: your laughter at "My emotions, darling!", how this episode made Starlight shine, and how you enjoyed seeing Toola Roola. Have your opinions on the episode as a whole changed since then, or are those still bright spots but in a much murkier episodic sky?
Well, I'm speaking more about the critic/creator dynamic than the critic/fan one. I can respond to a review of someone else's work, or to a positive review of my own. A response is not an argument. But somebody who slams something of mine, or outright gets factual things wrong about it? It's, "Thank you for the review," at most. I guess I should have phrased it as, "Don't argue with your critics."
DeleteYes, I sound pretty harsh above, but that doesn't mean I didn't like the execution of the episode. Larson did an extremely good job, considering the foolish marching orders he was given. And I'm not even arguing that the portrayal of the over-the-top fan critics is inaccurate. The number of outright delusional idiots I've encountered in this fandom is staggering, and seeing them composited and attacked was a bit of a guilty pleasure. But it's still "punching down" on Hasbo's part.
The thing that makes it an unfair attack is that every adult is portrayed as unreasonable and petulant, whereas the only ponies that are shown to be "properly appreciative" are foals. It's the old, "This show is for kids, which excuses just about anything relating to quality," argument. There are lots of adult fans who have been unfailingly supportive over the years, as the amount of cash that Hasbro has raked in has shown.
Still... not nearly as bad as the She-Hulk finale.
Sure, I get that: the "horrible concept, executed about as well as it could be" viewpoint is a perfectly fair one. But back in 2017, the only things you said in your comment were positive ones. Now, maybe you were just pushed for time or maybe you weren't in the mood to be negative, but what is there gives the impression you outright liked the episode at that point.
DeleteHonestly, I'd have to watch it again to say for sure, but I probably did like it well enough. The things you mentioned that I called out were honestly good points. With everything taken into consideration, I think a three-star rating is about right.
DeleteThanks! I'm kind of relieved to know that I'm not the only person around here who (probably) doesn't utterly detest every single beat of this episode! :D
Delete"Never argue with critics/reviewers, because there is no possible good outcome."
DeleteHmmm, I think this hinges on what you mean by "argue". I'm guessing you mean solely in a combative "out to win" fashion, in which case I can see your point. On the other hand, I don't see what's wrong with arguing in a corrective "out to understand" fashion, or at least of airing what you were trying to accomplish. Learning to engage with critics as a matter of pragmatic learning opportunity seems to me a valuable skill to cultivate.
I think the key concepts here are whether the criticisms/replies are constructive (or "ad rem") - with an eye on the writing tropes and narrative strategies used in the work, and on accepting either side's decision to change their interpretation of same or stick to their guns - or destructive (or "ad hominem") - with the work of fiction mostly just a proxy for personal attacks on author or audience. You can have a fair argument if you stick to ad rem. You straight-up can't if you go ad hominem. And that's one of this episode's biggest problems.
Take the Fluttershy scene, for example. You could, in theory, have an episode where one character's exasperated by all the "face your fears" stuff Fluttershy's been through, AND Fluttershy insists it takes time to get over such things and make them stick. The point is that you could indicate general reasons why each side takes their tack - lack of variety versus realism, for example - and still show each side in a fair (or fair enough) light. That's basically what "Stranger Than Fan Fiction" managed.
Or you can go this episode's route and just use the Fluttershy drama to make the ponies Obvious Bad Guys (because they're harassing her with it) so Fluttershy can instantly put them in their place with a "winning" counterargument. The episode criticism gets dragged in as a fig leaf for punching obnoxious people, except plenty of episode critics aren't obnoxious people, so it ends up as guilt by association.
The rest of the episode exacerbates that tenfold, and that's why I think it's bad to ever engage with critics in this particular way. It makes no attempt to understand other perspectives, it doesn't play fair (which ultimately means being prepared to admit that your opponent could have a point or at least could be trying to make a legitimate one), and it's so obvious the "critical engagement" is just an excuse to raise a hate sink strawman to knock down and "win" over.
So I don't think it's necessarily "never argue with critics/reviewers" aspect so much as it is "never argue with critics/reviews in bad faith". If you're out to win rather than engage, you're either a bully (if you win) or an incompetent bully (if you lose).
IN, I don't disagree with you for the most part, and your points about the episode are totally valid. But as for the "never" bit, I completely stand by that, at least as far as a professional setting and personal work is concerned. That Hasbro adds the sin of "punching down" in this episode makes it even more obvious that they should have demurred.
DeleteEven something so innocuous as correcting a critic on an easily demonstrated factual error can cause a violent backlash, let alone head-butting over matters of opinion and taste.
It's not that it doesn't happen; it happens all the time! But the rule is still a good one.