Friendship is Horses

Starlight Glimmer: hate or great?

Recommended Posts

On 14/12/2016 at 3:55 PM, Jederick said:

 

Well maybe she's not overpowered per-se, but its more like a hole in her character development. We never saw her fail.

When we get right down to it Starlight's not super powerful. She's simply well prepared.

She spends "years" making that Cutie Mark spell, and it is effective "exactly one time". Twilight blocks effortlessly it the second time that she tries to use it. The time traveling spell is a combination of two spells written by other ponies. She doesn't write either from scratch, and she spends a long time researching it.

Both times she essentially succeeds because she planned ahead, but when she got past that initial stage she couldn't keep up the momentum.

It's the same when she's "battling" Twilight. She got there first. She knew what Twilight was going to do and she had time to prepare. If this were a video game, Twilight would essentially be re-spawning right in Starlight's cross hairs every time.

Besides, Twilight isn't a good fighter. Her typical response is to Horn Blast everything. She doesn't doge or teleport, or anything. She just flies right in and Horn Blasts. It takes Twilight and Cadance together to force the Taizelworm back into it's burrow, and she was bested by gas spitting plants in previous episodes. I think that you're giving Twilight too much credit. Most of her "ability" lies in knowledge, not doing complicated spells and certainly not fighting.

The only other time we really see Starlight doing much magic is Every Little Thing ... in which case she performs some complicated spells that other ponies wrote. All related to mind control. Presumably she simply practiced them a lot as she seems to have no compunction against doing that kind of thing and has done it before.

I think that Starlight simply spent a lot of time studying. She's older than Twilight, couldn't she just be a well studied unicorn going up against another well studied unicorn who'se a little less studied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2016 at 1:09 AM, Revanche said:

I thought we just missed non-Princess Twilight.

Well said.

Early on in the fandom, before it went mainstream, a lot of fans felt that they could relate to season 1\2 Twilight because she was intelligent yet uncertain of how she fitted in. She had skills and talents but was sometime nervous about using them, and she was worried about what others thought of her. A perfect fit for fans who were reticent about openly saying that they liked the show because of fear of ridicule.

Then Twilight became more confident, more self assured, as the show went on.

People didn't start hating her because she was a Princess, they felt less able to relate to her now that she (Regardless of her status as a Princess) was more certain of her place in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aaargh ZombiesSome people do it intentionally to make a point. You lumped everybody's arguments into two very narrow, misrepresenting and over simplifying categories and proceded to make a six paragraph argument.

Then you said that people make convoluted arguments. I didn't even read the rest of what you said.

You just don't like people disageeing with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

@Aaargh ZombiesSome people do it intentionally to make a point. You lumped everybody's arguments into two very narrow, misrepresenting and over simplifying categories and proceded to make a six paragraph argument.

Then you said that people make convoluted arguments. I didn't even read the rest of what you said.

You just don't like people disageeing with you.

If I didn't like people disagreeing with me I'd have gone around the block to avoid this thread. It's a disagreement magnet. It's when A) Somebody isn't honest about why they don't like something and instead tries to build a stawmare argument to justify their position, or B) When they take something that's common in the franchise and try to make out that it's a unique situation.

There's nothing wrong with somebody coming right out and saying that their dislike for Starlight Glimmer is largely because they think that Hasbro is trying to recapture the success that they had with Twilight's character in season 1\2, and they feel that Starlight is the wrong character to do this with as it requires a drastic readjustment of her established persona from the first 4 episodes in which she appeared.

On the other hand, if somebody tries to come up with a character assassination where they see the worst in everything for the sake of convenience, then that's something else entirely.

If you'd like to pick a specific area where you disagree with me, and were then to explain why you disagreed using examples for the show to back up your disagreement, then I will happily defend my position using a traditional debate format.

I only ask that you pick something specific and then avoid thread drift otherwise the entire thing could run away from us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

If I didn't like people disagreeing with me I'd have gone around the block to avoid this thread. It's a disagreement magnet. It's when A) Somebody isn't honest about why they don't like something and instead tries to build a stawmare argument to justify their position, or B) When they take something that's common in the franchise and try to make out that it's a unique situation.

Well, that is true. But how do you know that someone is being honest and when they aren't? That thing I said in my first reply is exactly this. I assume that everyone is being honest, but it's hard to do that when you start your argument by assuming that everyone isn't. I don't understand what you mean on B, because I don't think that anyone has done that. No one said that.

2 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

There's nothing wrong with somebody coming right out and saying that their dislike for Starlight Glimmer is largely because they think that Hasbro is trying to recapture the success that they had with Twilight's character in season 1\2, and they feel that Starlight is the wrong character to do this with as it requires a drastic readjustment of her established persona from the first 4 episodes in which she appeared.

On the other hand, if somebody tries to come up with a character assassination where they see the worst in everything for the sake of convenience, then that's something else entirely

Agreed, though there's nothing wrong in saying that they're being lazy and careless while trying to just that.

About character assassination... If one is going to complain about somethung that is wrong with a character, it feels just pointless and unecessary to the discussion, unless it's very relevant. I mean, it's true that Starlight Glimmer is repentant and istrying to fix her mistakes, but it's also true that she completely stepped on all pretense of free-will of her friends and then acted like the problem was shirking out of her friendship lessons (though, to me this was unintentional in the part of the writer, but this is what I'm talking about with "carelessness").

Unless you start by assuming that all I want is character assassination when I mention that SG has no empathy (Edit: in that scene.)

2 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

only ask that you pick something specific and then avoid thread drift otherwise the entire thing could run away from us

And I ask that you don't start your argument by shoveling everyone else's aside as wrong, over simplifying and accusing of dishonesty.

Edited by Metemponychosis
Clarifying
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

Well, that is true. But how do you know that someone is being honest and when they aren't? That thing I said in my first reply is exactly this. I assume that everyone is being honest, but it's hard to do that when you start your argument by assuming that everyone isn't.

While there is a certain amount of opinion involved, in general you analyses their text and look for certain factors. Such as the use of strawman arguments and redirection. You also look for instances where they profess a particular view in a manner that's unusually personal, but their argument drifts all over the place and does not support their initial view. Another way is that they repeatedly use highly evocative language, like describing starlight as being "an upstart" or "an interloper" or complaining about her backstory "being forced" when the topic is supposed to be something unrelated. Like her interaction with other characters.

 

7 minutes ago, Metemponychosis said:

 I don't understand what you mean on B, because I don't think that anyone has done that. No one said that.

I've come across this almost as often as I've come across (A). Some people are upset because Hasbro\DHX is focusing too heavily on Starlight Glimmer. They feel upset that they have become emotionally invested in the Mane 6, and then a new character comes along and each episode that focuses on her is an episode that doesn't focus on the other characters. Particularly their personal favorite character. They feel that it's unfair to give the neewbie so much attention at the expense of established cast members.

1 minute ago, Metemponychosis said:

Agreed, though there's nothing wrong in saying that they're being lazy and careless while trying to just that.

 

It's best not to, that creates an environment in which a debate can become an argument. People start typing in anger and that isn't good.

1 minute ago, Metemponychosis said:

it's true that Starlight Glimmer is repentant and istrying to fix her mistakes, but it's also true that she completely stepped on all pretense of free-will of her friends and then acted like the problem was shirking out of her friendship lessons (though, to me this was unintentional in the part of the writer, but this is what I'm talking about with "carelessness").

The way that I understood the episode was that the writer were trying to contrast Twilight from season 1 to Starlight from season 6. They were both supposed to be finding out about friendship, but they approached things from different angles. Twilight was afraid of making a fool of herself by being bad making friends, but Starlight was afraid of making a fool of herself by being bad at the actual tasks.

The writers deliberately had her brainwash the Mane 6 to show how different she was from Twilight, and that even though she wasn't a villain she was still doing many of the things that a villain would do (AKA brainwashing). She does similar things in other episodes, like when she tries to use magic to change Big Macintosh to be more talkative.

They showed that even though she was "reformed" she didn't just suddenly become a model pony.

There's nothing careless about this episode. Though the pacing was a little off it was well thought out and it got it's core ideas across very well. I think that maybe you've approached the episode with a different mindset from the one that the writers had expected and so didn't get the most out of this episode.

 

1 minute ago, Metemponychosis said:

Unless you start by assuming that all I want is character assassination when I mention that SG has no empathy.

Starlight not being empathetic is a part of her basic character. She's become used to forcing her will on other ponies. The writers did this deliberately, she slowely changes as the season goes on, until the finale when she finally understands what Twilight has been trying to tell her since the season premier.

1 minute ago, Metemponychosis said:

 

And I ask that you don't start your argument by shoveling everyone else's aside as wrong, over simplifying and accusing of dishonesty.

 

That's a little bit of a strong way to put things. my main issue is with people who have one opinion, but instead of trying to justify it they use strawman arguments and try to justify those instead because they are not being honest "with themselves" about why they don't like Starlight.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with people who come right out and say that they don't like the changes that were made to Starlight in season 6 because they already formed a headcanon about her based on her appearances in season 5.

What I do have a problem is with people who (for example) who are upset because the introduction of a new character this late in the show means that they've had to cut back on story elements about the existing character, but instead of coming out and saying this openly they try to make out that Starlight is a bad character using strawman arguments.

If somebody repeatedly describes Starlight as being an upstart and an interloper, and they say that Hasbro is being unfair to the other characters, then it's likely that they are really concerned with her being too powerful\badly written\etc, and are really upset that season  concentrated on her a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

While there is a certain amount of opinion involved, in general you analyses their text and look for certain factors. Such as the use of strawman arguments and redirection. You also look for instances where they profess a particular view in a manner that's unusually personal, but their argument drifts all over the place and does not support their initial view. Another way is that they repeatedly use highly evocative language, like describing starlight as being "an upstart" or "an interloper" or complaining about her backstory "being forced" when the topic is supposed to be something unrelated. Like her interaction with other characters.

Please define "unusually personal" for me, because that sounds strange: everything you mentioned here is subjective and derives from personal opinion. Even on the most basic level, simply because the threshold between good and bad development of a character, of any kind, is purely arbitrary and will vary from person to person, and even time to time.

Why would someone give themselves the job of typing something if that doesn't support their argument? Can you give me an example?

When you talk about language, you're basically excusing yourself to judging other people's argumentative honesty based on your interpretation of their choice of words. If someone thinks that someone reached a status too quickly, that is the definition of upstart. So you're basically saying that no one can think that SG got too powerful too fast. No one can say that her background doesn't fit her motivation, even though those are valid opinions that you would be free to disagree with, but instead, you sound like you veto any validity from these arguments simply because you don't like the wording. These are common words. Instead of going on a long tirade explaining why, it's just easier to say that her backstory is forced.

I'd also say that her backstory is relevant in a topic about her interactions with other characters, specially in her case, where she was a villain and is now supposed to not be, but keeps doing "villainous things".

6 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

I've come across this almost as often as I've come across (A). Some people are upset because Hasbro\DHX is focusing too heavily on Starlight Glimmer. They feel upset that they have become emotionally invested in the Mane 6, and then a new character comes along and each episode that focuses on her is an episode that doesn't focus on the other characters. Particularly their personal favorite character. They feel that it's unfair to give the neewbie so much attention at the expense of established cast members.

I think you're right here. Especially when the Mane Six did get their own episodes as normal. SG is just a new character, and she can't be without screen time. Personally I don't think that Hasbro/DHX (and even IDW) are focusing too heavily on her. I just think that they're doing it the wrong way. Though I think one should be careful when defending a character that is "under the spotlight" while accusing others of complaining that theirs isn't, because this argument turns around easily, especially when argumentative honesty is the subject.

6 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

The way that I understood the episode was that the writer were trying to contrast Twilight from season 1 to Starlight from season 6. They were both supposed to be finding out about friendship, but they approached things from different angles. Twilight was afraid of making a fool of herself by being bad making friends, but Starlight was afraid of making a fool of herself by being bad at the actual tasks.

The writers deliberately had her brainwash the Mane 6 to show how different she was from Twilight, and that even though she wasn't a villain she was still doing many of the things that a villain would do (AKA brainwashing). She does similar things in other episodes, like when she tries to use magic to change Big Macintosh to be more talkative.

They showed that even though she was "reformed" she didn't just suddenly become a model pony.

There's nothing careless about this episode. Though the pacing was a little off it was well thought out and it got it's core ideas across very well. I think that maybe you've approached the episode with a different mindset from the one that the writers had expected and so didn't get the most out of this episode

I agree that reformed isn't necessarily irreproachable. In fact, I do think that a good redemption story ideally should include a relapse. It adds verisimilitude (I'm not sure this is the right word in English). But if that is to be so, I expect it to be done intentionally and in right proportion. I don't think that the writers realize the morality of what happened in that episode especially because Twilight barely called her on that. Twilight called her on shirking her lessons and brushed the whole mind altering spell like she had spilled juice on the carpet. They spent more time talking about what she didn't do. You don't approach friendship by messing with someone's mind. That is not doable and Starlight Glimmer should've been punished for this (and just because characters got away with other things, doesn't make this right). I doubt that anyone here would be friends with someone that used any mind altering method in order to coerce them into doing something that they'd rather not do. This is not "not being a model pony". If whoever came up with this knew what they were doing, this should've been the beginning of another story arc, not some seconds of light conversation.
Now, understand that I don't think that this makes SG a bad character (or even "evil") To me, it's pretty clear that the intention is exactly what you said, she's not perfect. At worst I think that this puts the episode next to Over a Barrel and Feeling Pinkie Keen for not really thinking things through.

But maybe I'm wrong. I AM complaining about morality within a fictional universe and making parallels to real world morality. Honestly, do you think that I'm putting too much stock in this?

7 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

That's a little bit of a strong way to put things. my main issue is with people who have one opinion, but instead of trying to justify it they use strawman arguments and try to justify those instead because they are not being honest "with themselves" about why they don't like Starlight.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with people who come right out and say that they don't like the changes that were made to Starlight in season 6 because they already formed a headcanon about her based on her appearances in season 5.

What I do have a problem is with people who (for example) who are upset because the introduction of a new character this late in the show means that they've had to cut back on story elements about the existing character, but instead of coming out and saying this openly they try to make out that Starlight is a bad character using strawman arguments.

If somebody repeatedly describes Starlight as being an upstart and an interloper, and they say that Hasbro is being unfair to the other characters, then it's likely that they are really concerned with her being too powerful\badly written\etc, and are really upset that season  concentrated on her a lot.

What is a straw man argument for you here? Saying that she has a "forced backstory"?

7 hours ago, Aaargh Zombies said:

It's best not to, that creates an environment in which a debate can become an argument. People start typing in anger and that isn't good.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like you to explicit say why saying that someone was lazy is detrimental so that I can explain why I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to absolutely despise Starlight Glimmer but,

 

I've grown to like her a lot more in Season 7 with episodes like "All Bottled Up" & "Rock Solid Friendship" being a big reason why.

 

I also liked Starlight Glimmer in "A Hearths Warming Tale" where she played the role of "Snowfall Frost".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed opinions about Starlight Glimmer. On one hand, she seems to be a very well thought out and well crafted character. She was the first villain that actually has a proper motive in the show, most villains in MLP seem to be pretty predictable and have little depth. Starlight Glimmer actually has a real reason for thinking the way she does and actually thinks that what she is doing is right. Her character opened us up to the idea that ponies could dislike their cutie marks. It is easy to relate to her, and her reformation was more gradual than other characters like Discord or Sunset Shimmer, which makes her character feel more like a real person rather than just a cartoon character. Personally, I think that Starlight Glimmer was definitely one of the better villains of MLP. On the other side of the spectrum, however, I can totally see why people dislike her. She pretty much stole the spotlight for the whole of season 6, when the show is really supposed to be about Twilight and the rest of the main 6. I also feel that Starlight is somewhat replacing Twilight, as back before Twilight became an Alicorn, she was Celestia's student. Now, it seems like Twilight has taken Celestia's place and Starlight has become the new Twilight Sparkle, with the central focus of the show also moving towards her. I can definitely sympathize with people that dislike Starlight Glimmer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oldmanjenkins said:

with the central focus of the show also moving towards her.

I've heard people say this, but I'm not so certain that it's true. Out of 26 episodes in season 6 Starlight mostly only had cameos where she would appear for a few scenes and would have a handful of lines that were often just for exposition, and then she would more or less be a background character for the rest of the episode.

Even in the episodes that focused on her she often shared the spotlight with another lesser known character and the scenes were frequently used simply to introduce the audience to them.

In episodes 118 and 119 (Season 6 premier) she was pretty much just a way to bring Sunburst into the story, and she didn't do anything that couldn't otherwise have been done by a character like Cadence or Rarity. Most of the time she's either talking to Sunburst of is acting as an assistant to Twilight.

She either wasn't in episodes 119 - 122 or only had cameos. In episode 123 she shared the spotlight with Trixie, and the entire episodes is little more than a platform to bring Trixie into the mane storyline.
She's largely missing in episode 124, and in Episode 125 it isn't even Starlight it's Snowfall Frost being played by Starlight. Though she does get a song which is awesome. She's not really a player in episodes 126 to 132, and in episodes 133 she a handful of lines, and isn't a part of the mane storyline at all. She's missing again from episodes 134 to 137, and it's not until episode 138 that she actually has an episode where she is the mane character and isn't sharing the stage with anypony else. That's a full 21 episodes into a 26 episode season before she has her own character episode. The CMC had a lot more appearances than this in the first season. She isn't in episodes 139 to 141 either. So, she's spent most of the entire season either as a secondary character or being totally out of the episode.

It's not until episode 142 and 143 that she actually does do anything that might otherwise be considered "a Twilight thing". These episodes were a big change for MLP, as none of the mane 6 had a big part in the story, it was a pretty unique episode. Even more so than Hearthswarming Eve and A Hearth's Warming Tale. Where the Mane 6 played other characters.

My personal view is that some people were simply upset that Hasbro decided to introduce a new character into the established set of characters. They wanted more of the same, or more season 1 or 2 content.

You had some people getting upset because they desperately wanted either a Celestia or a Luna episode and didn't get one (During season 6, 90% of Celestia\Luna content was being handled by the comics, so it wasn't going to happen due to the Hasbro enforcing a strict policy of having the show\comics handle different aspects of the franchise). Some people simply didn't like Trixie, and were upset that Starlight and Trixie were ow a thing, and some people were holding out for more content for their personal favorite characters (Such as Spike) and thought that having an additional character would mean fewer episodes for their character.

It's why you get so many people being upset about how powerful Starlight is, without them actually realizing that 90% of the time Starlight's magic is the problem, and Friendship is the solution. Meaning that far from being overpowered, Starlight was massively underpowered, because she didn't understand friendship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Friendship is Horses said:

it's alive

ALIIIIIIIIVE

No. Stay away, demon thread! I created you! I am your master! auugcklaglaglagl

You do realize you're mistake, don't you?

You should have KILLED IT WITH FIRE.

Anything less is just asking for it to come back for a PG-13 Made-for-TV sequel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now