MLP TV movie + New Branch off MLP:FiM

[Freewave]

MLP is about ponies. It's literally the only thing in the damn title (the franchise title, that is)

^True dat!! He speaks the truth!!!

[ganondox]

Zebra Kingdom isn't random at all (wait, why are we even talking about randomness? My criticism was that it was disconnected, not simply just random), it would be a lot better than Human World 1. all the themes of that could be explored with human world could be explored with zebra world like cultural alienation and 2. it builds on the established world, we already have zebras. Zebra Kingdom is just an all around better concept. Anyway, the real problem with your argument is you don't get how it works, you are looking at this from a top-down perspective when in order to analyse it you need to go to the roots, and you are missing the point completely by floating around in the leaves. You are asking the "how", but not the "why". I'm not asking how Twilight became a human, I'm asking "why", and the truth is that there is no good reason. That's the problem. You are making all these assumptions about a thief in the portal, but what you don't realize is why there is even a theft in the first place, you never questioned that. The reason is to set up EQG.

I've never asked "how" (unless I forgot a moment when I asked how), because I already know "how" for the majority of the problems, such as Twi turning into a human. It was because the thief went through the portal and so did twi. With you're asking "why" because there's no good reason to it, I could say the same thing to a zebra kingdom as the setting for the movie. I mean, there's good reason for either settings -- for the cultural alienation and typical friendship lessons -- but there wouldn't be a 100% good reason for any location.

-Why did you choose the setting of this movie to be Canterlot?
-I don't know. Because the thief could blend in with all the rich, and the rich have no motivation to steal since they practically already have what they want. It would make finding the thief hard.

-Why did you choose the setting of this movie to be Cloudsdale?
-I don't know, because the thief would know that Twilight can't fly very well and is using it as a quick escape route

-Why did you choose the setting of this movie to be the human world? besides the obvious toy marketing capitalism thing
-I don't know, because the thief knows that the human world is one that Twilight knows nothing about and she can easily get away from Twilight

Also, "but you don't realize why there is even a theft in the first place, you never questioned that." I'm pretty sure the reason behind that is obvious. Two reasons. One: Thieves usually don't steal things just for the shits and giggles, there's motives such as fame, riches, etc. Two: As you've said, it's to set up EqG. But they could use reason two to set up any location that the thief would run to.

You obviously aren't a writer because you fail to understand to mean when I say "why there is even a theft in the first place", asking yourself "why" is essential for selecting details in a coherent story. You are still looking at it from a top-down perspective. From a writing standpoint the only reason the theft happened was to set up EQG. Since you apparently don't understand writing you probably can't understand why the bad writing is bad. However, you don't need to be a writer to recognize a BAD IDEA when you see one, this can be attested to the universal initial negative reaction to the announcement of EQG. This isn't just bronies, in fact the only people I see supporting it save Hasbro themselves are some bronies. It just takes a writer to explain exactly why it is bad, and even then people might not understand.

Here, let me use an analogy to illustrate this. Let's save you have a car based around a BAD DESIGN. People can recognize it is bad because it looks ugly and it doesn't work. However, it takes an engineer to explain why it doesn't work, and people still might not understand why it doesn't work. Maybe the sponsors of the car are requiring that the developers use this design, but it doesn't make it any less terrible of a design. Sure, if you throw enough junk on top of it it might be able to plod along anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that the root design is terribly inefficient and thus shouldn't be supported. People who are ignorant of engineering may argue that because it's plodding away that the design isn't bad, and people who don't understand what's going on my belief them, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a BAD DESIGN, and the car would be a lot better off without it.

Also, as Freewave said, the franchise is My Little Pony. This is essentially the equivalent of making a Harry Potter movie where Harry Potter dies in the opening credits and the rest of the movie is about Hermione and Ron's love life. Sure, I guess it's technically related to the franchise...but NO, just no.

[itroitnyah]

You obviously aren't a writer because you fail to understand to mean when I say "why there is even a theft in the first place", asking yourself "why" is essential for selecting details in a coherent story. You are still looking at it from a top-down perspective. From a writing standpoint the only reason the theft happened was to set up EQG. Since you apparently don't understand writing you probably can't understand why the bad writing is bad. However, you don't need to be a writer to recognize a BAD IDEA when you see one, this can be attested to the universal initial negative reaction to the announcement of EQG. This isn't just bronies, in fact the only people I see supporting it save Hasbro themselves are some bronies. It just takes a writer to explain exactly why it is bad, and even then people might not understand.

And I'm sure you're an expert writer. But that's not what I'm here to argue about. I'm looking at this whole thing from a logical and realistic standpoint. Sure, from a writing standpoint, it may seem like they only made the thief to make the gateway to the human world, but no matter what world they choose, it's still a movie about Twi trying to get her crown back and overcoming the obstacles. They didn't place the setting in the human world just to say "Look, humans, wow, cool, super amazing and stuff!" It's just like with harry potter, the location of the castle or where all the wizards trained and learned new magic could be anywhere, but it's located on some hills and mountains somewhere. Rowling could have placed the castle or location of the magic school in the middle of a desert if she wanted to.

Here, let me use an analogy to illustrate this. Let's save you have a car based around a BAD DESIGN. People can recognize it is bad because it looks ugly and it doesn't work. However, it takes an engineer to explain why it doesn't work, and people still might not understand why it doesn't work. Maybe the sponsors of the car are requiring that the developers use this design, but it doesn't make it any less terrible of a design. Sure, if you throw enough junk on top of it it might be able to plod along anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that the root design is terribly inefficient and thus shouldn't be supported. People who are ignorant of engineering may argue that because it's plodding away that the design isn't bad, and people who don't understand what's going on my belief them, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a BAD DESIGN, and the car would be a lot better off without it.

A car isn't the best analogy to use, because cars have standards and requirements that they have have to meet in order for them to be marketable by law, with all these "go green" laws and such. Moreover, a car company wouldn't design a bad car because they don't want a product to flop, they want it to compete, so they'll design it well. A movie is not much different in the competition aspect. Hasbro wouldn't just make a whole movie for no apparent reason and throw it together because movie, they're going to put time and effort into it so that it's good, since something that's good sells, and the after products sell as well (angry birds for example).

[ganondox]

You obviously aren't a writer because you fail to understand to mean when I say "why there is even a theft in the first place", asking yourself "why" is essential for selecting details in a coherent story. You are still looking at it from a top-down perspective. From a writing standpoint the only reason the theft happened was to set up EQG. Since you apparently don't understand writing you probably can't understand why the bad writing is bad. However, you don't need to be a writer to recognize a BAD IDEA when you see one, this can be attested to the universal initial negative reaction to the announcement of EQG. This isn't just bronies, in fact the only people I see supporting it save Hasbro themselves are some bronies. It just takes a writer to explain exactly why it is bad, and even then people might not understand.

And I'm sure you're an expert writer. But that's not what I'm here to argue about. I'm looking at this whole thing from a logical and realistic standpoint. Sure, from a writing standpoint, it may seem like they only made the thief to make the gateway to the human world, but no matter what world they choose, it's still a movie about Twi trying to get her crown back and overcoming the obstacles. They didn't place the setting in the human world just to say "Look, humans, wow, cool, super amazing and stuff!" It's just like with harry potter, the location of the castle or where all the wizards trained and learned new magic could be anywhere, but it's located on some hills and mountains somewhere. Rowling could have placed the castle or location of the magic school in the middle of a desert if she wanted to.

We are talking about bad writing, it only makes sense to tackle it from writing standpoint, not that taking it from a "realism" standpoint makes much sense either. I'm by no means an expert writer, I'm just a writer of fanfic and other short stories, some people like, and some people hate. You still don't get the concept of "why". The thing is, this isn't a story about a stolen crown, it's a story about Twilight turning into a human and exploring HS. To go with the car analogy, the whole crown plot is just tape placed on the broken motor that is the concept behind EQG. Also, your Rowling connection has nothing to do with anything, it's not setting persay that's the issue. It's more like if Rowling decided to set Harry Potter in a world without magic, and Harry Potter wasn't even in the book. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Here, let me use an analogy to illustrate this. Let's save you have a car based around a BAD DESIGN. People can recognize it is bad because it looks ugly and it doesn't work. However, it takes an engineer to explain why it doesn't work, and people still might not understand why it doesn't work. Maybe the sponsors of the car are requiring that the developers use this design, but it doesn't make it any less terrible of a design. Sure, if you throw enough junk on top of it it might be able to plod along anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that the root design is terribly inefficient and thus shouldn't be supported. People who are ignorant of engineering may argue that because it's plodding away that the design isn't bad, and people who don't understand what's going on my belief them, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a BAD DESIGN, and the car would be a lot better off without it.

A car isn't the best analogy to use, because cars have standards and requirements that they have have to meet in order for them to be marketable by law, with all these "go green" laws and such. Moreover, a car company wouldn't design a bad car because they don't want a product to flop, they want it to compete, so they'll design it well. A movie is not much different in the competition aspect. Hasbro wouldn't just make a whole movie for no apparent reason and throw it together because movie, they're going to put time and effort into it so that it's good, since something that's good sells, and the after products sell as well (angry birds for example).

The car analogy is by no means perfect, it's just what came to my mind, but it works, and your complaints have absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm not talking about the real car industry, I'm talking about a theoretical "car". Anyway, to go with your expansion to the analogy, it's not that the company doesn't want to make a good car, it's that the executives sponsoring it have no idea how to make a good car, and they are forcing that people who actually know how to make the car use a crap engine because they are being sponsored by the company that made the crap engine.

Hasbro claims that the ponies were turned into humans so that kid's would emphasize with them better. That's the biggest piece of BS I have ever heard. The ponies were made to be ponies in the first place for a reason, if girls wanted humans instead they would be watching something else instead of MLP. I actually think their ponyness makes them easier to related with, and I'm not the only one, just look at all the complaints about the physical characteristics of the cast. So far every girl I've heard from would rather the ponies remain ponies. We all know the truth is that Hasbro wanted to launch a franchise to compete with Monster High and Bratz and decided to use FiM's popularity as a springboard, which makes no sense if you are actually understand the show on a personal level because FiM is pretty much the opposite of those things. The problem is that executives use market analysis and see what sells well, but they fail to realize WHY they sell well, and fail to see the complexities in the system. It's really pretty disgusting.

[itroitnyah]

We are talking about bad writing, it only makes sense to tackle it from writing standpoint, not that taking it from a "realism" standpoint makes much sense either. I'm by no means an expert writer, I'm just a writer of fanfic and other short stories, some people like, and some people hate. You still don't get the concept of "why". The thing is, this isn't a story about a stolen crown, it's a story about Twilight turning into a human and exploring HS. To go with the car analogy, the whole crown plot is just tape placed on the broken motor that is the concept behind EQG. Also, your Rowling connection has nothing to do with anything, it's not setting persay that's the issue. It's more like if Rowling decided to set Harry Potter in a world without magic, and Harry Potter wasn't even in the book. That makes no sense whatsoever.

No, the story is about the stolen crown. It just so happens that Twi is doing more than just working to get the stolen crown, she's making friends, understanding another culture, learning, etc. Just because the trailer doesn't focus entirely on Twilight trying to get the crown back doesn't mean anything other than there is more than focus in the movie. That is by no means a bad thing, and while somewhat takes the attention away from getting the crown, those sub-focuses are all leading up to getting the crown. If you recall the second trailer, we can break down the commercial. They spend the first 14ish seconds introducing the start of the film, where season 3 left off. The commercial spends the next 23 seconds talking about the thief stealing the crown and Twi preparing to go after it through the portal. The next 22 seconds are about Twi discovering what she is and the world and people around her. Another 9 seconds is about Twi plotting on how to get her crown back, another 17 seconds doing a quick overview of events leading up to the spring prom thing with the beauty contest, 5 seconds quickly subtly hinting at what the ending will be, and the remaining time of the commercial is a wrap-up and a goofy little scene from the movie. Now, obviously this is just a commercial, but if the movie weren't actually as much about the crown as you seem to suggest, it wouldn't get brought up as much as it is in the commercial.

[simonli2575]

Woah, long-ass comments.

Anyway, the movie's been released, and the rating on IMDb for this movie is pretty low.
I bet most of them haven't even seen the movie yet.
For those of you who've watched the movie, what do you think?

[ganondox]

We are talking about bad writing, it only makes sense to tackle it from writing standpoint, not that taking it from a "realism" standpoint makes much sense either. I'm by no means an expert writer, I'm just a writer of fanfic and other short stories, some people like, and some people hate. You still don't get the concept of "why". The thing is, this isn't a story about a stolen crown, it's a story about Twilight turning into a human and exploring HS. To go with the car analogy, the whole crown plot is just tape placed on the broken motor that is the concept behind EQG. Also, your Rowling connection has nothing to do with anything, it's not setting persay that's the issue. It's more like if Rowling decided to set Harry Potter in a world without magic, and Harry Potter wasn't even in the book. That makes no sense whatsoever.

No, the story is about the stolen crown. It just so happens that Twi is doing more than just working to get the stolen crown, she's making friends, understanding another culture, learning, etc. Just because the trailer doesn't focus entirely on Twilight trying to get the crown back doesn't mean anything other than there is more than focus in the movie. That is by no means a bad thing, and while somewhat takes the attention away from getting the crown, those sub-focuses are all leading up to getting the crown. If you recall the second trailer, we can break down the commercial. They spend the first 14ish seconds introducing the start of the film, where season 3 left off. The commercial spends the next 23 seconds talking about the thief stealing the crown and Twi preparing to go after it through the portal. The next 22 seconds are about Twi discovering what she is and the world and people around her. Another 9 seconds is about Twi plotting on how to get her crown back, another 17 seconds doing a quick overview of events leading up to the spring prom thing with the beauty contest, 5 seconds quickly subtly hinting at what the ending will be, and the remaining time of the commercial is a wrap-up and a goofy little scene from the movie. Now, obviously this is just a commercial, but if the movie weren't actually as much about the crown as you seem to suggest, it wouldn't get brought up as much as it is in the commercial.

No, the story is about Twilight turning into a HS girl, hence the Equestria Girls title and the franchise. It just so happens they through in a plot about a stolen crown. It's a big plot point, but it's just a plot point. You have made it more than clear that you don't understand how this works.

Woah, long-ass comments.

Anyway, the movie's been released, and the rating on IMDb for this movie is pretty low.
I bet most of them haven't even seen the movie yet.
For those of you who've watched the movie, what do you think?

They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad.

[Nine Volt]

How can you say something is bad without even watching it? That's just not something you do; don't judge a book by its cover, essentially. Until you've seen it yourself, you have no right to claim it's bad.

And don't try to defend yourself, because I don't fucking care. No matter what way you spin it you're still in the wrong here.

Keep in mind that the movie may indeed be actually bad, but you still can't say that unless you've seen it yourself, not heard from some reviewer.

[ganondox]

How can you say something is bad without even watching it? That's just not something you do; don't judge a book by its cover, essentially. Until you've seen it yourself, you have no right to claim it's bad.

And don't try to defend yourself, because I don't fucking care. No matter what way you spin it you're still in the wrong here.

Because it has bad reviews. I'm not saying it is bad, I'm saying it probably has bad reviews because it's bad, implying it's probably bad. Anyway, avoiding something because it has bad reviews is completely different from judging a book by it's cover. You're in the wrong for accusing me of doing something I didn't do, learn to read.

[Nine Volt]

How can you say something is bad without even watching it? That's just not something you do; don't judge a book by its cover, essentially. Until you've seen it yourself, you have no right to claim it's bad.

And don't try to defend yourself, because I don't fucking care. No matter what way you spin it you're still in the wrong here.

Because it has bad reviews. I'm not saying it is bad, I'm saying it probably has bad reviews because it's bad, implying it's probably bad. Anyway, avoiding something because it has bad reviews is completely different from judging a book by it's cover. You're in the wrong for accusing me of doing something I didn't do, learn to read.

They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad.

Don't fucking accuse me of not knowing how to read when you can't even remember your own fucking writing. You literally just said "it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad", which in case you weren't aware is saying that the reviews are bad because it's bad. Not because it's "probably bad", but because it's definitively "bad". Now, you may have meant to say "it probably has bad reviews because it's probably bad", but that's not what you fucking said, so you can't blame me for reading what you fucking wrote.

[ganondox]

How can you say something is bad without even watching it? That's just not something you do; don't judge a book by its cover, essentially. Until you've seen it yourself, you have no right to claim it's bad.

And don't try to defend yourself, because I don't fucking care. No matter what way you spin it you're still in the wrong here.

Because it has bad reviews. I'm not saying it is bad, I'm saying it probably has bad reviews because it's bad, implying it's probably bad. Anyway, avoiding something because it has bad reviews is completely different from judging a book by it's cover. You're in the wrong for accusing me of doing something I didn't do, learn to read.

They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad.

Don't fucking accuse me of not knowing how to read when you can't even remember your own fucking writing. You literally just said "it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad", which in case you weren't aware is saying that the reviews are bad because it's bad. Not because it's "probably bad", but because it's definitively "bad". Now, you may have meant to say "it probably has bad reviews because it's probably bad", but that's not what you fucking said, so you can't blame me for reading what you fucking wrote.

You just fail at reading comprehension. The "probably" on the it being bad is implied with the first "probably" in the sentence. It modifies the entire sentence, so placing the second "probably" is redundant. (Well, not quite. The second formation would imply that the reviewers aren't actually sure if it's bad or not, they just think it's probably bad, which is NOT what I meant.) You are just interpreting it as an ignorant comment because you don't like my opinion on EQG.

[Nine Volt]

No, honestly I don't care about your opinion on EQG (or anyone else's, for that matter. Nothing personal).

Here is what you wrote. We're going to break it down:

"They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad."

"They probably did watch it,"
Meaning, they likely watched it. Indeed.

"and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad"
The reviews are likely negative because it's bad.

That is what you are saying. Adding a second probably would not be redundant. In fact, it would merely clarify your meaning.

Tell me, are you a native English speaker? I seem to remember something about you living in Singapore, so you never know.
^Don't take that as some kind of insult, I'm actually wondering. Because if you're not a native speaker then you would have no right to argue over the English language with someone who is.

[ganondox]

No, honestly I don't care about your opinion on EQG (or anyone else's, for that matter. Nothing personal).

Here is what you wrote. We're going to break it down:

"They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad."

"They probably did watch it,"
Meaning, they likely watched it. Indeed.

"and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad"
The reviews are likely negative because it's bad.

That is what you are saying. Adding a second probably would not be redundant. In fact, it would merely clarify your meaning.

Tell me, are you a native English speaker? I seem to remember something about you living in Singapore, so you never know.
^Don't take that as some kind of insult, I'm actually wondering. Because if you're not a native speaker then you would have no right to argue over the English language with someone who is.

"The reviews are likely negative because it's bad."

That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad, it just means it's likely that it's bad. Again, here likely modifies the entire second clause. Anyway, it's not really redundant as much as it implies a meaning which I didn't intend, so either way it's a no-win situation.

English is actually the official language of Singapore, but that point is moot because I don't even live in Singapore, I live in Indonesia, and yes, I'm a native English speaker.

We are just debating semantics now, I think I made it perfectly clear what I meant.

[Pimps_McGee]

I'll just leave this rear.
Don't watch if you don't want spoilers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHhaqS6ylPw


Honestly it reminds of something by Junji Ito. Surely humans can't work like that.

[itroitnyah]

because it is in fact bad.

Did your first or second grade teacher forget to teach you about facts and opinions and their differences? Allow me to teach you quickly. A fact is something that is either true or false, such as 2+2=4. An opinion is how somebody feels about something that can differ between people, such as "This song is bad/good". Just because you don't like the concept behind EqG doesn't mean you can declare it a fact that it's bad, you should really just say "because they think or hold the opinion that it is bad", and you can't deny that there are indeed some haters who have created ratings for the movie, although we can't necessarily prove how many of the ratings are haters.

[simonli2575]

I'll just leave this rear.
Don't watch if you don't want spoilers.

An image link would have been nice, but nope, you had to put an image in your comment to make it hard not to see it.

[itroitnyah]

Apparently 4chan made a thread talking about how bad they thought it was, lol. Still have yet to see it, will report back when I do.

[Sonarch]

Oh, is it out now?

[itroitnyah]

Yeah.

[Pimps_McGee]

a thread

There has been plenty more than just one.

[Pimps_McGee]

i wonder how she gets back to canterlot... maybe when her crown gets placed back on her head?

If you're really that interested the last thirteen minutes is up on youtube.

[ganondox]

because it is in fact bad.

Did your first or second grade teacher forget to teach you about facts and opinions and their differences? Allow me to teach you quickly. A fact is something that is either true or false, such as 2+2=4. An opinion is how somebody feels about something that can differ between people, such as "This song is bad/good". Just because you don't like the concept behind EqG doesn't mean you can declare it a fact that it's bad, you should really just say "because they think or hold the opinion that it is bad", and you can't deny that there are indeed some haters who have created ratings for the movie, although we can't necessarily prove how many of the ratings are haters.

Do you really need to make some stupid comment that's completely missing the point just because I said something you didn't like? If people think the movie is bad they are going to rate it as being bad, that's what I'm saying. Of course it's an opinion, but somethings people tend to like and some people tend to dislike, hence being bad or good. At this point your crusade is just being absurd.

Anyway, I heard that there was a vote attack earlier, but then it was at less than 3, and I think 4 is a reasonable critical rating to expect from a movie like this. EQG or no EQG, movies based shows like this don't tend to get very high ratings.

I read a collection of movie facts, and now the smallest amount of desire I had to see this movie has been quenched because my curiosity has been satisfied and nothing about it interests me.

[Lying Pink]

OK GUYS EQG ASIDE GRAMMAR TIME

They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad.

Now, you may have meant to say "it probably has bad reviews because it's probably bad", but that's not what you fucking said, so you can't blame me for reading what you fucking wrote.

Nope, it's not what he said -- it's what he potentially said, and the ambiguity was removed thanks to the context.
Out of context what ganondox said was syntactically ambiguous meaning the sentence could mean one of two things:
1. "They probably did watch it; it probably had bad reviews: this is because it was bad."
2. "They probably did watch it; it had bad reviews, probably because it was bad."
Seeing that sentence floating around in the ether, either of those interpretations are pretty much equally valid. However, in context - that is, after Ganondox quoted someone who demonstrates that it definitely has bad reviews, option number 1 does not make any sense in the context of the discussion, so it stands to reason that Ganondox meant option 2.

because it is in fact bad.

Did your first or second grade teacher forget to teach you about facts and opinions and their differences?

And did yours not teach you how sentences work? Namely that if you take part of one out of context, like maybe removing a "probably", it can completely change what the words mean?

Ok if at a stretch y'all say that from the original post it seems like Ganondox was saying that EqG was somehow objectively bad, surely the comments he made after the fact would've cleared that up?

Because if you're not a native speaker then you would have no right to argue over the English language with someone who is.

...lol.

I don't mind people being grammar/semantics sticklers too much, but at least do it correctly.

/derail

[Nine Volt]

Because if you're not a native speaker then you would have no right to argue over the English language with someone who is.

...lol.

I don't mind people being grammar/semantics sticklers too much, but at least do it correctly.

/derail

Yeah I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that

[itroitnyah]

grammar stuff

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, because ganondox saying "because it is in fact bad" really doesn't sound like he's saying that it's probably bad. In his overall sentence, "They probably did watch it, and it probably has bad reviews because it is in fact bad", he's saying that they gave it bad reviews because it is a fact that the movie is bad. Or, that's how I interpreted it, so by me cutting it off into just "because it is in fact bad", I didn't feel like I was actually removing any important parts from the sentence, other than the part about people reviewing the movie. It still shows the snide remark simply because he hates the idea behind the movie. I may be wrong, and I wouldn't be 100% surprised, because I'm not the best at english (even though it's my main language, lul).

Anyways, on a different note, I went to the IMDb thing for this movie, and took a look at reviews. They were indeed very mixed, and after looking at the written reviews, I can expect something close to what the show is, seeing as the positive reviews are generally rated high with a 3/4 ratio on average, and the negative reviews rated low with around a 1/5 ratio on average. On the advanced statistics page, over 50% of the votes are 10/10, 12.8% are 6/10-9/10, and only 25.1% of votes are 1/10. So what I expect just from reviews, is something similar to an episode of mlp. Obviously not Inception quality, but maybe close to show quality, maybe a bit under, but I'll have to find out for myself. I'm a pretty easy guy to entertain. To give you an idea, I really enjoyed the brony documentary that one company did