I was going to finally post this once this group got to 50 members, but... whatevs.

This group's at 49. That's almost as many as five tens of people who are somehow interested in Juniper Montage. And that's wonderful. To those who just haven't let this group idle and are actually reading this--awesome! And hi!

Why are you here?

No, I of course don't mean that you shouldn't be. I just mean, why do you appreciate Juniper? It's been an entire year since she debuted in a special that arguably slipped through the cracks by way of weird Polish leaks, a limited, release, and disparate namings across her home video media (and being confined to a standard-definition DVD release--yikes, what would Juniper even say to this?).

Me, I really like nerdy characters, pop culture fans, and characters who are shown work in in media. So when Juniper showed up, I was already doomed. Meanwhile her very first impression in Movie Magic is utterly fantastic--she genuinely geeks out with Rainbow and Twilight, two characters from different worlds (TwiDashers sit down, you know what I mean), showing that there are ways she could get along with multiple personalities. Things sort of go downhill from there, but in those first couple of minutes, you really see the promise of a media-based character in EQG, which is a great idea that the series hasn't touched before or since.

Also, her character design is bangin'. Like, Sunset/Starlight/Sci-Twi levels of bangin'. Color coordinaton (at least when she's not working in the theater) is on point, hairstyle to die for, and she just about edges out EQG Starlight for best accessories with her double super combo of Best Glasses and Best Barrettes. (Though her filmstrip hat is ridiculous enough to be amazing on its own). They did extra work on her. They wanted her to blow up. She did not. This is fine. We will carry the torch.

But enough about me--what about you? What brings you to Juniper enough to want to see new tales about her? And arguably more importantly--did you also buy an entire playset just to get her Mini?

6537814
Me, it's simply because of "Being Juniper Montage" Hated her character in the shorts, but your fic? Changed my mind about her completely. Sorta like me and Diamond Tiara, hated her in the show for ages (Right up till she actually reformed and her backstory was revealed), but when I saw what the fans could do with her...

6537814
Same: I like her Design as well =3

6537814
I like her because I tend to like compelling and interesting villains.

EqG is a high school girl genre. Villains like the original Sunset Shimmer or the sirens come from a magical land of magical superpowers. Friendship Games more or less tried to begin the story arc of "Equestrian Magic infects this land and normals" but it's much harder to grasp that when it is SciTwi going it. It still felt over-the-top with Gaea Everfree as well.

I feel like Juniper Montage was the first "villain" in the series to hit the right balance. She isn't notTwilight Sparkle, princess of magic and friendship except "different." She's not some quirky, "I got this," young adult who spends her life off in the woods with her brother.

She's a teen girl and is therefore relatable. She makes selfish, bad decisions that feel like the kind of decisions I'd make back when I was a young girl. Of course, she wants to be a movie star, what do you mean qualifications or experience? Duh, let her be the star and she'll get that experience! Right?

Between her and Valencia Vignette, this feels like the kinds of characters I want to see creating conflicts in EqG stories. Characters that are believable, relatable young girls that feel like modern girls. Ones that are self-centered, and need to be shown friendship. That Equestrian magic is finding these girls and expanding their situations into crises that need to be stopped is an interesting twist on the Friendship Map over in Equestria.

So, I'm here because Juniper is a well-designed character. She is what the series needs to be doing. She's the first of the good ideas in the series for this direction they seem to be going in. I love me some sirens, but they're a different kind of story and great in a different kind of way.

6537814

I like her because she's an adorable idiot and I just can't help but empathize with that because I'm an idiot too. She's not callous and doesn't have an evil heart; she doesn't even really know how to villain properly. You can see when Sunset confronts her in Mirror Magic that she's trying to put on what she thinks is a villainous demeanor but just doesn't have the presence to pull it off, and that's far more interesting to me than scenery-chewing.

I think in some ways she's kind of like the more interesting interpretation of Sunset as a villain. The problem with Sunset is that we were supposed to take her seriously and we couldn't because she was kinda written badly, to the point that it actually makes more sense to suppose that Sunset was just bad at villaining. But Juniper is a bad villain written well.

Also her name is Juniper and that's cute.

6538098
6538049
Yeah, I totally agree that Juniper being a relatable teenager/girl/teenage girl is easily the best thing she has going for her as a character, and an EQG storytelling device. Furthermore, delusions of grandeur/short sighted decisions are hardly exclusive to her demographic. It makes her a good Starlight-esque entry point if you're willing to have a good constructive self-aware laugh at yourself.
Like her, I'm ex-entertainment industry (and I've worked in both its sausage factories and its retail spaces) and... well, while I'm not a total social inept, being sufficiently social takes a lot out of me--much more than living in a fantasy world where I can be my favorite character. Additionally, the few times I try to be a troll or a villain, online or off, or even in a video game, I'm really bad at it.

As for (respectful) disagreements:

6538098
I disagree that Sunset was written badly. I used to think that too, mainly because of her stated world-takeover plan, but over the years (especially after exposure to Starlight) I've changed my tune. To be honest, as a villain, Sunset just comes off to me as a sad, cautionary tale, the likes of which wouldn't be matched until Juniper herself. In both cases, so much effort is expended, so much strife is caused, in facilities that would otherwise love nothing than to enrich their lives (school and studio, respectively), all for an ultra-selfish, short-sighted goal... and the worst part is, both girls think they're inching their way towards something grand, when neither of them know what they're doing. When they really just need someone to reach out and guide them on a better path. To think about all of the aforementioned for more than five minutes is to pity them more than anything else, and I think that's the point, rather than getting out the dick-measuring stick with regards to any master plan effectiveness or intimidation factor like I see all over the fandom.
Truly malevolent folks like the Sirens? May or may not even want help, and smacking them down makes a little more sense (even if my personal philosophy is Redeem All The Things). They know what they're doing when they set out to hurt people. Folks like... literally every other antagonist EQG has ever had post-RR? Need help before punishment. And in Sunset's case, friendship-lasering.

6538049
While I profoundly disagree with the assertion that Sci-Twi doesn't fit the "grounded teenage girl" mold you cite as an asset looking for--take away the Hasbro Marketing Baggage brought about by her pony counterpart, and she's just a socially awkward nerd, and the most sympathetic "antagonist" this side of Gloriosa--I thoroughly acknowledge that that Marketing Baggage is really heavy, and thus includes consequences like her being unfairly maligned by the audience for being someone she's not.

(Maybe if she'd been Moondancer. Would people have been happy then? :P)

This one's less a disagreement and more an observation, but I'm surprised that you cite Juniper and Valencia (who are, to be fair, conceptual relatives if not related for real Hasbro if you deny it I will call BS to your face) but not Wallflower, who is so far the most fleshed out of the "misguided teen girl makes bad decisions" concept. If there's any reason Wallfower has a much larger fanbase than the other two (and a LOT of it female by my purely anecdotal findings) it's because Forgotten Friendship dedicates a third of its runtime to showing us what Wallflower's deal is as a person and a misguided girl (whether or not it's sympathetic is another discussion entirely) beyond just being the antagonist du jour, which lots of people still found chillingly relatable--whereas Vignette and Juniper get about three sentences each vaguely related to this same purpose. No justice, I tells ya.

6538861
No joke, I honestly forgot about Wallflower.

That said, Forgotten Friendship still has kind of a sticking point with me. As much as I overall empathize with her self-destructive efforts of using the stone to erase awkward encounters and thus being mostly forgotten about and thus creating a vicious cycle, I still don't readily accept her leap to directing her ire on Sunset. The episode just plain didn't sell that part to me. I feel like I'm having to make some leaps as to why that person being forgetful towards her set her off, but Trixie didn't. Her stated ire at Sunset's social accomplishments just don't exactly stand out as fitting the rest. What about SciTwi, who is similarly awkward but is being unfairly granted social passes for Princess Twilight's accomplishments at CHS? What about Rarity, who is a social climber who likely has her own "crimes?" Or Rainbow Dash who has a fan club (and bangs all the cheerleaders and other female athletic types)? She's practically swimming in a school of socially positive and intermingling folks, so why does Sunset stand out and draw her ire?

As for your disgreement on SciTwi. Admittedly, a portion of her baggage is the whole marketing thing. Setting that aside, yes she is a socially awkward nerdy type and I can relate to that. My issue wasn't well-explained. Rather than her awkwardness being central to why it seems Equestria Magic floated her way and amplified issues to draw attention of the protagonists, SciTwi's arc in Friendship Games was more active and directed at detecting and finding that magic, and that process being frought with side effects.

It isn't just Juniper, Gloriosa, and Valencia being a certain kind of character, but also that the three of them something of a pattern that I approve of. Gloriosa is separated out of that pattern due to being less interesting/relatable overall, while SciTwi is removed for the fact that her interaction with Equestrian Magic doesn't fit the pattern.

To that end, Wallflower's situation doesn't fit the pattern either. Rather than Equestrian Magic being drawn to her situation and enchanting something nearby her, she found another piece of Equestria's trash dumped in this dumpster dimension she has the misfortune to have been born in. That puts her a bit more in the same category as the Dazzlings: Equestria's Dumpster and the Consequences Thereof.

P.S.

YES.

"Redeem All The Things" That's my philosophy too!

Anyway, I see Juniper as a neglected child, hence why she wants to be a star. She wants the attention and praise that she doesn't get at home.

6541651
I would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter. Thanks in advance.

6542335
:Y

6542335
What are you talking about? I don't have a news letter. And why do I have three downvotes for expressing why I love Juniper in a Juniper Fan Group?

6543262
Because three people didn't like your post. As I'm one of them and you asked, allow me to explain.

First off, this is a forum. It isn't Twitter or a chatroom. You're also on Fimfic.net, a site focused around writing and reading fanfiction. You're in a place that has more emphasis on literacy than your average online casual correspondence. You have all the time in the world to collect your thoughts, figure out how to express them, edit, and so on before hitting send. You are under no constraint to keep up with a flow/scroll.

Despite this, you chose to jam out a single line then hit send. Several times. In fact, if you continue to do so, we're possibly going to have to clean up this thread by deleting some things. But in terms of downvotes, posting in the manner you did is annoying.

Also, familiarize yourself with the forum's controls. You can reply to several people in a single message. Observe:

6541650
See?

As for the topic: you actually didn't express any interest in Juniper at all. You posted a motto, then some random characterization tidbit. You failed to actually say anything at all of your opinion of why you like her. We're not mind-readers. Don't expect us to read your mind or figure out what you're implying with one-liners. tell us why you like her. That is the topic.

As for this one-liner in particular:
6541651

I see Juniper as a neglected child, hence why she wants to be a star. She wants the attention and praise that she doesn't get at home.

You might have an interesting, well-thought-out idea. You may have a complex understanding of Juniper's character. If so, you chose to deny it to us, and instead remain cryptic. In absence of your explanation as to how this fits Juniper's character, and in fitting with how you choose to post to express yourself, we're left with the impression that your idea is shallow and pointless.

You do realize that a lot of people seek out fame and attention from others in positive and wholesome ways, and not due to neglect or anything of that nature, right? The idea that she has to have some kind of abused past is cliche and tired. Nothing in the show indicates that. She has a dream/goal in Movie Magic and an uncle who loves her. Those are clear indicators that she not only isn't neglected but has more than just her immediate family caring for and loving her. Her extended family is also active in her life. She went the route she did not because of the wrongs life dealt to her, but simply because of bad choices.

It is up to you to actually express yourself, and explain not only that your idea exists, but why it is good and fits. And how this makes you like the character as a result, assuming you're on topic at all and not just spamming. But in absence of your efforts to express yourself, we're left with the image that your ideas are not only bad but kind of disagreeable. Thus, downvotes.

6543301
Meh. :U

6543301
Paragraph 1: The only times I've ever seen that many more downvotes than upvotes have been on immoral comments. Am I not being accused of wrong doing?

Paragraph 2: Considering every other Fimfiction forum I've been on acts like a chatroom, you'll forgive me if I didn't assume this one would be different.

Paragraph 3: I thought it was frowned upon to put unrelated things in the same post? Just when I think I've figured out what's socially acceptable.

Paragraph 6: Well excuse me for not being the most articulate person in the world. Walls of text are as difficult for me to write as they are to respond to.

Paragraph 8: Usually people ask me questions about specifics one at a time, which helps me articulate better. I'm not trying to be cryptic. If anything, Jondor is. I still don't know what he means by newsletter.

Paragraph 9: Of course I know that. That doesn't disprove anything. I agree that abuse is cliche, but I didn't say she was abused. I get the vibe that she doesn't get much attention from her parents because she reminds me of somebody I know who's in a similar situation. I also see her as a possible parallel to Scootaloo, both with parents who are always too busy to spend time with them, but of course they chose very different ways to cope. Also, you're not seriously saying that an extended family member caring for her means her immediate family does too, are you? You can't be serious with that. I've met people who's extended family has cared more for them than their immediate.

Paragraph 10: You know, it's rather discouraging to try so hard to express yourself only to have people accuse you of not putting in any effort.

PS You do know that art is subjective right? Just because the show indicates something to you, doesn't mean others see it the same way.

6543603
Downvotes:
There are literally zero guidelines for how to downvote (or upvote) comments. If you've seen immoral comments downvoted before, then that's one place where some people didn't like the immoral comment. That by no means forms a rule of how downvotes are used by anyone anywhere.

No, it doesn't imply you did something wrong just that some people didn't like it. Try not to read so much into them. People downvote because of a variety of reasons. "I don't like this" is pretty broad and covers many topics.

Other places = chatrooms:
Yes, there are a lot of people who misuse the site. At one point it got so bad and was actively impacting site performance that Knight added a rule to ban roleplaying. Because a lot of people don't seem to understand what forums are actually for. Forum software is terrible for using for small talk and chatter. That people do so is abusive to the site and functionality.

Multiposting:
The general rule of thumb for forums is to be mindful of vertical scrolling. Splitting your post into separate parts adds wasteful extra space, and forces others to have to scroll more just to read all your content. It doesn't matter to most people, but it is a very tiny bit of rude behavior, and I brought it up because it could be why some of the downvotes came in. Multiposting looks terrible and noobish, even if people don't understand the forum etiquette behind what makes multiposting annoying.

Paragraphs and horizontal rules are useful for splitting up topics. Quoting your discussion partner to highlight what you're talking about in a multi-subject post are generally better. Breaking up different points into different posts is just spammy. See my previous message how I broke things up with quotes and other reply-tags to you. A horizontal rule looks like this:

There are a number of tools you can use to format your posts. All of that indicates that forums are intended to be used to produce nice-looking posts, not spam out loads of them.

Well excuse me for not being the most articulate person in the world. Walls of text are as difficult for me to write as they are to respond to.

You asked why you got downvoted. Being inarticulate is a valid reason to downvote. Further, a "wall of text" refers to a block of text with no formatting that is long enough to need to be scrolled through. Neither of our posts are walls of text. They're simply posts with several formatted paragraphs in them. Frankly, if you struggle to read something that is a few paragraphs long, why are you on a site dedicated to fanfiction?

Usually people ask me questions about specifics one at a time, which helps me articulate better. I'm not trying to be cryptic. If anything, Jondor is. I still don't know what he means by newsletter.

You know, it's rather discouraging to try so hard to express yourself only to have people accuse you of not putting in any effort.

You put in no effort. You literally typed out two single sentences. You did not try hard at all. As I pointed out, you did nothing to actually express why you like the character. That is why no one particularly cared to respond to you, and simply responded in kind (as in Jondor's response) or with downvotes. Because you put no effort into it. You spammed up the conversation with nothing of value.

As for putting multiple points together... here is a place you should have started, and this chunk of text should have been your original reply, and itself broken into paragraphs. You jam in a response to me with the meat of your actual content, so allow me to break it up for you.

Of course I know that. That doesn't disprove anything.

My intent was not to prove or disprove something. It was to showcase how you didn't actually say anything. You said you thought she was being neglected and that was why she sought to be a star. I pointed out how those two things do not follow from each other. Someone can seek to be famous without neglect. It is up to you to actually explain why you see that in her, not leave it up to us to figure out your meaning.

When you don't explain yourself, you leave it to others to see that you've spoken something that simply doens't make sense (because it lacks the rest of your thoughts) and therefore just comes across as wrong/nothing. That is what is wrong with it. Not that my alternative is better/proves anything, but that you're lack of an explanation leaves people to come up with their own explanations, like the one I described, that make your one-liner wrong.

I agree that abuse is cliche, but I didn't say she was abused.

Neglect is a form of abuse. Again, you didn't explain what you meant. See how changing a few related words shifts the meaning? If you want others to udnerstand your point, speak it. When you shortcut it the way you did, you leave it to everyone else to read into it wrongly.

I get the vibe that she doesn't get much attention from her parents because she reminds me of somebody I know who's in a similar situation. I also see her as a possible parallel to Scootaloo, both with parents who are always too busy to spend time with them, but of course they chose very different ways to cope.

Here is the actual meat of your idea. Had you added these two sentences to your original post, it probably would not have gotten downvoted. Maybe still due to your multiposting, but even this little bit more probably would have bumped your message from "useless one-liner spam" to "an idea someone has. It's short, to the point, but it is a coherent idea. Now do I agree or disagree with this person?"

Observe:

"Redeem All The Things" That's my philosophy too!

Anyway, I see Juniper as a neglected child, hence why she wants to be a star. She wants the attention and praise that she doesn't get at home. I get the vibe that she doesn't get much attention from her parents because she reminds me of somebody I know who's in a similar situation. I also see her as a possible parallel to Scootaloo, both with parents who are always too busy to spend time with them, but of course they chose very different ways to cope.

This isn't a wall of text. It's four sentences, two paragraphs. That right there would have been seen as effort. You could have even not bothered with the Scootaloo bit, though I do like that you made that comparison. The difference here is that you give reason for why you see Juniper as a neglected child. Someone reading this could easily wonder what clues from the show you saw that make you think of this person you know. Someone could, as you mentioned above, ask you for clarification at this point and have a conversation.

lso, you're not seriously saying that an extended family member caring for her means her immediate family does too, are you? You can't be serious with that. I've met people who's extended family has cared more for them than their immediate.

And back to responses to me.

Yes, I am saying that an extended family member caring about/for her indicates to me that she has a loving family. No, this does not prove she does. No, this is not evidence for a factual, certain family life descriptor. It is an indication. A clue. It tells me that she has one loving family member, why should I think the rest of her family is any different?

I don't go around assuming people have broken families. I don't go assuming everyone is an orphan. I assume that if the show isn't depicting her parents, that is because they weren't relevant to the story/episode. Not that they're missing, dead, abusive, or evil. I assume they're normal and probably very boring.

Maybe you have a different default setting than I have. My assumption of normalcy is indeed an assumption. If I make a post and that assumption isn't clear, then it is a mistake on my part for not having articulated it well. I will correct such mistakes when I make them, and explain myself better until I am understood. That is how conversations work. That is how discussions work. Outside of mindless chatroom banter.

PS You do know that art is subjective right? Just because the show indicates something to you, doesn't mean others see it the same way.

This right here is comedy gold.

Read that to yourself from now on every time you post anywhere. No matter where you are, whom you are talking to, or about what you are discussing. Every time you are about to hit send, think of your own words. Remember that whomever it is you are about to communicate with will not necessarily see things the same way you do. Look over what you're about to say, and ask yourself if you have actually explained your own idea such that the other person has a good chance to understand it.

When you limit yourself to a single sentence, chances are very high that they simply won't see what it is you're trying to say.

6543638
Thank you for being constructive with your response. I think I misinterpreted you as condescending. I'm so used to people looking down on me for being autistic I just kinda expect it at this point. I might be paranoid.

"I don't go around assuming people have broken families. I don't go assuming everyone is an orphan. I assume that if the show isn't depicting her parents, that is because they weren't relevant to the story/episode. Not that they're missing, dead, abusive, or evil. I assume they're normal and probably very boring. Maybe you have a different default setting than I have."

I actually do have the same default setting. Like I said, it's because Juniper reminds me of that person I know in real life that I see it the way I do.

6538876

I feel like I'm having to make some leaps as to why that person being forgetful towards her set her off, but Trixie didn't. Her stated ire at Sunset's social accomplishments just don't exactly stand out as fitting the rest. What about SciTwi, who is similarly awkward but is being unfairly granted social passes for Princess Twilight's accomplishments at CHS? What about Rarity, who is a social climber who likely has her own "crimes?" Or Rainbow Dash who has a fan club (and bangs all the cheerleaders and other female athletic types)? She's practically swimming in a school of socially positive and intermingling folks, so why does Sunset stand out and draw her ire?

Forgotten Friendship itself shows that social karma follows Trixie wherever she goes, SciTwi's situation is one that she couldn't help (and Wallflower's lack of stated ire towards it suggests that she might be saner than people give her credit for), Rarity requires assumptions we've never seen, and Rainbow... seems to be an impossibly perfect person so long as she isn't interacting with the H7 :P

Meanwhile, Sunset was a crap person who managed to turn herself around and become adored at CHS, while Wallflower presumably managed to stay invisible no matter what she did (and didn't) do. As omniscient viewers, we're prone to circumstances, and opinions formed from those circumstances, that Wallflower isn't. Still, my theory is that observing Sunset's arc from the outside, and comparing it to her own (something that's never constructive) caused her to tableflip.

Mind you, the above is all incidental. The real reason is simply that Wallflower simply had thoughts and made decisions that Teen Cryo wouldn't have. That doesn't make it a badly-written story or anything. It just makes Wallflower someone you'd identify with less than Juniper or Vignette. And it makes the story go.

6570973

Mind you, the above is all incidental. The real reason is simply that Wallflower simply had thoughts and made decisions that Teen Cryo wouldn't have. That doesn't make it a badly-written story or anything. It just makes Wallflower someone you'd identify with less than Juniper or Vignette. And it makes the story go.

That said, Forgotten Friendship still has kind of a sticking point with me. As much as I overall empathize with her self-destructive efforts of using the stone to erase awkward encounters and thus being mostly forgotten about and thus creating a vicious cycle, I still don't readily accept her leap to directing her ire on Sunset. The episode just plain didn't sell that part to me. I feel like I'm having to make some leaps as to why that person being forgetful towards her set her off, but Trixie didn't. Her stated ire at Sunset's social accomplishments just don't exactly stand out as fitting the rest. What about SciTwi, who is similarly awkward but is being unfairly granted social passes for Princess Twilight's accomplishments at CHS? What about Rarity, who is a social climber who likely has her own "crimes?" Or Rainbow Dash who has a fan club (and bangs all the cheerleaders and other female athletic types)? She's practically swimming in a school of socially positive and intermingling folks, so why does Sunset stand out and draw her ire?

I realize you've been on something of a low-key crusade against "my opinions are fact" sorts of things, but when I'm not doing that, I'd appreciate you not suggesting I am. I have bolded some key word-choices in the paragraph of mine you quoted. Is it not abundantly clear that I was stating my personal, singular, subjective opinion and reactions to the episode, simply in response to your question of why I didn't mention Wallflower Blush in the roster of my original reply?

You asked for people's opinions, and this thread is a discussion of opinions.

That Wallflower Blush made decisions that Teen Cryo wouldn't have made is a valid item to include in an opinion held by adult Cryo. Others are free to agree with it and say that Teen-person also would not have made the same decisions, and thus also has their relatability to Wallflower Blush slightly reduced, or they can disagree and not have their opinion reliant on it.

There are a lot of assumptions being brought up. In Forgotten Friendship, we're told that Wallflower Blush knew Trixie (and presumably random others) since third grade. She was around for EqG1 with Sunset Shimmer being the bitch queen for 3-ish years. She was also around for anyone and everyone else being shitty people during that time. But they didn't bring up anything in particular that Sunset did to Wallflower. Unlike in EqG1 where each of the Human Five brought up specific grievances (which we were reminded of in Forgotten Friendship). All Wallflower Blush says is that Sunset hasn't changed, and she's still a mean person. Her grievance isn't with the Sunset of EqG1 for some actually specified slight, it is due to Wallflower not believing Sunset can change from what she is or that she deserves forgiveness in general.

It just seems very strange to me that she'd single out Sunset Shimmer, but not hold grudges against anyone else. I can buy that she has a grudge, but it just seems strange for her to single out Sunset in particular, and be motivated to getting revenge on her in particular. Your attempts to suggest reasons for why she has no vengeance and ire towards others don't feel like they fit the Wallflower Blush presented to us on screen. They imply that, using Trixie for an example but apply it to all possible candidates for her vengeance, Trixie not only was a "bad person" in Wallflower's view, but Wallflower was satisfied with the "karma" Trixie received.

I'm not claiming this is a plothole or bad writing. I am simply saying that the episode didn't convince me to a high degree of confidence that Wallflower Blush's motives and decisions made internally consistent sense. It felt, to me, in my personal opinion, that the choice to make her take revenge on Sunset Shimmer was plot convenience at the expense of an organic result of her personality and motives. Of course, it was Sunset Shimmer, because Sunset Shimmer is the main character. Not because she did anything in particular to Wallflower Blush.

Now, this would be a minor point and easily dismissed for me. But the moral lesson at the end was that Sunset needed to not merely coexist beside Wallflower Blush with an expectation of not doing bad things to each other, but that Sunset Shimmer had some kind of responsibility to go above and beyond that to be actively nice/kind/generous/friendly towards Wallflower Blush. That Sunset Shimmer was at fault for this set of events and had she behaved that way, none of this would have happened. Just because it is the victim doing it herself doesn't make victim-blaming sit well with me.

I would go a step further and argue that Sunset Shimmer is already doing that. She isn't coasting through her school life focused on her studies and avoiding doing bad things to others. She's actively participating in numerous clubs, volunteering her time to help out, and actively seeking wrongs in the neighborhood/world and fixing them. She is already heroic. She already goes above and beyond the minimum expected of her.

It's already not a great conflict resolution where someone attacks someone else, and the victim says she's in the wrong. But it's even worse when someone who is repeatedly a hero (giving 100%) is faulted for I guess not giving 120%?

But all of this is a tangent/derail from the topic. This really isn't supposed to be about Wallflower Blush. We're discussing why I think she's more around a 70% rather than an 80% or a 90%. This was supposed to be about Juniper Montage and why we like her, and this derail is because I didn't decide to lump Wallflower Blush in with the group of gal antagonists I feel Juniper Montage fits in and that her fitting in makes her great.

6571495

I am indeed on a crusade against opinions as fact--though if you think it's low-key, it's only because I'm diplomatic as hell. Guilty as charged, I have nothing to hide. That said, accusing you of that here was nowhere in my mind. Then and now, I fully acknowledge, and appreciate you pointing out, that your entire previous post was entirely your opinion and conjecture, and I'm genuinely sorry for not making that acknowledgement clearer.

At the same time, thank you for also clearing up that you didn't necessarily see your thoughts on Wallflower as a... blocker, for lack of a better term. I see way too many people willing to end the discussion at "personal logic tab A doesn't fit with personal logic slot B, thus story/character is totally bad, let's move on and pretend they never existed" and it grates to no end.

So, allow me to try this again.

I noted your opinion, as your opinion, wholeheartedly, and it got me thinking for days. It's just that my conclusion after those days of thought was that I initially disagreed with that opinion. Overall, anyway. I'm now in sort of a hybrid mode.

I do agree with you that my previously hypothesized justifications for Wallflower singling out Sunset were assumptive, and may well be out of line with how she's presented in the special. After further thought, I do think I flubbed it, but flubbing is how we eventually get to the root of problems and solve them, so whatevs.

And yet, that was because I fell into a trap--the trap of trying to apply logic to an illogical person who has deep-seated emotional problems. The thing is, your stated opinion was that Wallflower's words and actions weren't internally consistent. Meanwhile, my (completely opinionated and personal) rebuttal to that opinion--which I wasn't able to clearly express in my previous reply--is that Wallflower is not an internally consistent person, nor is actual teen life. Thus I consider that something to note and file, but also to study and lean into more than to dwell on. As stated earlier in this thread, I've anecdotally seen her resonate far more than Juniper or Vignette in the older fandom and even the female fandom, and quite frankly, I want to understand why. My main theory is that we just got to see more of her as a vulnerable person than an over-the-top villain (because she was engineered as one in the first place).

What I should have said earlier is that I considered your opinion to be based on conjecture that we have as omniscient viewers that Wallflower may or may not have (depending on how much of a stalker factor you want to put on her). Things like Rarity likely having her own "crimes", etc., or even the (correct) conclusion that Sci-Twi got appreciation runoff from PriTwi. I made rebuttals based on that conjecture, meaning I was doomed from the start because, well, see previous paragraph. I personally consider them to be fair discussion points, but I also consider the fairness of those discussion points to have limits because of how they've been sourced.

TBH it's one of my biggest struggles with the Wallflower novel I've been writing. This chick doesn't make sense (seriously, she makes Starlight's S5 finale backstory look machine-levels of logical), yet I'm increasingly convinced that that might have been the point. Like, Hasbro "accidentally" released something more like the world that exists today than usual, as opposed to leaning towards the world we want to exist in the future.

But therein lies why I'm totally okay with derails like this: because I feel they're important. I know I now have a greater understanding on my feelings about Wallflower, as well as yours, and both of these have led me to a clearer, if still not definitive, read on the character. And that helps when it comes to other antagonists EQG has had, including our fave movie gal. I mean, consider the fact that Juniper, as wacky as she was to become a Scooby-Doo villain, actually was able to be brought around by way of a freaking rational, compassionate talk, which Starlight nailed in one shot. Meanwhile Sunset tried the same thing with Wallflower after multiple confrontations, and it actually didn't work. (And as much as Confalone and random fans did backpats about not turning Wallflower into a kaiju gal, I prefer that to be...incidental at best to the whole issue, and Juniper's overall outcome to the latter).

So when I say that Wallflower's words and actions aren't what Teen Cryo would do (though to be fair, Teen Bookish had a fair amount of brushes with WB's mindset -_-), it's not at all because I think that opinion is invalid, or that I thought you were touting it as hard fact. It's because you were linking that to your views on her motivations not being internally consistent, and I thought that both of these things were interesting incidentals, and instead of leaving it at that, there's something deeper that your stated opinion is a stepping stone towards. And also, adjacent to what you said, such things are still prone to opinionation. Some people can trace Juniper or Vignette's bad decisions more readily than Wallflower's, like you because you related to their motivations a little more. Meanwhile other people can trace Wallflower's decisions more readily.

Or, y'know. It well could have just been plot convenience.

Either way, I hope the above helps more, and quite honestly, thank you for giving me the opportunity to state my thoughts in a more fleshed-out fashion. Deep technical pony talk is always enlightening, but I'm pretty sure I wrote that last reply on my phone.

P.S. You and I have previously disagreed about the victim-blaming moral thing, and I suspect we'll continue to. Which is fine: I'm not really about to try and rebut it, because I actually sympathize with your position there, I just don't think that that was what the movie was going for, and that it stumbling upon that by accident is a valid but individually interpretive conclusion. Me, I thought it came down 100% to context, and the movie always came off to me as cynically against Wallflower's schtick until sort of the last two minutes. I think it was saying, "look, this kid's messed and too far gone, and since we can't talk about professional help centers on this show, we may have to go above and beyond as protagonists". When Trixie says "what if you were nice?" I didn't take it as an overall moral, I took it as a suggestion to solve the dire problem at hand, no matter how much Wallflower's deserved said niceness. I likened Trixie as more of a Rosetta Stone to Wallflower's line of thinking than any sort of mandate-spouter, and Sunset took it to heart, partially because she's still got all that guilt goin' on. (And of course Trixie would say she had the moral of the story anyway. Because... well, it's Trixie. :P)

6537814
She's a adorkable need with a fabulous sense of style.

She's smart and athletic enough to use her knowledge of the studio to evade EqG's Rainbow Dash, and her plan was decently executed (if not exactly well thought through).

Her voice actress had a fairly decent range, and I really dig her go getting attitude in "Movie Magic" and her passive aggressiveness in "Mirror Magic".

Plus I dig the fact that she reformed before losing the source of her power (unlike Wallflower).

Yeah, not much to say beyond that.