The Hard Analysis & Criticism group did it again... as if that's anything to be surprised about. I'm not even gonna claim that post was a review because there was no review. They said it's because there was very little to actually review. But they showed off the notes they took for reviewing purposes and there was less review than of notes.

Click here for context.

Before I continue, I would like to say that the title of this post isn't just click bait. They actually do give good advice for reviewing that I likely will take into consideration myself (with a few extra tweaks).

Welcome to a special CERR. Rather than reviewing all of MLP: Tell Your Tale, I will be reviewing two shorts, and giving lessons I have learned as a critic.

I got the idea from two of my favorite reviewers, the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, who reviewed movies on television for over 40 years. In one particular episode of their show, they showed their methods of critique. I cannot find the whole episode, but I do have part, which is here.

When I go into an episode of a show or movie to critique, I have a few things with me: a pencil, notebook, and perhaps a small snack or drink. I do not use a phone to write notes, as the light from it is distracting to others, particularly in a theater. A notepad is conspicuous enough to not be a bother. Some more advice is to write in cursive, as it makes taking notes faster.

For the two shorts I'm reviewing today, titled Haunted House, I wrote notes. I transcribe them here as follows:
Flowers in Spaghetti/ Nightmare Night/ Misty/ Haunted House/ Neigh way/ Computer room/ Fart/ "Slow Down"/ Nightmare Moon Costume/ Mirror Glitch

When I take notes on movies or shows, I consider a few things most important: Characters and their names (if there are a lot of characters, I transcribe a particular detail about them so I don't get mixed up), major events in the plot, and particular moments of interest. Do not get too bogged down in note taking, as doing so takes away from watching the movie/show.

Both Siskel and Ebert, in the clip provided, talk about not being too formal in reviews. Instead we should find our own voice, and not water down our opinions to try and be popular. Being truthful is key for a critic. Also, when writing a review, I avoid watching or reading other people's reviews of the show/movie, until I am done with mine.

As for Haunted House, I found both episodes to be intolerable. This is down to the animation. Friendship is Magic had fluid animation, whereas Tell Your Tale feels like it is on fast forward. Which is apt, as neither short feels like it has any purpose other than to be colorful nonsense. The character designs are sloppy and do not look right.

Misty has the gang go through a haunted house to try and capture Sparky. The second short has the characters attend a Halloween party. There is so little to say about either, asides from a few oddities. First, did we really need to see Sparky fart? Second, the Village of the Damned reference, with the three fillies dressed as kids from the movie, is cute, though totally out of place.

I am not going to review any more of Tell Your Tale. First, because I probably would not have much to say different from each episode. Second, the animation is so bad it is actually hard for me to watch. I will continue to be part of this group. I will also see about reviewing more of the main series.

I hope my insights into how I review are helpful. I will give even more insights in the thread if you guys wish. Have a great day, and God bless!

As I said, this post does provide good advice for reviewing. Perhaps not the best, since it can differ from person to person. But good nonetheless. It's a shame this person doesn't know how to take their own advice.

When I go into an episode of a show or movie to critique, I have a few things with me: a pencil, notebook, and perhaps a small snack or drink. I do not use a phone to write notes, as the light from it is distracting to others, particularly in a theater. A notepad is conspicuous enough to not be a bother. Some more advice is to write in cursive, as it makes taking notes faster.

First of all, the mention of a theater implies that you'd be doing this the very first time watching the show/movie. I suppose you could go to a theater to watch it a second time (I've done that before for good enough movies). So this is how I'd do it. I'd watch what I'm reviewing a minimum of 3 times. The first time would be for my own personal experience. If I go in for the sake of reviewing, that alone would be a distraction in the same way taking notes on my phone would be. The second viewing is for note-taking. And when taking notes, I'd also consider putting timestamps in so that I can later reference them for more in-depth details. If you're watching it in a theater or on TV where you can't pause, then you may want to rewatch it a few times or wait until it's released on a streaming service, internet, or DVD/Blu-Ray where you do have the option to pause. The third/final time you watch will be with the intent to see how your critiquing may have changed how you view what you watched. Does the knowledge of what you pointed out change your enjoyment from when you saw it before? Or perhaps you gained a better appreciation of the show/movie. I would also personally consider separating the 3+ viewings by at least a day so that each viewing can be relatively fresh.

As for writing in cursive, that should be by personal preference. Write in whatever style is most convenient for you. just take into account that the notes should be kept short and written quickly. But you shouldn't write so fast that what's written becomes illegible. Writing in shorthand will become an ally in this case. And the writing utensil is a personal preference as well. You can use a pencil, pen, crayon, chalk, or even a phone (as long as the phone isn't too intrusive to others).

For the two shorts I'm reviewing today, titled Haunted House, I wrote notes. I transcribe them here as follows:
Flowers in Spaghetti/ Nightmare Night/ Misty/ Haunted House/ Neigh way/ Computer room/ Fart/ "Slow Down"/ Nightmare Moon Costume/ Mirror Glitch

This is a good style of taking notes if you don't have the option to pause. But it's also a style best used for later referencing when you can. If you can pause, then you can take more detailed notes, or at least give yourself the chance to include a timestamp for personal reference.

When I take notes on movies or shows, I consider a few things most important: Characters and their names (if there are a lot of characters, I transcribe a particular detail about them so I don't get mixed up), major events in the plot, and particular moments of interest. Do not get too bogged down in note taking, as doing so takes away from watching the movie/show.

Once again, this is good advice. Although that last part is why I recommend multiple viewings if you have the option. Because then you won't worry about note-taking interrupting your enjoyment. You can do a "First Impressions Review" which is where you just watch the movie, then make a review without notes based on your thoughts of your first watch. That's been my preferred review style for newly released movies. And while writing it down, I can get more in-depth as I remember more details. And doing this style in text format means that the people reading the review don't even have to know that I'm just thinking up things off the top of my head.

But here's where the good advice starts to fall apart...

Both Siskel and Ebert, in the clip provided, talk about not being too formal in reviews. Instead we should find our own voice, and not water down our opinions to try and be popular. Being truthful is key for a critic. Also, when writing a review, I avoid watching or reading other people's reviews of the show/movie, until I am done with mine.

This gives two pieces of advice that individually are good pieces of advice. But they are also mutually exclusive, which is why the advice falls apart as a whole. You shouldn't water down opinions for the sake of popularity. Be honest about your opinions. AS LONG AS YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE OPINIONS.

Being truthful is key to being a good critic. But the truth is based on facts, and facts don't care about opinions. Being honest about your opinions isn't the same as being truthful, because they are just opinions, and opinions are inherently subjective. And that's the inherent problem with that group. They claim that their subjective opinions are objective facts. The most "honest" of them at least never clarify that their reviews are just opinion pieces. Basically, the MLP: Hard Analysis & Criticism group is this site's version of FOX News. They don't differentiate between facts and opinion pieces.

As for Haunted House, I found both episodes to be intolerable. This is down to the animation. Friendship is Magic had fluid animation, whereas Tell Your Tale feels like it is on fast forward. Which is apt, as neither short feels like it has any purpose other than to be colorful nonsense. The character designs are sloppy and do not look right.

Misty has the gang go through a haunted house to try and capture Sparky. The second short has the characters attend a Halloween party. There is so little to say about either, asides from a few oddities. First, did we really need to see Sparky fart? Second, the Village of the Damned reference, with the three fillies dressed as kids from the movie, is cute, though totally out of place.

This was supposedly the review section, which is ironic considering that I got more information from their notes than the actual "review". First of all, it took me a while to realize that when they said this is a review of Haunted House, they were applying that name to 2 different shorts that have TWO DIFFERENT NAMES. Secondly, it's not clear which is supposed to be the second episode. But based on the best context clues I have available, the second episode was the episode THAT CAME BEFORE HAUNTED HOUSE! So not only was the BS Reviewer ignorant of the fact that the two episodes had two different names, they were also ignorant of the fact that Haunted House was the second episode of the two, which could at best only be a mistake if you look at MLP's YouTube page and how the episodes in question were posted as compilations rather than individual episodes, which is especially ironic considering that the first of the two episodes, Halloween Party, was originally a separate episode before it was in a complication.

The only reason I can think of for getting the names and order wrong is if they watched the compilation that has Haunted House as the first episode. The second episode was the episode before that which was Halloween Party. But they didn't find it odd that they only watched 10 minutes of a half-hour video?

And again, I must address the fact that the notes were more informative as a review than the actual 2 paragraph review...

Flowers in Spaghetti/ Nightmare Night/ Misty/ Haunted House/ Neigh way/ Computer room/ Fart/ "Slow Down"/ Nightmare Moon Costume/ Mirror Glitch

Their review only addressed 4 of the talking points in the notes. 5 if you consider the "fast forward" comment to apply to the "slow down" note.

I'll address their comment about the art style later since a later post referred to it as well. But it's simply ironic that they can give such good advice on critiquing and yet do such a horrendous job when putting it into practice.

Inhumanity strikes again. And with another piece of irony at that.

You are a man who knows his craft and that is why we have all valued your input since the start. It’s also good to see exactly how you go about doing this.

I don’t fault you for not bothering with the rest of TYT. I’ll never understand why they went with this animation style when it’s already fallen out of favor, and that’s not getting into the writing. It just screams volumes about how desperately the G4 immigrants want to like this series in spite of how actually bad it is. I just now checked out “Haunted House” and it really is wretched. And considering the state of the world towards the end of 2022…..

Ignorant bliss really is a valuable commodity these days.

On that note, one demographic I do want to hear some feedback from is the target demographic, especially since Pony Life all but failed to appeal to them over G4. What do the kids have to say about G5?

First I'll address the comment about, you guessed it, the animation. Or more specifically, the art style.

I’ll never understand why they went with this animation style when it’s already fallen out of favor, and that’s not getting into the writing.

First of all, I'm assuming that the "art style" in question is the CalArt style. Not only has it not fallen out of favor (if it had, people would stop using it), it's not even an art style, it's an animation style intended to make animating easier. And it is a style that is taught at an accredited art school. California Institute of the Arts, or CalArts for short. And if anything about the art style has fallen out of favor, it's 100% because of writing and not the art style itself. Whenever anyone these days sees the CalArts style of animation, they automatically think of the infamous Teen Titans GO which it being bad had absolutely nothing to do with the art style, but the writing. So you literally can't say the animation style is out of favor without referencing writing. And the reason people still choose to use that style is because it's taught at a school.

It just screams volumes about how desperately the G4 immigrants want to like this series in spite of how actually bad it is.

How does the art style say anything about the fans of G4? Hasbro chose that art style before the fans ever had any say in it, assuming the fans had any say in the first place. Besides, G5 isn't trying to attract G4 fans, it's just being made available to G4 fans to say, "hey, I got that reference". It's like Lord of the Rings is to The Hobbit. Lord of the Rings takes place in the future of The Hobbit. But you don't need to watch (or read) The Hobbit to understand anything from Lord of the Rings. You could argue that The Hobbit explains how Bilbo got the Ring. But that knowledge is completely unnecessary for understanding Lord of the Rings.

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't need to understand a thing about G4 to understand G5. G4 is just supplemental material to G5. Do I have to know what this country was like before Europeans came to colonize it and turn it into the USA in order to understand what this country is like now? Absolutely not. It's purely supplemental history that today I wish was taught in schools. In fact, that may explain what G4 is to G5. It's been lost to history. Does anyone today know what the pre-USA American Territories were like? And then consider, does that have any say in your knowledge of who the past 5 presidents were? No (and to clarify... Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton.)

And considering the state of the world towards the end of 2022…..

Ignorant bliss really is a valuable commodity these days.

Wait... are they accusing Bronies of being like Republicans? Because I take offense to that! Far more than any insult you could throw at me for...

...Oh wait, they're accusing the Democrats of being the ignorant ones, aren't they? If they project themselves any harder onto us, we could see their projections on the moon itself.

Luna: "Are you calling my but big?!"

Don't worry, Luna. We're talking about a different ass.

Ignorant bliss really is a valuable commodity these days.

On that note, one demographic I do want to hear some feedback from is the target demographic, especially since Pony Life all but failed to appeal to them over G4. What do the kids have to say about G5?

First of all, what's the deal with that empty space? Secondly, I'd hardly count this as being on the same note. It's more like a different topic in my opinion.

But I am curious as to what the target demographic's opinions are of G5. After all, the kids that the show is targetted towards are clearly far more mature than anyone in that group.

Agreed on all counts, and the target audience question is certainly interesting. Obviously no one in this group would be dumb enough to let their kids watch it, and the daughters who indirectly pulled in their parents in the early years have obviously grown up (and I assume those parents are long gone as well). Considering most remaining fans are dysfunctional wrecks who probably don't have children, the MLP fandom is ironically probably more cut off from little girls opinions of the show than the general public at this point.

I know I don't need to point out everything wrong with this...

...But it's just too fun not to.

Obviously no one in this group would be dumb enough to let their kids watch it

This is how you know that group is full of conservatives. They don't want their kids to watch G5 because they might actually learn something and prove that they're smarter than their parents. It's not like that's a high bar to reach, but that's how they think. Parents are smarter than children because they are older and wiser.

First of all, age and wisdom are not synonyms. Secondly, wisdom and intelligence are not synonyms. To explain it simply, Intelligence is knowing the best way to prevent someone's death. Wisdom is knowing why you should (or some cases, shouldn't) prevent someone's death. A parent's goal should never be to prove that they're better than their child, a parent's goal should be for their child to become better than the parent. And Conservatives can't let their children be better than them. Otherwise, their children would become Liberals.

and the daughters who indirectly pulled in their parents in the early years have obviously grown up (and I assume those parents are long gone as well).

The irony is that growing up doesn't mean growing out of what you loved as a child. Lauren Faust "grew up". And yet, we wouldn't have had G4 as it was without her originally being a fan of G1 as a little girl. Those little girls from G1 are likely in their mid-30s to mid-40s. For example, Lightning Bliss was a fan of G1, and she's still around as a fan of G4. I don't know what her opinion of G5 is yet though. As for their parents, they'd likely be in their 70s, so it's not unlikely for them to still be around.

Fun Fact: I'm the one who pulled my sister and my mother into the MLP fandom. My sister doesn't watch the show herself, but she does enjoy the Conventions. But my mom still watches the show with me. But my point is that that's how I can determine the general age ranges.

Considering most remaining fans are dysfunctional wrecks who probably don't have children

I'm pretty sure that the ven diagram of "remaining fans" and "dysfunctional wrecks" is a figure 8.

Now, the ven diagram of "dysfunctional wrecks" and "people in the MLP: Hard Analysis & Criticism group" is a perfect circle.

And I don't see what having children has anything to do with this.

the MLP fandom is ironically probably more cut off from little girls opinions of the show than the general public at this point.

I don't personally have children. But at least I know that fans of G5, even if the assertion that we're that cut off from little girls' opinions (and why just little girls? MLP is no longer just for little girls, it's for any gender ever since G4), at least we're not cut off from the opinions of little girls AND boys, or as cut off from the general public as anyone from that crappy critic group.

The real irony is that I'll bet that at least some of them actually do have kids that are fans of G5. Granted, they're likely the kind of parents who have to pay Child Support... and likely would have to hide the fact that they like G5 in fear of their estranged parents. Either that or themselves are the dysfunctional wrecks without children. But I'll do my best not to name any names... *cough*Mykan*cough*