Jump to content

Talk:My Little Pony: Equestria Girls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 16 April 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, with thanks to BD2412 for actually doing the work. Jenks24 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– The first EQG film (along with its sequels) is a by-product of Hasbro's spin-off toy line and franchise (that spun out of My Little Pony) after all. Let's arrange articles like (Mattel's) Monster High articles. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the following to
My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film)
My Little Pony: Equestria Girls

Soon, I'm going to begin with the moving of the film article. @Jenks24: please close this topic down. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article structure

[edit]

@173.58.70.82:@Prince Silversaddle:

Look, the revision you are reverting to describes EQG like if it is a film series with some merchandise, when actually the films are just a part of a franchise launched by toy company Hasbro.

When I made a similar reorganisation of structure to Monster High article, no Mattel fans on Wikipedia have ever complained about it.

Now, I have no idea if any of those reading here are going to take the live action Transformers films as the counter example (since, in that case, the films would have priority anyway, despite being based on the established mecha toy franchise, as well as Hasbro's involvement in those films), but I belive that, at least, if a media franchise was launched by a toy company, toys should have priority in the atricle about it.

So tell me. Which part feels unnecessary to you? 12:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objection made here, I'm going to restore back soon. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annual lineups

[edit]

So, who's going to expand on details about toys, as well as on the themes of sub-lineups (EQG Y1, Rainbow Rocks, Friendship Games, Legend of Everfree, etc.), anyway? (Actually, I only know about EQG films, not much on toys.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Is Magic characters

[edit]

Given the attempts to add the Equestria Girls versions of Twilight and Spike, I suppose it's best we include all the characters as well. I've taken the liberty of writing out descriptions of both characters, with the intention of adding the remaining "Mane Six" characters later. However, I don't think we should include every single character from the TV series that makes a cameo; just the most prevalent ones, such as those with character profiles on the official website. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Obviously, this toy line was created not only to jump on rival Mattel's Monster High wagon, but also to lazily rely on Hasbro's own My Little Pony brand. But it needs to have reliable sources to prove that point. Any ideas? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minis shorts release dates

[edit]

Well, the official YouTube channel of Equestria Girls is not the only outlet to release the shorts, I say.

For the record, I based my edit about Minis shorts on this mlp.wikia page, but obviously I can't cite that page as a source, and I can't give them the clear dates because the shorts may have been released earlier than the given dates on that page.

Below is the Minis shorts section as I edited out.

A media tie-in to promote the Equestria Girls Minis toy line, the animated shorts ranging from 15 to 30 seconds in length are being showcased on various online outlets including the toy line's official website and official YouTube channel beginning in late 2015.

Title Release Date Starring Duration Note
"Pinkie Pie Slumber Party ft. Pinkie Pie" (initial release) Late 2015 Pinkie Pie 25 seconds This version features dialogs spoken in English.
"Pinkie Pie Slumber Party ft. Pinkie Pie" (revised version) February 2016 Pinkie Pie 15 seconds This version does not feature any dialog.
"Pinkie Pie Slumber Party ft. Twilight Sparkle" January 2016 Twilight Sparkle and Spike 15 seconds The revised version, released in February 2016, features some slight graphic alterations on-screen.
"Pinkie Pie Slumber Party ft. Rarity" February 2016 Rarity 15 seconds
"Pinkie Pie Slumber Party" April 2016 The six protagonists 20 seconds
"Dance Off" August 15, 2016 Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash 30 seconds

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections present, I'm going to turn it back. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 anon, you had a chance to defend what you did, right here, but you choose not to leave a comment, and undid mine to just to add a new EQG Minis short? This is ridiculous! JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it really is

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong (especially on the subject of United States media industry), but I have my point.

  1. If you think Equestria Girls is a series of animated films with some merchandise, you need to think again: It's all created by American toy maker Hasbro (Yes, a toy maker!). Every single Equestria Girls film is just a part of yealy (sub-)lineup of toys and other tie-in media. This needs to be highlighted in the very first paragraph in the lead section of all the articles about each film. (And that's why I'm moving the bits somehow related to the films — like the development and announcement of the lineup in general, toys itself, publications, and promotional stuffs like live-action music videos made for the toy line in general — to the main Equestria Girls article, while leaving only the stuffs directly related to the films — like script writing, art, dialogue recording, soundtrack and animated shorts.)

    IPv6 anon, you are clouding this issue by reverting those articles back to the past.

  2. I believe that all the Equestria Girls flims are either direct-to-video or television films1) which some of them happened to have theatrical screenings in some areas for unknown reason (and that's how the first two films had limited release in the United States and Canada).

    Apparently, what was listed as a 66-minute My Little Pony DVD produced during 2012 on Top Draw's website was turned out to be the first Equestria Girls film, and what looks like Rainbow Rocks is listed as a 70-minute DVD of My Little Pony in the productions for 2014. Additionally, Hasbro Studios' sales guide lists the films under "TV Specials" in its Table of Contents.

    Generally, the kind of film that is direct-to-video is considered to be inferior than the mainstream films made for wider theatrical release, and such kind is not qualified for cinemas.2) But I saw the recent trends where the films of this kind are released in theatres (in a form of limited release, anyway) before its intended release on home media. Equestria Girls films are one of these cases, as some of the films were released in theatres in the United States, Canada and some of other countries before they were out on DVD and Blu-ray. However, no official or clear reason was given by Hasbro for releasing these particular apparently-video-films in theatres. (Not even an internal note was surfaced about this.)

    For the releases in the United States and Canada, the first three films had big premieres each time, attended by some celebrities. The first film had one at the L.A. Film Festival3) 2013, and 2014's Rainbow Rocks had a similar event at TCL Chinese Theater. 2015's Friendship Games had no theatrical release in those two countries,4) but it did have a premiere at Angelika Film Center. Hasbro may have wanted these films to look as if they were competing against major animated theatrical films each time (like Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 from 2013, and The Book of Life from 2014), but there are some things that still bug me.

    Firstly, Hasbro did release trailers for the films, but they all lack MPAA trailer cards. (Yes, those trailers are for the releases of each film in the United States, but all of them lack that slide! If those are for theatrical films for real, that card must be present for the first few seconds.) I don't know if those trailers were screened in theatres in the States at all.

    Secondly, in Canada, the first film and Rainbow Rocks are classified by provincial film boards because all the films screened in theatres there are required to do so, but in the United States, none of the films that bear "Equestria Girls" in the title are rated by the MPAA to this day.5) I know that not all films are required to be classified in the States, but it's strange to see the supposed-to-be family films are "not rated". I have no idea why Hasbro choose not to have any MPAA rating for all the Equestria Girls films, when G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) and Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) have ratings (PG-13, respectively) from there.

    And thirdly, no box office records so far6) for all Equestria Girls films in the United States and Canada (especially the first two films). Is Hasbro shy enough to announce the films couldn't beat mainstream animated films every single installment was competing against each time, in earnings?

    If you thought those films were theatrical films just because they were shown in theatres, then you are falling for all those marketing strategies.

    1) Though lately, the distinction between the two kinds is becoming meaningless: the direct-to-whatevers would be shown on TV, and the made-for-TV films would eventually be released on home media.
    2) But then, there have been some mainstream theatrical feature-length films that are inferior than others: recent examples include Dawn of Justice and Fantastic Four 2015.
    3) Yes, Hasbro abused the festival, originally created for indies, to screen a film commissioned by a big toy company like them.
    4) To be fair though, the third film had theatrical releases in some countries abroad.
    5) Strangely, four of the so-called "Generation 3" films are classified by the MPAA, even though they are direct-to-video films and were not released in theatres.
    6) In fact, box office records for some countries abroad are available, but that's likely because it is either 1. by law, box office records for all films screened in theatres in that country must be published, or 2. one single, central authority or agency is counting and publishing the records for all films screened in that country.
  3. I'm trying to distance all the Equestria Girls films from Friendship Is Magic television series. In fact, I don't consider all the films to be a part of FIM, but rather an animated film series portion of the spin-off franchise which happens to present FIM pony characters in Equestria for familiarity reason. Those familiar with the subject may have noticed the continuity conflicts between FIM TV series and Equestria Girls films, like the exact point where Twilight Sparkle worries about her roles and responsibilities as a princess for the first time (Both the first Equestria Girls film and the FIM season 4 finale "Twilight's Kingdom" have it).

Now, I have some questions.

  • I heard that, in the first Equestria Girls film, there's a difference in quality of animations between the scenes take place in Crystal Empire and those take place in the parallel world. What happened?
  • I see there are two edited versions of each film:
    • One, as shown on The Hub/Discovery Family, had some scenes removed and closing credits shortened
    • The other, un-cut with full credits, as screened in theatres, released on home media and as legal copies available online.
Are those two all prepared by Hasbro Studios to distribute, or were the films edited by Discovery Comms. for themselves? (I know some TV channels outside the United States opted to broadcast the latter version, but still...) Do any of you happened to obtain a detailed catalogue book from Hasbro Studios (rather than a summarised sales guide)?

My rant here is over, for now. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

I think the reception section should also include critical reception of the films themselves and not just the dolls. There is one review on Friendship Games, but I do not think that it represents the entirety of the film series, as they have not all received the same level of praise. It could, for example say: "While the films themselves have received some praise by critics (using reviews from Rainbow Rocks), they have been criticized for their commercialization to sell toys."--DeathTrain (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarised summaries of new shorts

[edit]

I removed the entire (short) section, seeing as all of its content was a duplicate of the previous section or seemingly plagiarised from the official summaries, though I may be wrong (citogenesis?). That said, the section itself might be on topic, if the writing were original.Arzg (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding S2

[edit]

Starts this Friday. --Masem (t) 21:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End in 2020

[edit]

An IP keeps adding the info, the the toy series, not only the show, ended this year. However, there is no source proving this. Therefore it should not be included without a specific source. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with the same IP yesterday, and every time the IP changes the content, he/she always says "unsourced" or "not sourced", but the edits by the IP him/herself are the ones that are unsourced. Therefore I agree with Gial Ackbar that no sources prove the edits of the IP. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters

[edit]

cc: @DeathTrain

  • I'm eventually going to split the list of characters into List of characters in My Little Pony: Equestria Girls animations. As the title suggests, the scope of the new list article will be limited to 'the characters ever appeared in any of Hasbro Studios/Allspark Animation productions' and 'how they are depicted in the productions'.
  • At the same time, I'll leave only eight main characters—Sunset Shimmer, Twilight Sparkle (both counterparts), Spike (both counterparts), Applejack, Fluttershy, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash and Rarity—in this article's "Premise" section, just like how the Monster High article does.
  • But first, can you folks tell me how are you going to improve and expand the description of each character? Note that List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters cites the sources well (compared to how the current list does).

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive: I have no issue with you splitting the characters into a new article. In that case, I would imagine that relevant policies include WP:SAL, WP:WAF, MOS:FICTIONPLOT, and WP:NOR. Comparing the character list here with the MLP FIM character list, I see that both primary and secondary sources are used in the latter list, including episodes themselves and Tweets from show staff, as well as Equestria Daily and My Little Pony: The Art of Equestria and The Elements of Harmony: My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: The Official Guidebook. Such sources may also be used for the new article. Also, wouldn't a simpler title be for your proposed article be List of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls characters ? --DeathTrain (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeathTrain: Are the characters that only had a doll release (like Zecora and some others) going to be included in your proposal? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 03:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-alive: Probably not.DeathTrain (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeathTrain: Let's stick with the List of characters in My Little Pony: Equestria Girls animations title, then. Readers will get, 'Oh, this list won't feature any character that doesn't appear in any of the EQG animations.' right from the title. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-alive: How does that prove anything? There were plenty of toy-exclusive characters in Friendship is Magic, like Princess Sterling and Princess Gold Lily. In any case, your proposed title is still too needlessly specific. I said "probably not" because I don't have any personal interest in the toy-exclusive characters and therefore I do not believe that they are necessary to mention in the characters article as they are too obscure. I can't imagine that there are many others readers who are interested in the toy-exclusive characters either. Even if there are such readers, a more general article title like the one I am proposing is still more appropriate as they would be able to propose and debate adding the toy-exclusive characters to the list.23:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)DeathTrain (talk)
@DeathTrain: List of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls characters, it is.
Anyway, the character descriptions need to be improved and expanded first. Last time I tried to split the list of characters into own article, it went to the Draft name space for the lack of citations. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSH-alive: Well, if the sources exist, they can be found. DeathTrain (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support splitting the article. The lack of a character list as is seems very strange, especially since there already exists a list of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters and a list of My Little Pony (1986) characters. The current character list within the article itself is very incomplete as well, but not in a way where it would make sense to needlessly expand the current article. It makes a lot of sense to create a list of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls characters that can expand on the character descriptions, add missing characters, and following the format provided by other My Little Pony character lists. AmericanBaath (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of additional resources would you folks recommend other than the ones mentioned above?
  • In case someone is going to work on the expansion of character descriptions, I hope the length of ones about each main character is as lengthy as how the depiction of Twilight Sparkle's counterpart in Ponyville in Equestria Girls animations is currently described at Twilight Sparkle#Equestria Girls.

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tends to favor WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources, but that does not mean that primary sources cannot be used to supplement/complement them. Like I said, if the appropriate sources exist, they can be found. But there is no WP:DEADLINE to find them.
Fun fact: I do not know if you know this, but I was actually the editor who first attempted to add the Equestria Girls depictions to the Twilight Sparkle article.
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Twilight_Sparkle&diff=975676460&oldid=975583170 DeathTrain (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. For 'how the characters are depicted', the official media like the films, TV specials and any episode from the shorts can directly be cited, I guess.
But the problem is, what kind of source can be cited when expanding on 'how the characters were developed', especially those who only appear in the Equestria Girls media. I know using primary sources is okay, but I see those posted through social media services like Twitter and Facebook are often discouraged. I think using secondary and third-party sources that directly cite social media posts should be okay, but I also think major trade publications and any other news outlets specialised in the animation industry don't have anything major about Equestria Girls. The second best choices seem to be fandom blogs like Equestria Daily and some others, but can they be constituted as reliable sources? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 09:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose list is currently unsourced, short, basic in-universe descriptions. A split is not warranted in any capacity at this time. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We know that the list itself is currently not yet suitable for a split. I would like to know your opinions as an administrator on what specific sources could be used to eventually split the list. DeathTrain (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally edit music and video game content, so while I could point you to WP:VG/S and WP:RSMUSIC for guidance on sources good in those areas, I'm I'm not an expert on sources for animation stuff like this. I do know it would be good to have information beyond just rehashing the characters description and story/plot points. Things like reception from critics (are they liked/disliked by credits? Controversial? Original/unoriginal? Etc) or development information from the creators (why they created the character, inspirations/influences, et.) That stuff can go a long ways in showing a split is necessary someday. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Little_Pony:_Equestria_Girls&oldid=1230955274"