Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 July 7

Entertainment desk
< July 6 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 8 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 7

edit

Why do so many adult males like my little pony?

edit

Apparently the children's TV show's main audience is grown men. What the hell do they see in the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.245.122 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a science desk question... but anyway; I can't speak for grown men because I'm not one, but I visit the pony chans, /co/, equestriadaily etc and I believe I have the same mindset as many of the male fans. We love MLP:FIM because it's adorably cute, well animated, and the characters are more than one dimensional gender stereotypes like those seen in the old MLP shows. Here's an article you might like to read, in addition to reading the Internet following section of the Friendship Is Magic article. 82.225.64.67 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.129.131 (talk) [reply]
"Apparently" is a suspect word. What is your source for this information? FOAF?--Shantavira|feed me 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the MLP:FIM fandom is predominantly male - but I personally think it's just a question of the target audience being the same as for such cartoons as Ed, Edd n Eddy and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. But this is decidedly OR. Tevildo (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because "Why not?" I suppose. Most young-girl television shows suffer from the problem of being too dumbed down for even young girls to really enjoy. Giving characters a little depth, and a world a little color can go a long way towards turning something mediocre into something wonderful. By way of analogy it's like the difference between Harry Potter(for children, but still widely appreciated by adults as quality and fun writing) and Twilight(for preteens, and widely considered cynical and uninteresting). The genre and target audience doesn't define the quality of an artistic work. i kan reed (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question was originally posted to the science desk. My Little Pony has been shown to be a potential media for physics communication in primary education in a manner which might tend to include males and females on an equal footing. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, I was introduced to this just a few days ago and (speaking as an ostensibly grown-up man) I found it to be good. Reasons: it is from the same stable as The Powerpuff Girls, and shares its level of wit, both in elements of the dialogue and plot and in the animation (which I think ultimately owes something to Ren and Stimpy, and is at the same time a gentle parody of anime, and often just well-observed in terms of facial expressions and so on). It also works as a kind of antidote to terrible kids cartoons of the past: the situations and moral lessons, which you might expect be shallow and cheesy, often turn out to be realistic and highly nuanced and don't leave me with the irritation which might result from watching other shows aimed at young children. For instance, one episode I watched involved a pony designing dresses for all the other ponies: she didn't consult them during the design process, and they disliked the resulting dresses. So she begins again, designing them to the precise preferences of the individual ponies. In another show, the story might end about there, with the moral being listen to your friends, or something, but in this show, the outcome is not good. The dresses are revolting, and the designer is embarrassed in front of some important fashion guru. The moral is in fact clients, respect the ideas of the experienced designer, a good idea to promulgate I think.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]