Kill-R 
"[@Flufux":](/images/2235962#comment_8724474
[bq])
> That's not what I remember. Back when the season 5 finale aired, everyone and their mother was up in arms over how easily she was forgiven[/bq]
I'm afraid I didn't express my point here well enough. Yes, I too am aware of much of the backlash towards Starlight's redemption. I also saw some of the people who criticized it start retroactively accepting her whole arc because of the characterization that came later. Which makes no sense, because her redemption story does not get fixed for popping out of nowhere just because of how she acts later. That story still needed to stand on its own, and I'd say that as a piece of story-telling, it doesn't. If we agree on that, then what I wanted to point out is that people seem to do the opposite with these villains and retroactively ignore moments where their personalities don't match the pure evil they like attributing to them (see, as an example, how Cozy Glow had moments where she went off her "psychopathy script" some people think she always had). The writing on this show is not consistent enough, and is at times flaky enough, that anyone who would claim that their evil traits and the result of it in the finale proves that every moment of possibility for redemption in their personalities previous to the finale was just a facade, does not have enough ground to stand on its own.
[bq]
> Also, them being turned to stone is an ambiguous ending for them when you think about it. They could be left in there for eternity, but they could also be unfrozen at any time to be reformed or whatnot. Given that the series is ended, its just your imagination standing in the way of what happens next.[/bq]
That is very true. Still, the way that Anon pointed out how Discord says "Together Forever" to the fate of the trio and is what becomes part of the problem. I think a more _*effectively_* ambiguous ending, if they wanted to go for that, would be what this artist did in their alternative ending comic:
>>2189081
Ambiguity to some "loose cables" at the end of a story is a perfectly valid tool to use, but the comic I linked clearly shows a much better use of it, by leaving it off to the reader to say whether they think the trio was reformed or left as they were forever, than what the writers of the show did. And that'sthe what solme preobplem raise issues with.
"
[@Beau Skunky":](/images/2235962#comment_8724942
[bq])
> some "peaceful, everybody loves each other, nothing bad ever happens" utopia[/bq]
Don't think anyone here ever claimed it to be one, me included. I said Equestria "[accentuated] positive feelings and ideas instead of trying to emulate the significantly more noticeable lows of real life". Accentuating something is far from saying that the opposite does not exist. There would be no plot to develop whatsoever in any story if it stuck to a world like that, in fact.
[bq]
> "Everybody loves that awful Mary-Sue," or "Everybody wanted the villains reformed!"[/bq]
The only case of a blanket statement like this that I see in this comment section is the guy that claimed no one wanted the villains reformed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you really have run into people who said those things you quoted, but I don't see how that helps the discussion with what people have been saying here. If it refers to what I said in my previous comment, and as I acknowledged in my reply to Flufux, my wording may have been vague enough for people to interpret me saying that about Starlight, but it was not really my intention, nor do I believe my wording was such that it could be unmistakably interpreted as claiming that everyone in the fandom loves Starlight.
[bq]
> I think some fans took that one joke moment in "Frenemies" (where they almost learn the "lesson of the day," only to brush it off disgusted) too seriously, as they try to use that as "proof" that they aren't all bad, or a "reformation" was foreshadowed, just ignoring the fact the bad guys as I said, brushed it off, basically disgusted at the idea of converting to friendship.[/bq]
I also see the few moments Cozy had where she showed genuine concern towards the CMC as a moment of her having character depth beyond being pure evil or being the psychopath everyone makes her out to be. A psychopath would show no such trait. Clearly, the intents of her personality have inconsistencies between episodes and is proof of bad writing.
And, as some other people pointed out, these three characters had shown some level of bonding between themselves that can be construed as characterization that casts enough doubt on the conception that they are completely soulless, unfeeling characters. This is why this whole discussion sparks: it all comes down to the writers not making things clear enough or trying to amend what they established previously (see, again, what I said above about Cozy being one example) in order to write the finale.
♀
[bq]
> That's not what I remember. Back when the season 5 finale aired, everyone and their mother was up in arms over how easily she was forgiven
I'm afraid I didn't express my point here well enough. Yes, I too am aware of much of the backlash towards Starlight's redemption. I also saw some of the people who criticized it start retroactively accepting her whole arc because of the characterization that came later. Which makes no sense, because her redemption story does not get fixed for popping out of nowhere just because of how she acts later. That story still needed to stand on its own, and I'd say that as a piece of story-telling, it doesn't. If we agree on that, then what I wanted to point out is that people seem to do the opposite with these villains and retroactively ignore moments where their personalities don't match the pure evil they like attributing to them (see, as an example, how Cozy Glow had moments where she went off her "psychopathy script" some people think she always had). The writing on this show is not consistent enough, and is at times flaky enough, that anyone who would claim that their evil traits and the result of it in the finale proves that every moment of possibility for redemption in their personalities previous to the finale was just a facade, does not have enough ground to stand on its own.
[bq]
> Also, them being turned to stone is an ambiguous ending for them when you think about it. They could be left in there for eternity, but they could also be unfrozen at any time to be reformed or whatnot. Given that the series is ended, its just your imagination standing in the way of what happens next.
That is very true. Still, th
>>2189081
Ambiguity to some "loose cables" at the end of a story is a perfectly valid tool to use, but the comic I linked clearly shows a much better use of it, by leaving it off to the reader to say whether they think the trio was reformed or left as they were forever, than what the writers of the show did. And that's
"
[@Beau Skunky
[bq]
> some "peaceful, everybody loves each other, nothing bad ever happens" utopia
Don't think anyone here ever claimed it to be one, me included. I said Equestria "[accentuated] positive feelings and ideas instead of trying to emulate the significantly more noticeable lows of real life". Accentuating something is far from saying that the opposite does not exist. There would be no plot to develop whatsoever in any story if it stuck to a world like that, in fact.
[bq]
> "Everybody loves that awful Mary-Sue," or "Everybody wanted the villains reformed!"
The only case of a blanket statement like this that I see in this comment section is the guy that claimed no one wanted the villains reformed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you really have run into people who said those things you quoted, but I don't see how that helps the discussion with what people have been saying here. If it refers to what I said in my previous comment, and as I acknowledged in my reply to Flufux, my wording may have been vague enough for people to interpret me saying that about Starlight, but it was not really my intention, nor do I believe my wording was such that it could be unmistakably interpreted as claiming that everyone in the fandom loves Starlight.
[bq]
> I think some fans took that one joke moment in "Frenemies" (where they almost learn the "lesson of the day," only to brush it off disgusted) too seriously, as they try to use that as "proof" that they aren't all bad, or a "reformation" was foreshadowed, just ignoring the fact the bad guys as I said, brushed it off, basically disgusted at the idea of converting to friendship.
I also see the few moments Cozy had where she showed genuine concern towards the CMC as a moment of her having character depth beyond being pure evil or being the psychopath everyone makes her out to be. A psychopath would show no such trait. Clearly, the intents of her personality have inconsistencies between episodes and is proof of bad writing.
And, as some other people pointed out, these three characters had shown some level of bonding between themselves that can be construed as characterization that casts enough doubt on the conception that they are completely soulless, unfeeling characters. This is why this whole discussion sparks: it all comes down to the writers not making things clear enough or trying to amend what they established previously (see, again, what I said above about Cozy being one example) in order to write the finale.