Why is "not canon" considered a legitimate criticism around here? No, this not a defense of the EqG movies and the idw comics, it's just that "not canon" is usually the first thing someone says about why they're bad. Whether or not you consider them canon is a whole other discussion, all I'm asking is why something not being canon somehow hinders your enjoyment of it?
I guess it's not /mlp/ without someone completely missing the point
It's not the FIRST thing someone says.
It's the last thing.
"Oh, EqG completely threw away most of what's good about MLP, but it's noncanon so it doesn't matter."
"Oh, IDW comics are headed by a bunch of tumblrfags with agendas, but it's noncanon so it doesn't matter"
It's a self defense mechanism. Just because EqG and IDW are shit doesn't mean they can bring down our enjoyment of the actual show.
If "non canon" was considered a criticism, then there wouldn't be greentext.
>And that would be sad.
>Why is "not canon" considered a legitimate criticism around here?
Why would anyone want to type an essay explaining why they dislike something when they can just spam >no hooves, underage, >not canon, he's mad, newfag, bait, and other memes to express their distaste?
Valid question. It's not legitimate criticism, but it is frequent criticism, certainly. Likely because people who obsess over things like continuity and logic (rather than just good storytelling) enjoy the feeling of superiority they get from having a platform, however flimsy, from which they can belittle writefriends and drawfriends when they don't conform precisely to their own headcanon.
But then that's none of my business. And I'm too lazy at the moment to hunt up a picture of Kermit the Frog drinking tea.