Talk:Episodes, films, and shorts/@comment-26973802-20140604184324

OK why does Hasbro think it's better to show violence against kittens than violence against dark villains? If it's a choice between killing a dark villain or a kitten, you tell me what's darker.

1.) For the comics, Katie Cook said she didn't think Hasbro would ever let them kill Chrysalis at the end despite that she intended to do the same to the Cutie Mark Crusaders and make Twilight kill her friends. But apparently Hasbro did let them have Chrysalis murder a kitten in bloody fashion in front of the Cutie Mark Crusaders.

2.) More on a scale of physical violence: "We cannot show Twilight punch Tirek in the face", but Daring Do kicks a kitten. (granted the kitten works for Ahuizotl, but it's a lot easier to mistake for a not-evil character than a menacing demon who destroyed Twilight's home and sucks out ponies' magic)

Atleast they had the guts to give Sombra a graphic death scene (when they could've had him stay in shadow form and destroyed him in rainbow shockwave like Myotismon) but that was a one-time wonder. (Chrysalis doesn't count given all the speculation and Meghan's silence on her). But I wouldn't be surprised to see Garble return and incinerate a kitten. Or Gilda return, and kill a kitten with her claws (while she's onscreen and kitten is offscreen). What does Hasbro have against kittens?