Remove ads

RWBY Thread III: Time To Say Goodbye

Reader mode
Stop: So gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
  • Staff Post
    • so gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
    We get a lot of reports from this thread. A lot of it is just a series of people yelling at each other over arguments that have been rehashed hundreds of times since the end of the recent Volume. And I get that the last Volume - and RWBY in general, really - has some controversial moments that people will want to discuss, argue about, debate, etc.

    That's fine. We're not going to stop people from doing that, because that's literally what the point of the thread is. However, there's just a point where it gets to be a bit too much, and arguments about whether or not Ironwood was morally justified in his actions in the recent Volume, or if RWBY and her team were in the right for withholding information from Ironwood out of distrust, or whatever flavor of argument of the day descend into insulting other posters, expressing a demeaning attitude towards other's opinions, and just being overall unpleasant. That tends to happen a lot in this thread. We want it to stop happening in this thread.

    So! As of now the thread is in a higher state of moderation. What that means is that any future infractions will result in a weeklong boot from the thread, and repeated offenders will likely be permanently removed. So please, everyone endeavor to actually respect the other's arguments, and even if you strongly disagree with them please stay civil and mindful when it comes to responding to others.

    In addition, users should refrain from talking about off-site users in the thread. Bear in mind that this does not mean that you cannot continue to post tumblr posts, for example, that add onto the discussion in the thread, with the caveat that it's related to RWBY of course. But any objections to offsite users in the thread should be handled via PM, or they'll be treated as thread violations and infracted as such.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Leingod said:
    Yep. When adapting from the book, they asked the actress playing the main character who her favorite female character was, and she said Emerald Sustrai. In the book it was Daenerys Targaryen, so the movie kinda dodged a bullet by changing it like that, since not long after Game of Thrones would proceed to shit the bed so hard with its ending that it went from a cultural phenomenon (if a divisive one) to something people barely ever talk about almost overnight.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Not quite. The bigger deal was that Warner Bros doesn't have the rights to Game of Thrones and would have had to pay royalties. However, WB owns Rooster Teeth so they also own RWBY.
     
    Erinyes said:
    Not quite. The bigger deal was that Warner Bros doesn't have the rights to Game of Thrones and would have had to pay royalties. However, WB owns Rooster Teeth so they also own RWBY.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Um... What?

    Space Jam 2 was basically WB fanning out their wide array on IPs and one of the many scenes had Foghorn Leghorn dressed as Daenerys riding a dragon.

    You can see why it's more sensible for the "they thought Daenerys being some kid's hero would be yikes and so they asked the actress who she wants to be instead" reason.
     
    Psyga315 said:
    Um... What?

    Space Jam 2 was basically WB fanning out their wide array on IPs and one of the many scenes had Foghorn Leghorn dressed as Daenerys riding a dragon.

    You can see why it's more sensible for the "they thought Daenerys being some kid's hero would be yikes and so they asked the actress who she wants to be instead" reason.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm not sure why you're equating parody with having actual show merchandise in the background with the name of the show clearly visible. There are other reasons why you'd want to change it, of course, but money is always going to be number 1.
     
    Tylonius said:
    Guys, it's was explicitly a loophole. Ambrosius isn't allowed to destroy things, only create. So when asked to make a brand new mechanical body out of Penny's mechanical parts, he has to also make something to house her Soul or else she'll die, violating his rule. They did some creative rules lawyering.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The above explanation has (personally) never really worked for me. So basically, the argument (as I understand it) goes like this:

    Among the things the Staff cannot do, two of them are:
    1) Destroy things.
    2) Make more than one thing at the same time.

    And the idea (apparently) is that Ruby gets around #2 by asking Ambrosius to "make a brand new mechanical body out of Penny's mechanical parts" which would violate Rule 1, unless he decided to "also make something to house her Soul". Which (because of Rule #2) he normally would be unable to do at the same time as Ruby's actual request. But because he'd violate Rule #1 if he doesn't, then he "has to" violate Rule #2 instead.

    But... it makes no sense to me that it would happen this way. If Ruby makes a request that will, one way or another, necessarily result in the breaking of either Rule #1 or Rule #2, you wouldn't expect that he "has to" break Rule #2. Why does he have to do that? The more obvious thing would be for him to just... say no. Because those are the rules. It's like:

    Ruby: "Make a brand new mechanical body out of only Penny's mechanical parts!"
    Ambrosius: "No. That would cause her to die. And I can't do that."
    Ruby: "But there is a way you could do it without her dying! If you 'get creative' and also make something to house her soul too!"
    Ambrosius: "That would require making two different things at the same time, which I also can't do. So still no."

    Having him break Rule #2 to avoid breaking Rule #1 (instead of just saying "no") isn't "creative rules lawyering", that's just having the solution to the heroes' conundrum be that Ambrosius can break his rules if he actually wants to.

    If you wanted Ruby to have a plan that worked within the established rules for the Staff, rather than just bulldozing over them, then I think Zam's interpretation is way better, in that respect:

    Zam said:
    Ruby didn't have Ambro break his rules, she asked him to separate Penny's soul from her body by taking all the mechanical aspects of her as materials and hoped that Penny would be able to stick around as a spiritual entity. Even Ambro admitted he had no idea what would happen.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Now if that had been Ruby's plan, it would actually stay within the established parameters of what the Staff can do. If Ruby had pitched it that way, and was then pleasantly surprised when Penny's soul generated a completely new physical body all on its own, then...

    ...well... writing-wise I still think it would have been a pretty big asspull on the writers' parts, what with how little setup there would have been for the idea that souls can inherently just... like... straight-up auto-grow complete new eyeballs (among many other things) entirely on their own ability. But that still would only have been "unexpected, without enough setup" instead of "actively against what we already established".

    The problem with that interpretation is... that's not what the dialogue seems to indicate is going on:

    Ambrosius: But a soul without a complete body, what would be left?

    Ruby: I don't know. I guess you just have to... get creative.

    Ambrosius: (laughing) I suppose I could do a little... Oh, add a touch of... But if I do that, how much of the old Penny would be my work and how much would be her? Just coming up to the surface.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    While he implies that Penny will be contributing... something, it's clear on both Ruby and Ambrosius' parts that this isn't expected to work unless, in addition to what she provides, he gets "creative", and that he is going to "add a touch of" and "do a little".

    Which I also understand why they might feel the need to imply. Because (like I said) automatically-eyeball-generating souls are a pretty big asspull to just throw in there without orders of magnitude more setup than this.

    But it also means that they're pretty clearly establishing that Ambrosius is doing some "creative" creating on the OG Penny side of things as well, by his own "add a touch of" words, at the same time as he's creating NuPenny. If he just simply wasn't doing any creating of his own for OG Penny's fleshy body, there should be no question in his mind at all of how much of her would be "my work". It'd obviously be 0%.

    But then we would seem to be back to the original "rules lawyering" explanation for why he seems to be pretty clearly creating "my work" for two different projects at the same time.

    And... look, who knows? Maybe there is some way to iron all of this out, if we theory-craft hard enough. But for key plot details like "why the climax works" I (personally) think it's incumbent on the writers to actually, like... convey that a little better than this? If there is a solution?

    If it is Zam's solution, maybe have Ruby actually say something along those lines, like "a ghost is fine too" instead of "get creative". And then instead of talking about how he is creating stuff for OG Penny, have Ambrosius deliver more pointed exposition on why a soul alone might actually be able to spontaneously re-grow a whole new eyeball in this situation without his help (but not anytime else, apparently).

    Or if it's Tylonius' solution then... I don't know... maybe clearly establish beforehand that the one-creation-at-a-time limit isn't a hard and fast prohibition, and that Ambrosius is willing to break it if you catch his interest enough?

    More than anything else, the point I'd like to make is, that whole sequence is written in a hella confusing way (as further evidenced by the fact that we have, in this very thread, two different RWBY fans defending it with incompatible explanations for what Ruby's plan for the finale even was, and why it even worked at all).

    Consequently, if people do find that sequence to be poorly-written, please consider that might be--at the very least--pretty reasonable to have that take, based on their experience of the material, and that they might not be acting in outright bad faith because they don't see (or agree) with how obviously correct and/or workable one or the other of those possible interpretations are.
     
    Last edited:
    Aura can heal this was volume 1, if you place an arm in a cast then remove the cast does the arm cease to be healed? If you use a scaffold to build a building then remove the scaffold does the building cease to be?

    penny's body was made by penny's aura whatever ambrosius did was redundant once penny had a body.
     
    claymade said:
    While he implies that Penny will be contributing... something, it's clear on both Ruby and Ambrosius' parts that this isn't expected to work unless, in addition to what she provides, he gets "creative", and that he is going to "add a touch of" and "do a little".

    Which I also understand why they might feel the need to imply. Because (like I said) automatically-eyeball-generating souls are a pretty big asspull to just throw in there without orders of magnitude more setup than this.

    But it also means that they're pretty clearly establishing that Ambrosius is doing some "creative" creating on the OG Penny side of things as well, by his own "add a touch of" words, at the same time as he's creating NuPenny. If he just simply wasn't doing any creating of his own for OG Penny's fleshy body, there should be no question in his mind at all of how much of her would be "my work". It'd obviously be 0%.

    But then we would seem to be back to the original "rules lawyering" explanation for why he seems to be pretty clearly creating "my work" for two different projects at the same time.

    And... look, who knows? Maybe there is some way to iron all of this out, if we theory-craft hard enough. But for key plot details like "why the climax works" I (personally) think it's incumbent on the writers to actually, like... convey that a little better than this? If there is a solution?

    If it is Zam's solution, maybe have Ruby actually say something along those lines, like "a ghost is fine too" instead of "get creative". And then instead of talking about how he is creating stuff for OG Penny, have Ambrosius deliver more pointed exposition on why a soul alone might actually be able to spontaneously re-grow a whole new eyeball in this situation without his help (but not anytime else, apparently).

    Or if it's Tylonius' solution then... I don't know... maybe clearly establish beforehand that the one-creation-at-a-time limit isn't a hard and fast prohibition, and that Ambrosius is willing to break it if you catch his interest enough?

    More than anything else, the point I'd like to make is, that whole sequence is written in a hella confusing way (as further evidenced by the fact that we have, in this very thread, two different RWBY fans defending it with incompatible explanations for what Ruby's plan for the finale even was, and why it even worked at all).

    Consequently, if people do find that sequence to be poorly-written, please consider that might be--at the very least--pretty reasonable to have that take, based on their experience of the material, and that they might not be acting in outright bad faith because they don't see (or agree) with how obviously correct and/or workable one or the other of those possible interpretations are.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Only highlighting the parts that bolster your argument while largely dismissing the parts that don't as non functional isn't actually a reasonable debate tactic.

    He straight up says,
    Ambrosius: But a soul without a complete body, what would be left?

    The rest of his dialogue can easily be interpreted as figuring out 'how' to do the most ideal separation that will give Penny the maximum chance rather than him creating two things. Like creating the perfectly shaped hold for water to flow into.

    Also what @Carrnage said.

    To be honest I don't find fans debating the mechanics of something to inherently be an example of bad writing, both of us think the rules established in universe were held to in one form or another, its merely the mechanics that are in question. Fans don't have to agree of having literally every little thing spelled out for them for a work to be good and many often suffer for attempting to do just that.

    Not to be blunt, but even ignoring the boy who cried wolf issue with most of the people who come here to complain about RWBY, complaining about every damn thing, often incompatibly so, meaning that I am not charitable at the best of times. They aren't victims just cos the majority of the thread saw things differently from them and didn't agree with the show being broken or the cast being creators pets. No one who comes here is owed a stage, let alone endorsement.
     
    Zam said:
    Not to be blunt, but even ignoring the boy who cried wolf issue with most of the people who come here to complain about RWBY, complaining about every damn thing, often incompatibly so, meaning that I am not charitable at the best of times. They aren't victims just cos the majority of the thread saw things differently from them and didn't agree with the show being broken or the cast being creators pets. No one who comes here is owed a stage, let alone endorsement.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    To be fair, questioning the mechanics of how magic rules work is better than the usual. I mean, at least there's no abuse apologists or people blaming teen-agers for an adult's crimes this time :)
     
    Wouldn't Ambrosia have, necessarily, destroyed Penny's old body to make the new one? I guess that's a philosophical question. But I dunno. If I completely disassembled a house, and then rebuilt it, I don't think anyone would say it's the same house, but a new house that looks like the old one. (this is different than the ship of Theseus problem)
     
    to make this narrative simple
    Ruby did with Ambrosious for Penny, what Salem did with Dark for Ozma.

    That's it. That is the core of the narrative here and what matters.
     
    Sandstar said:
    Wouldn't Ambrosia have, necessarily, destroyed Penny's old body to make the new one? I guess that's a philosophical question. But I dunno. If I completely disassembled a house, and then rebuilt it, I don't think anyone would say it's the same house, but a new house that looks like the old one. (this is different than the ship of Theseus problem)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Not really. A surgeon can take your heart out of your veins or a nurse take blood out of your body without destroying them. Ambrosious is just good enough that he can do that with the entire body.
     
    GuestLurker said:
    So a better comparison would be taking apart an engine or some other machine then putting it back together without something that was in it before. Not destroying any parts and by putting it together again nothing was destroyed, merely temporarily disassembled for reassembly.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    But it's not the same thing. It's rebuilding the entire car, after taking it apart. I'm trying to think about it in terms of model kits. If I took an entire model kit apart, piece by piece, and then put it together again. I would probably think that I destroyed the old kit, and rebuilt a new one, yes. Because while it's the same suit, and the same parts, the old, original completed kit is gone, and this is a new project, and a new end product.
     
    Sandstar said:
    Uh, a heart is the same thing as making a whole new body...
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Sandstar said:
    But it's not the same thing. It's rebuilding the entire car, after taking it apart. I'm trying to think about it in terms of model kits. If I took an entire model kit apart, piece by piece, and then put it together again. I would probably think that I destroyed the old kit, and rebuilt a new one, yes. Because while it's the same suit, and the same parts, the old, original completed kit is gone, and this is a new project, and a new end product.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm sorry but that's a stupid definition of destroying something.


    If someone smashes a model kit with a hammer so that the pieces shatter and can't be put together again then that counts as destroying it. Same with shooting someone in the heart with a gun.


    But if a model kit is carefully dismantled and put in a box with all the pieces intact it's not destroyed, it's just temporarily in a incomplete state. Same with using surgery to remove a heart intact and putting it on ice so that it can be transplanted to a new body as a fully functional heart.



    The trick Ruby pulled was that unlike a model kit or real world humans the people of Remnant are not just composed of their physical forms but also their life force/spiritual energy/souls. So while normally disassembling a broken machine and reassimbling it elsewhere would just lead to the same broken machine in a new location but with Penny once the physical parts where removed there was still something there outside those parts.


    It's like how after Ichigo became a Soul Reaper in Bleach he could basically live a normal life as a soul even if his soul gets kicked out of his body. Except with Penny her spiritual body can be seen and interacted with by normal people instead of being invisible and intangible to people and objects without strong soul power.
     
    If there's any cheat in what rwby did it's that they used his inability to kill as a garuntee that whatever they attempt it wouldnt kill penny in and of itself.

    Ambrosious makes exactly what you tell him to in the way you tell him to, they told him to make a copy of penny using her existing parts, so ambrosious had to make a copy of penny using her existing parts, but with ambrosious limited in being unable to kill he could only do so in a way that wouldn't kill the original.

    If you tell ambrosius to make a bridge using existing wood and give him detailed plans on the bridge and provide the wood he will do it. If there's people between the wood and the bridge site he has to do it in a way that wont kill those people but you aren't obligated to tell him to teleport the logs rather than rkkv through the people, that normally those people surround the site totally and have brittle bone disease so that any way besides teleporting would kill them doesn't mean ambrosius needs you to plan how to get the wood there. He makes the bridge as told with the existing wood as told without killing the people because he cant.

    Ambrosius inability to kill restricts his actions he cannot kill someone to make something he has to teleport the wood rather than mowing down the people.
     
    Sandstar said:
    But it's not the same thing. It's rebuilding the entire car, after taking it apart. I'm trying to think about it in terms of model kits. If I took an entire model kit apart, piece by piece, and then put it together again. I would probably think that I destroyed the old kit, and rebuilt a new one, yes. Because while it's the same suit, and the same parts, the old, original completed kit is gone, and this is a new project, and a new end product.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The funny thing is, I've never thought that about lego sets I had to disassemble for transport.

    And that's not even considering how that applies to mobile houses and such. What, do you not get the house you bought when it's taken apart to be loaded on trucks? On a related thought, I'd love to see the hilarity of taking that argument to court.
     
    Mahrac said:
    The funny thing is, I've never thought that about lego sets I had to disassemble for transport.

    And that's not even considering how that applies to mobile houses and such. What, do you not get the house you bought when it's taken apart to be loaded on trucks? On a related thought, I'd love to see the hilarity of taking that argument to court.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Did you take the lego sets apart, piece by piece, or did you take them apart in chunks? A mobile home that's split in half isn't the same thing either.
     
    Zam said:
    ... How?

    Like, even ignoring the various unpleasant implications to your take... You do know Penny wasn't already dead right?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Salem had found happiness with Ozma. Ozma died and Salem wanted him back. Salem makes use of a magical being (The Gods) and through some cunning got Ozma back. Ozma ends up dead again anyway (because Gods are dicks).

    Ruby had her dear friend Penny back. Penny was going to die because of the virus. Ruby makes use of a magical being (Ambrosious) and through some cunning got Penny back. Penny ends up dead again anyway (because Cinder is a bitch).

    Ruby and Salem are foils (I believe that is the proper term).
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top