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
    • Someone on reddit is seriously trying to convince me that raven's tribe may be cannibals who may eat the pilot. "Everyone is a cannibal if they're hungry enough".

    What the fuck reddit dude.
     
    blast flame said:
    Someone on reddit is seriously trying to convince me that raven's tribe may be cannibals who may eat the pilot. "Everyone is a cannibal if they're hungry enough".

    What the fuck reddit dude.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    seriosly, doesnt he realise that the Tribe probably has standards....you can't just eat anything you find on the floor after all, you don't know where its been....

    oh and they probably arent THAT kind of bandits anyway...
    they could be th epropper kind, who farm themselves, but prefer to steal their food from people who can cook better
     
    Did someone mention cannibalism? :V

    Poor Sienna Khan, we hardly knew you. And she's based off of such a cool character too.
     
    We'll see if she pops back up or not. i still have to suppress urges to punch raven every-time she pops up though. i do hope she gets a good punch in her face somewhere this volume.
     
    Sienna Khan had a really cool design and voice, I was hoping she'd stay for a few episodes and I'm not sure if killing her off was a missed opportunity. She seemed subtly built up only for Adam to cut her down to show he's a dick which we already know... But I'm not that bothered about it, really. But shouldn't she be protected by her aura?

    The final shot of Weiss's Knight slicing through the Queen Lancer was beautiful.

    I don't know why people were guessing that tentacle was Watts's weapon when it was clearly the jellyfish Grimm.

    Sienna reaches towards the back/side of Adam's head before he throws her body aside... why? At first I thought she was going to try some crazy magic chokehold :rofl: but maybe it's his mask? The action has enough focus that it must mean something. Now I have even more questions. Wiping the blood off his sword like that was badass. I admit I think he's superficially really cool but every time they show he's generic evil it disappoints me sso much. When he made the bad boyfriend speech to Blake in V3, I'm still convinced he wasn't seriously saying those lines because they sounded too cheesy (and I don't remember him being specifically an abusive boyfriend in flashbacks).
     
    As far as the shocking event of V5E2 goes, I think this comment from the reddit thread sums up my opinion more eloquently than I could. My own commentary on the point is in that thread.
     
    Fuck me, I finally caught up.

    *Proceeds to drink Qrow under the bar*

    Now to wait for the next weekend so I can actually react to all these reactions.
     
    Kickstarter update is here! :)

    Campaign Update #13 - Emerald and Mercury's Add-On has Arrived!
    4 Comments

    Good morning!

    Congratulations to every Backer (and future Backer) of RWBY: Combat Ready! With your support we have now unlocked the Emerald and Mercury's Sub-boss Objective Deck! This deck is now available as an Add-On purchase that you can include with your copy of RWBY: Combat Ready for an additional pledge increase of $10.00 (includes shipping to USA, EU, AU, and NZ.)

    The Emerald and Mercury Sub-boss Objective Deck is an additional new objective available as an Add-On for RWBY: Combat Ready. They come with one (1) objective card and an 18 card deck representing their individual and dual attacks and actions. They can now be added as a sub-boss when playing against such Villains as Roman Torchwick, Cinder Fall, or Adam Taurus!

    Not sure how to add Emerald and Mercury's Sub-boss Objective Deck to your pledge? Check out our handy dandy step by step guide - HERE!

    We'll be in touch with more information soon.

    <3
    Rooster Teeth
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Only 10 dollars for the villain expansion. It makes sense I suppose, the villain miniatures don't really add anything to the game so people who pay for that are probably fine with paying more money to support the project anyway. While the extra villains and characters actually enhances the game experience so for that its better to keep it cheap so that as many fans as possible can buy it. :)


    To get the Add On just click on the Manage Pledge Button and then choose Change Your Pledge. At that point you just change your previous Pledge which I assume is 45 since you have Basic Game and then pay 55 instead. The extra 10 dollars will let you pick the Mercury&Emerald Add On when the Kickstarter is complete.
     
    Sunder the Gold said:
    Menagerie's buildings should have been built like large apartment complexes if they wanted to sell us on "cramped". This looks too much like a relaxed island resort and not enough like a densely-packed slum or refugee town. I don't think we saw any building with a second floor.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Past me was stupid.

    You need certain tools, materials, and skills to construct buildings with three or more stories; all of which the faunus had in short supply when they found themselves exiled to Remnant Australia.


    Dream Logic said:
    Also why are Hunters always referred as being individual?! They're trained in teams of four. Why are you training them like that if they so rarely get deployed together? Why not focus on pairs or even solo operations? At least some of them could do the alternate curriculum.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Zam said:
    It wouldn't shock me if some teams break up after their academy days, I figure the team stuff is so they can be integrated into teams when necessary but lots of jobs don't pay enough for four to live on so many take them solo.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Also, because hunters are needed EVERYWHERE right now, so they're spread pretty thin.


    Dream Logic said:
    Sienna is super reasonable. She sounded disappointed rather then just angry. Also seemed against the idea of race war or subjugating the humans. The way she phrases things also implies she'd be down with peace once the Faunus are on even ground either within or without the kingdoms.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Let's not forget that the White Fang conducted ASSASSINATIONS under her watch, and she either didn't put a stop to that, or perhaps encouraged or maybe even PLANNED it.

    This lady may have wanted to avoid a war she couldn't win, but she had no problem resorting to terrorist attacks against civilians.
     
    Wait, Sienna wanted humans to fear the faunus, right? Isn't that a bad thing since fear attracts the Grimm?
     
    Sunder the Gold said:
    You need certain tools, materials, and skills to construct buildings with three or more stories; all of which the faunus had in short supply when they found themselves exiled to Remnant Australia.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Good realization.

    Sunder the Gold said:
    Also, because hunters are needed EVERYWHERE right now, so they're spread pretty thin.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That too also makes a great deal of sense.

    Sunder the Gold said:
    Let's not forget that the White Fang conducted ASSASSINATIONS under her watch, and she either didn't put a stop to that, or perhaps encouraged or maybe even PLANNED it.

    This lady may have wanted to avoid a war she couldn't win, but she had no problem resorting to terrorist attacks against civilians.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    UbeOne said:
    Wait, Sienna wanted humans to fear the faunus, right? Isn't that a bad thing since fear attracts the Grimm?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think its more of a general sense of threat/fear that she wanted so as to avoid humans backsliding into slavery and genocide again.

    As to Sienna, I never claimed she was a saint or anything, she was a terrorist, the difference between Sienna and Adam are still manifold though. Sienna seemed to regard the role of the White Fang as to be a check/balance on humans and to ensure the Faunus had protectors as they couldn't rely on anyone else to do it, and she seemed to focus on the idea of specific and practical targets. IE, shops that deny Faunus service, companies that use unfair Faunus labor and the powerful figures who'd be responsible for the mistreatment of Faunus.

    In comparison, Adam was introduced wanting to blow up an entire civilian crew for the lols even though it would cost the White Fang resources. He throws away his soldiers lives on destructive plans that don't serve his own people's ends. He participates in plans that would kill Faunus just as much as they would humans and hands territory over to the Grimm and is also an abusive brute who tormented Blake and Yang out of spite.

    Did both do bad things? Sure, but Sienna, to me and many others has far more depth and complexity to her actions, motivations and attitudes that make her a much more grey character or possibly an anti villain who is doing what she feels is best, while Adam is just a straight up, self serving conqueror.
     
    Personally I see Sienna's White Fang as basically Meganarie's Wetworks/CIA. Pretty sure all the other countries have their own version as well. Which leaves Sienna as not the most moral but not crazy or evil by those standards- unlike Adam.
     
    Zam said:
    Good realization.


    That too also makes a great deal of sense.



    I think its more of a general sense of threat/fear that she wanted so as to avoid humans backsliding into slavery and genocide again.

    As to Sienna, I never claimed she was a saint or anything, she was a terrorist, the difference between Sienna and Adam are still manifold though. Sienna seemed to regard the role of the White Fang as to be a check/balance on humans and to ensure the Faunus had protectors as they couldn't rely on anyone else to do it, and she seemed to focus on the idea of specific and practical targets. IE, shops that deny Faunus service, companies that use unfair Faunus labor and the powerful figures who'd be responsible for the mistreatment of Faunus.

    In comparison, Adam was introduced wanting to blow up an entire civilian crew for the lols even though it would cost the White Fang resources. He throws away his soldiers lives on destructive plans that don't serve his own people's ends. He participates in plans that would kill Faunus just as much as they would humans and hands territory over to the Grimm and is also an abusive brute who tormented Blake and Yang out of spite.

    Did both do bad things? Sure, but Sienna, to me and many others has far more depth and complexity to her actions, motivations and attitudes that make her a much more grey character or possibly an anti villain who is doing what she feels is best, while Adam is just a straight up, self serving conqueror.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think the issue with Sienna is actually a bit more complicated than people are expressing. It is Volume 5, and thus multiple years into RWBY, when Sienna is introduced. Her faction of the White Fang is important in the narrative sense as it ties into Blake's backstory.

    With that in mind, why is Sienna just now being introduced?

    Want another example? Consider how for multiple Volumes Cinder was played up as the leader of the villains. Not as Salem's lieutenant, not as just another member in a vast consipiracy - just Cinder. I recall that causing some friction among the fans because Cinder was able to recruit Emerald and Mercury without much explanation. Specifically there was no explanation for how Cinder found them, what resources Cinder had to use to find / train them, and so on. Fast forward a few Volumes and then Salem's organization is introduced.

    That's the problem again. Specifically that RT appears to be doing some weird kind of reverse foreshadowing. Things happen early that aren't explained. Eventually they are explained and things start to make more sense.

    The sad thing is that many of these are easy fixes if they had just thought about it. Take Sienna, for example. When Blake was explaining to Sun about her time in the White Fang she could have referenced Sienna by name - or at least by alias. And to show that Adam is splitting away from Sienna's leadership (because he apparently was planning that since before RWBY started) have a bit of dialogue by Blake during Roman's little speech to the White Fang. For Emerald and Mercury they didn't even need to show their recruitment in detail. (Thus saving animation costs.) Instead they could have had an argument between Emerald and Mercury where a line is thrown around - say one where Emerald points out she wouldn't be anywhere near Mercury if she wasn't given this assignment.

    There are, obviously, other ways to express this sort of thing than the ones I've laid out. These are just what I've come up with off the top of my head in about 10 minutes.
     
    djd said:
    Personally I see Sienna's White Fang as basically Meganarie's Wetworks/CIA. Pretty sure all the other countries have their own version as well. Which leaves Sienna as not the most moral but not crazy or evil by those standards- unlike Adam.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's a really interesting and cool way to view them actually, kudos!

    Nicholai said:
    I think the issue with Sienna is actually a bit more complicated than people are expressing. It is Volume 5, and thus multiple years into RWBY, when Sienna is introduced. Her faction of the White Fang is important in the narrative sense as it ties into Blake's backstory.

    With that in mind, why is Sienna just now being introduced?

    Want another example? Consider how for multiple Volumes Cinder was played up as the leader of the villains. Not as Salem's lieutenant, not as just another member in a vast consipiracy - just Cinder. I recall that causing some friction among the fans because Cinder was able to recruit Emerald and Mercury without much explanation. Specifically there was no explanation for how Cinder found them, what resources Cinder had to use to find / train them, and so on. Fast forward a few Volumes and then Salem's organization is introduced.

    That's the problem again. Specifically that RT appears to be doing some weird kind of reverse foreshadowing. Things happen early that aren't explained. Eventually they are explained and things start to make more sense.

    The sad thing is that many of these are easy fixes if they had just thought about it. Take Sienna, for example. When Blake was explaining to Sun about her time in the White Fang she could have referenced Sienna by name - or at least by alias. And to show that Adam is splitting away from Sienna's leadership (because he apparently was planning that since before RWBY started) have a bit of dialogue by Blake during Roman's little speech to the White Fang. For Emerald and Mercury they didn't even need to show their recruitment in detail. (Thus saving animation costs.) Instead they could have had an argument between Emerald and Mercury where a line is thrown around - say one where Emerald points out she wouldn't be anywhere near Mercury if she wasn't given this assignment.

    There are, obviously, other ways to express this sort of thing than the ones I've laid out. These are just what I've come up with off the top of my head in about 10 minutes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    There is some very interesting stuff here, I have mixed views on it as some things I have liked about RT's handling and others, as you can likely tell I have not so its difficult for me to take/accept a broad view on the matter if that makes sense?

    Regardless, you did raise some very interesting points about the handling of foreshadowing and characters with narrative weight and the vagueness which sometimes creates issues.

    I'm unsure if Adam was necessarily breaking away before Cinder, though his approach does seem much stupider and more pointlessly destructive than Sienna's even before Cinder, but yeah while it got implicitly noted that the Vale faction was behaving oddly, it never really got highlighted or discussed, which does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity.
     
    DezoPenguin said:
    As far as the shocking event of V5E2 goes, I think this comment from the reddit thread sums up my opinion more eloquently than I could. My own commentary on the point is in that thread.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    While I can grasp where the poster is coming from I have to disagree:

    I am paraphrasing from a tumblr post with some minor edits and additions as they don't like their work to be posted elsewhere.

    Sienna as a character could serve as a villain that can debate and argue with Blake's worldview (Especially given Blake used to agree with her). She can function as a shadow archetype to Blake alone - there's no dialogue with Adam, as it's clear there's no reasoning with him (and he's functioning as shadow archetype to Yang given how they were compared and contrasted as being Blake's partners, damage absorption Semblances, ETC.)

    in addition, Sienna received a highly detailed design, was cast with a prolific voice actress and is based off a literary character - compare other characters who have died in their only scenes, for example, Tukson and Amber; simple, not overly detailed designs. To me and others it feels like a waste to go to that level of detail for a character who has received in-universe set-up as someone who could be a greater scope villain than with greater influence and presence than the more personal villain Adam started as and then just killing them off.

    Adam is primarily Blake and Yang's demon - he doesn't function as a philosophical counter to Blake because he's just an abusive bastard who wants power blood and to conquer and will happily throw his people's lives away for just that purpose. Should Blake & Yang overcome what he did to them and their partnership he loses his narrative weight which was already weighted to being a personal villain over a grander one, but as a result, the White Fang loses their narrative weight and place as well.

    To some this comes across as dissatisfying because it can feel like "i beat up my bastard ex" and not "i proved my way is better").

    Sienna presented an opportunity for an arc for Blake resolving her ideals and history with the White Fang and stepping into her own with her desires to reform the WF and likely becoming a leader in her own right, while proving that her peaceful ideals are for the better. All Adam is is her abusive ex that she has to stop and won't work as a demonstration of why the White Fang has to be peaceful when she's going to have to use violence to stop him.

    There are ways to avoid some f these issues, like Adam being consumed by a fire he started but... Yeah suffice to say, I felt Sienna was more interesting, had more presence and weight than he does and with her loss, so to does it feel like the bigger narrative behind the WF.
     
    Zam said:
    While I can grasp where the poster is coming from I have to disagree:

    I am paraphrasing from a tumblr post with some minor edits and additions as they don't like their work to be posted elsewhere.

    Sienna as a character could serve as a villain that can debate and argue with Blake's worldview (Especially given Blake used to agree with her). She can function as a shadow archetype to Blake alone - there's no dialogue with Adam, as it's clear there's no reasoning with him (and he's functioning as shadow archetype to Yang given how they were compared and contrasted as being Blake's partners, damage absorption Semblances, ETC.)

    in addition, Sienna received a highly detailed design, was cast with a prolific voice actress and is based off a literary character - compare other characters who have died in their only scenes, for example, Tukson and Amber; simple, not overly detailed designs. To me and others it feels like a waste to go to that level of detail for a character who has received in-universe set-up as someone who could be a greater scope villain than with greater influence and presence than the more personal villain Adam started as and then just killing them off.

    Adam is primarily Blake and Yang's demon - he doesn't function as a philosophical counter to Blake because he's just an abusive bastard who wants power blood and to conquer and will happily throw his people's lives away for just that purpose. Should Blake & Yang overcome what he did to them and their partnership he loses his narrative weight which was already weighted to being a personal villain over a grander one, but as a result, the White Fang loses their narrative weight and place as well.

    To some this comes across as dissatisfying because it can feel like "i beat up my bastard ex" and not "i proved my way is better").

    Sienna presented an opportunity for an arc for Blake resolving her ideals and history with the White Fang and stepping into her own with her desires to reform the WF and likely becoming a leader in her own right, while proving that her peaceful ideals are for the better. All Adam is is her abusive ex that she has to stop and won't work as a demonstration of why the White Fang has to be peaceful when she's going to have to use violence to stop him.

    There are ways to avoid some f these issues, like Adam being consumed by a fire he started but... Yeah suffice to say, I felt Sienna was more interesting, had more presence and weight than he does and with her loss, so to does it feel like the bigger narrative behind the WF.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It gets worse when you think about alternatives. You mention Tukson and Amber as one-scene characters - so take that a step farther. What purpose does Sienna really serve? She duplicates some of the narrative roles that Blake's parents fill as the prior leadership of the White Fang. She serves as an intermediary step between their views and Adam's. Great! But is it necessary? The answer is, sadly, not really.

    Take a minute and assume that, like many people who are insane, Adam was functional when he was younger. (Meaning he was more functional, more sane, than he is currently.) In that case it would be quite possible for Adam to have been the leader that took over when Ghira stepped down as the leader of the White Fang. So insert someone - specifically another one scene character with a simple design - who is there to call Adam out on his methods. Someone who can insist that Adam has changed.

    Why is this important? Because this is someone who used to be one of Adam's friends and supporters. This is someone who is now disillusioned with Adam's new methods. This is someone who can ask "What about all the Faunus you got killed/put-at-risk when Vale was attacked?" This is someone who just wants to leave. (And then Adam kills them.)

    This change allows Adam to be the leader of the White Fang going back multiple Volumes. It explains how Adam was able to get the White Fang to work with Cinder again after their disastrous losses in Volume 2. It also costs far less in terms of manpower, money, and talent to make that scene happen.

    Oh, and for bonus points it shows that the White Fang are people. Currently they are generally just faceless mooks who exist to get smacked around by the protagonists whenever they appear. It also sets up a potential story arc (whether they use it or not) where Ghira, Kali, and / or Blake become the leaders of the less violent, less insane branch of the White Fang. That's something Blake has been trying to do since Volume 1!
     
    Honestly I think that one of RWBY most obvious flaws is that it's writing tends to be very volume centered with a lack of taking account of past and future events.

    Having Sun be apparently stalking Blake when the last volume had the reveal of Adam being abusive is an example of lack of taking note of past events.

    The entire Raven plot has been shifting as to who knows what when with more and more people knowing as the volumes go on.

    Basically in large part beyond critical pre decided plot points the writing is by the seat of the pants and it shows.
     
    Sunder the Gold said:
    Past me was stupid.

    You need certain tools, materials, and skills to construct buildings with three or more stories; all of which the faunus had in short supply when they found themselves exiled to Remnant Australia.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Blake's Character Short did feature some of those, though. (The word that popped into my head as I watched that chase scene was "Kowloon," for whatever reason...) I think the intention is that the farther Menagerie gets away from the water, the more dense and vertical the construction is.

    Nicholai said:
    I think the issue with Sienna is actually a bit more complicated than people are expressing. It is Volume 5, and thus multiple years into RWBY, when Sienna is introduced. Her faction of the White Fang is important in the narrative sense as it ties into Blake's backstory.

    With that in mind, why is Sienna just now being introduced?

    Want another example? Consider how for multiple Volumes Cinder was played up as the leader of the villains. Not as Salem's lieutenant, not as just another member in a vast consipiracy - just Cinder. I recall that causing some friction among the fans because Cinder was able to recruit Emerald and Mercury without much explanation. Specifically there was no explanation for how Cinder found them, what resources Cinder had to use to find / train them, and so on. Fast forward a few Volumes and then Salem's organization is introduced.

    That's the problem again. Specifically that RT appears to be doing some weird kind of reverse foreshadowing. Things happen early that aren't explained. Eventually they are explained and things start to make more sense.

    The sad thing is that many of these are easy fixes if they had just thought about it. Take Sienna, for example. When Blake was explaining to Sun about her time in the White Fang she could have referenced Sienna by name - or at least by alias. And to show that Adam is splitting away from Sienna's leadership (because he apparently was planning that since before RWBY started) have a bit of dialogue by Blake during Roman's little speech to the White Fang. For Emerald and Mercury they didn't even need to show their recruitment in detail. (Thus saving animation costs.) Instead they could have had an argument between Emerald and Mercury where a line is thrown around - say one where Emerald points out she wouldn't be anywhere near Mercury if she wasn't given this assignment.

    There are, obviously, other ways to express this sort of thing than the ones I've laid out. These are just what I've come up with off the top of my head in about 10 minutes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Two separate points there:

    1. With regard to Blake's backstory, Sienna isn't important. At all. She was never Blake's leader. She specifically identifies Adam as her mentor in V2E10, after it's Adam we see with her in the Black Trailer, Adam she doodles in V2E1, and then in V3E7 we see Blake, again, with Adam. Sienna is significant for the story of the White Fang--how they turned from peaceful protest group to extremist violence and acts of terrorism--but she's not actually part of Blake's story. Blake went from her parents' leadership to Adam's. Her interactions with Sienna were apparently irrelevant and insignificant. Yes, in the present, had she remained alive she would have been relevant to Blake's attempts to change Fang leadership and methods, but there was no personal tie. Blake vs. Adam was always the endgame of that plot arc: he's the symbol of everything she did wrong, the actual person who guided her on the wrong path, and the direct threat to her peaceful existence in the present. Turning the struggle for the Fang into a three-cornered game would have just added needless complexity to the middle of the story. This is especially true because the rest of Team RWBY has jack-all to do with that story. At least Yang is involved directly in the fight with Adam thanks to the whole "shiny new arm" issue, but extended political dynamics between peaceful activists, violent extremists, and outright Faunus supremacists (who are in turn doing Salem's work) would just make the show drag on interminably in a side plot irrelevant to 4/5th of the protagonists. Basically, Sienna Kahn is not important and was never important.

    Moreover, she's not any different from Adam in terms of goals. She's the one who introduced violence to the Fang? How is that any different from Adam? The only real change is that Adam wants to openly fight the humans now, basically because Salem is giving him the power to do so and/or feeding his delusions and/or basically ordering him to (I wouldn't be at all surprised if, given Adam's ego, he's sublimated the "you help us or die" Cinder gave him into believing he's doing the right thing for the Faunus). As @Sunder the Gold and others have noted, Sienna wasn't against Adam's agenda because she disagreed with his claims, she just disagreed with the strategic viability of open warfare. She doesn't represent a moderate position between Adam and Blake/Ghira; she represents a different set of tactics towards what Adam wants to do.

    That said, if when Blake learns that Sienna is dead, if they try to retcon in a bunch of significance about Sienna into Blake's life (OK for Ghira and Kali, but not Blake), I will have to agree with you about it being badly-written and, as you say, foreshadowed in reverse. Because there's been no hint that Sienna mattered (heck, before V4, no hint she existed--she doesn't fit the silhouettes in V1E16, for example), if they suddenly try to make her important, it will feel as ham-handed as you say.

    2. Showing the recruitment scenes of Emerald and Mercury is about the characters of Emerald and Mercury. In those two short scenes we were given both of their backgrounds and the reason why Emerald is so dependent on Cinder (and simultaneously, why Mercury is not). While I agree that Cinder's position as subordinate to Salem was unclear until Salem actually appeared at the end of V3--though I would argue that it actually was foreshadowed in V3E7*--the idea of an onion plot where layers of villains each are pulled away is hardly unique (consider V1: most of the fandom thought Cinder was just one of Roman's subordinates until the end-of-volume stinger and nobody cared when she was revealed to be his boss).

    *Also V1E16 ("Queen has pawns")--though at the time it would be reasonable to assume "Queen" was Cinder, not that Cinder was one of the pawns; and V2E7 (i.e. "where did the computer virus come from?"). These were more in the nature of "ohhh, now I see what that was about" moments instead of true foreshadowing, though.
     
    DezoPenguin said:
    Blake's Character Short did feature some of those, though. (The word that popped into my head as I watched that chase scene was "Kowloon," for whatever reason...) I think the intention is that the farther Menagerie gets away from the water, the more dense and vertical the construction is.



    Two separate points there:

    1. With regard to Blake's backstory, Sienna isn't important. At all. She was never Blake's leader. She specifically identifies Adam as her mentor in V2E10, after it's Adam we see with her in the Black Trailer, Adam she doodles in V2E1, and then in V3E7 we see Blake, again, with Adam. Sienna is significant for the story of the White Fang--how they turned from peaceful protest group to extremist violence and acts of terrorism--but she's not actually part of Blake's story. Blake went from her parents' leadership to Adam's. Her interactions with Sienna were apparently irrelevant and insignificant. Yes, in the present, had she remained alive she would have been relevant to Blake's attempts to change Fang leadership and methods, but there was no personal tie. Blake vs. Adam was always the endgame of that plot arc: he's the symbol of everything she did wrong, the actual person who guided her on the wrong path, and the direct threat to her peaceful existence in the present. Turning the struggle for the Fang into a three-cornered game would have just added needless complexity to the middle of the story. This is especially true because the rest of Team RWBY has jack-all to do with that story. At least Yang is involved directly in the fight with Adam thanks to the whole "shiny new arm" issue, but extended political dynamics between peaceful activists, violent extremists, and outright Faunus supremacists (who are in turn doing Salem's work) would just make the show drag on interminably in a side plot irrelevant to 4/5th of the protagonists. Basically, Sienna Kahn is not important and was never important.

    Moreover, she's not any different from Adam in terms of goals. She's the one who introduced violence to the Fang? How is that any different from Adam? The only real change is that Adam wants to openly fight the humans now, basically because Salem is giving him the power to do so and/or feeding his delusions and/or basically ordering him to (I wouldn't be at all surprised if, given Adam's ego, he's sublimated the "you help us or die" Cinder gave him into believing he's doing the right thing for the Faunus). As @Sunder the Gold and others have noted, Sienna wasn't against Adam's agenda because she disagreed with his claims, she just disagreed with the strategic viability of open warfare. She doesn't represent a moderate position between Adam and Blake/Ghira; she represents a different set of tactics towards what Adam wants to do.

    That said, if when Blake learns that Sienna is dead, if they try to retcon in a bunch of significance about Sienna into Blake's life (OK for Ghira and Kali, but not Blake), I will have to agree with you about it being badly-written and, as you say, foreshadowed in reverse. Because there's been no hint that Sienna mattered (heck, before V4, no hint she existed--she doesn't fit the silhouettes in V1E16, for example), if they suddenly try to make her important, it will feel as ham-handed as you say.

    2. Showing the recruitment scenes of Emerald and Mercury is about the characters of Emerald and Mercury. In those two short scenes we were given both of their backgrounds and the reason why Emerald is so dependent on Cinder (and simultaneously, why Mercury is not). While I agree that Cinder's position as subordinate to Salem was unclear until Salem actually appeared at the end of V3--though I would argue that it actually was foreshadowed in V3E7*--the idea of an onion plot where layers of villains each are pulled away is hardly unique (consider V1: most of the fandom thought Cinder was just one of Roman's subordinates until the end-of-volume stinger and nobody cared when she was revealed to be his boss).

    *Also V1E16 ("Queen has pawns")--though at the time it would be reasonable to assume "Queen" was Cinder, not that Cinder was one of the pawns; and V2E7 (i.e. "where did the computer virus come from?"). These were more in the nature of "ohhh, now I see what that was about" moments instead of true foreshadowing, though.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    On Sienna, Blake and Adam worked for Sienna's faction of the White Fang by all appearances. Your insistence that she is not important "At all." with punctuation for emphasis is honestly a little baffling. The problem, again, is that if Sienna was going to exist as a character the proper time to introduce her was years ago. They missed that opportunity and thus shouldn't have muddied the waters by introducing Sienna at this late date.

    On Emerald and Mercury I'd point out that they didn't need to show why Emerald was so dependent on Cinder or why Mercury was not. The voice actress and actor did a fantastic job in Volume 2 of showing that they were. The animators also did a great job with things like body language. All of that started with the first time Emerald, Mercury, and Cinder interacted. Emerald was visibly and audibly happy to see Cinder while Mercury just didn't care. That continues throughout the rest of the Volume.

    This is an issue because RWBY was a show that had a very, very small amount of narrative time in the early Volumes. Anything extra they did - like the Epic Food Fight at the beginning of Volume 2 - came at the expense of everything else. And in this case badly showing the recruitment of Emerald and Mercury falls into the same category.

    As for everything else, you are talking about things that, again, were shown years into the show. The thing about the computer virus is a perfect example - if they had foreshadowed that Cinder worked for a larger organization then the computer virus would make sense. You looked at the eventual reveal of where the virus came from as a "ohhh, now I see what that was about" moment eventually. By all appearances you were willing to trust the writers, extending them SoD, until that moment arrived. For my friends who were running low on SoD for RWBY the virus was a plot hole for well over a year.

    End result is that those friends stopped watching RWBY significantly before the virus was ever explained.

    Personally I find that to be careless writing.
     
    It seems that the RWBY staff lately have subscribed to the writing school of Legend of Korra past season 2 when it came to villains such as when Unalaq was created and then using Season 3/4 of Korra to add various bits of characterization and backstory such as it turns out he was a member of the Red Louts and the one to betray the others, that should have been in season 2 from the start to make him a more complex villain.

    That being said I do feel that introducing Sienna like this and then just killing her off right away ruins alot of potential conflicts between her Adam showing there different ideology how they think the White Fang should handle the world now that the attack on Vale has altered the political landscape.
     
    Last edited:
    Sunder the Gold said:
    What? I think you need to go back and watch her scene again.

    I totally thought she was going to survive and be a new, recurring character.

    She was just as visually interesting as Sienna.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Different strokes I guess, I did think she was cool and she felt more unique that Tuckson, but Sienna's model had a few extra splashes of detail that put her ahead in my eyes.

    Nicholai said:
    It gets worse when you think about alternatives. You mention Tukson and Amber as one-scene characters - so take that a step farther. What purpose does Sienna really serve? She duplicates some of the narrative roles that Blake's parents fill as the prior leadership of the White Fang. She serves as an intermediary step between their views and Adam's. Great! But is it necessary? The answer is, sadly, not really.

    Take a minute and assume that, like many people who are insane, Adam was functional when he was younger. (Meaning he was more functional, more sane, than he is currently.) In that case it would be quite possible for Adam to have been the leader that took over when Ghira stepped down as the leader of the White Fang. So insert someone - specifically another one scene character with a simple design - who is there to call Adam out on his methods. Someone who can insist that Adam has changed.

    Why is this important? Because this is someone who used to be one of Adam's friends and supporters. This is someone who is now disillusioned with Adam's new methods. This is someone who can ask "What about all the Faunus you got killed/put-at-risk when Vale was attacked?" This is someone who just wants to leave. (And then Adam kills them.)

    This change allows Adam to be the leader of the White Fang going back multiple Volumes. It explains how Adam was able to get the White Fang to work with Cinder again after their disastrous losses in Volume 2. It also costs far less in terms of manpower, money, and talent to make that scene happen.

    Oh, and for bonus points it shows that the White Fang are people. Currently they are generally just faceless mooks who exist to get smacked around by the protagonists whenever they appear. It also sets up a potential story arc (whether they use it or not) where Ghira, Kali, and / or Blake become the leaders of the less violent, less insane branch of the White Fang. That's something Blake has been trying to do since Volume 1!
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Very interesting and solid insights there, kudos! I can definitely see where you are coming from in wondering if her specific role was strictly necessary, I can sort off see both sides but due to the lateness of her introduction and sudden death it does feel off to me.

    I will admit, I don't think I ever viewed Adam as the one who led the whole WF, partially because I can't take him seriously as such a high end figure XD Though wow that'd make his relationship with Blake even roe messed up and good insights on how it could be utilized. Heck, the person calling him out could be the lieutenant who knows they were bullied into it in the first place but feels with Cinder gone they can break away and then it highlights that, threatened or not, Adam is willingly all in while others were willing to break away. Which could also set up there being Faunus who dislike the new, new direction, allowing Blake some potential ground for bringing them to her side.

    Great points about the people aspect, and to show how Adam's been getting worse and worse, or has been showing more and more of his true colors.

    DezoPenguin said:
    Two separate points there:
    1. With regard to Blake's backstory, Sienna isn't important. At all. She was never Blake's leader. She specifically identifies Adam as her mentor in V2E10, after it's Adam we see with her in the Black Trailer, Adam she doodles in V2E1, and then in V3E7 we see Blake, again, with Adam. Sienna is significant for the story of the White Fang--how they turned from peaceful protest group to extremist violence and acts of terrorism--but she's not actually part of Blake's story. Blake went from her parents' leadership to Adam's. Her interactions with Sienna were apparently irrelevant and insignificant. Yes, in the present, had she remained alive she would have been relevant to Blake's attempts to change Fang leadership and methods, but there was no personal tie. Blake vs. Adam was always the endgame of that plot arc: he's the symbol of everything she did wrong, the actual person who guided her on the wrong path, and the direct threat to her peaceful existence in the present. Turning the struggle for the Fang into a three-cornered game would have just added needless complexity to the middle of the story. This is especially true because the rest of Team RWBY has jack-all to do with that story. At least Yang is involved directly in the fight with Adam thanks to the whole "shiny new arm" issue, but extended political dynamics between peaceful activists, violent extremists, and outright Faunus supremacists (who are in turn doing Salem's work) would just make the show drag on interminably in a side plot irrelevant to 4/5th of the protagonists. Basically, Sienna Kahn is not important and was never important.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I strong disagree that Sienna was not important to Blake's backstory, without her Adam would not have become Blake's mentor, without her the White Fang, something tied into Blake's backstory and family, would not have changed, without her Adam's worst traits may never have had a chance to surface. Yes, their relationship might be a tad less personal, however Sienna's influence as you noted is far greater than Adam's, similar to how Cinder might be Ruby's villain but the more important figure is the one who trains and managers Cinder. Similarly, given how important the WF is to Blake, well I disagree that its not personal and couldn't become more personal and deep as things progressed. Additionally, a mentor isn't quite the same thing as a leader I feel. As noted, I dislike making it personally all about beating up Adam as I feel it undermines the actual subject matter of the White Fang, so that being the 'end game' is not something I regard as a given or ideal necessarily.
    DezoPenguin said:
    Moreover, she's not any different from Adam in terms of goals. She's the one who introduced violence to the Fang? How is that any different from Adam? The only real change is that Adam wants to openly fight the humans now, basically because Salem is giving him the power to do so and/or feeding his delusions and/or basically ordering him to (I wouldn't be at all surprised if, given Adam's ego, he's sublimated the "you help us or die" Cinder gave him into believing he's doing the right thing for the Faunus). As @Sunder the Gold and others have noted, Sienna wasn't against Adam's agenda because she disagreed with his claims, she just disagreed with the strategic viability of open warfare. She doesn't represent a moderate position between Adam and Blake/Ghira; she represents a different set of tactics towards what Adam wants to do.

    That said, if when Blake learns that Sienna is dead, if they try to retcon in a bunch of significance about Sienna into Blake's life (OK for Ghira and Kali, but not Blake), I will have to agree with you about it being badly-written and, as you say, foreshadowed in reverse. Because there's been no hint that Sienna mattered (heck, before V4, no hint she existed--she doesn't fit the silhouettes in V1E16, for example), if they suddenly try to make her important, it will feel as ham-handed as you say.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I feel she is extremely different Adam was introduced wanting to mass murder civilians (And implicitly lying to Blake to get her on the mission) while Sienna notes that she doesn't want a war and feels the White Fang's role is to serve as a check and balance on humanity to stop any backsliding. Adam's a thuggish murderer and bloodlust driven conqueror with an ego, Sienna has standards and reasons that aren't nearly so self serving and wanted Adam and Hazel gone the moment Adam started talking about warfare. Plus as noted, while I can see 'why' people interpreted her as only being against war for strategic reasons, I feel the sentence structure and lead up doesn't play to that and that strategy was only part of her reason and mostly just her highlighting how stupid Adam's decisions at Beacon were.

    Someone else did a good post on this, I'll quote them and provide a source but I am unsure if their blog is SFW:
    "The good thing about this whole WF shit is that Sienna at least lived long enough to tell us she was firmly against Adam. That whole "coexisting with humans is impossible" was only Adam's ideology. Attacking Vale and Beacon was all Adam. Every bad thing that we've seen from the show has been orchestrated by Adam and Sienna Khan firmly disagreed with him. Sienna was for organized and restrained violence. Sienna Khan was smart and knew that violence was necessary but pushing things too far would just make things worse. Sienna was a good and complex character who didn't want violence but knew it was necessary to achieve their goals. Adam's just an "evil for evil's sake" piece of shit"
    By sssn-neptune-vasilias on tumblr

    &

    "Yes, they didn't want an actual war with one military vs another. That's not how all wars are fought. Look at the Cold War, that was basically a chess game involving the world between two countries. No nukes were fired even though both countries had thousands of them. Not all war is one military vs another. This war was the White Fang vs an entrenched system of governance that subjugated and oppressed Faunus globally. Considering Faunus were a minority and not all of them wanted to fight in the first place of COURSE Sienna didn't want a formally declared war. That doesn't mean battles weren't fought and lives weren't lost.
    I heavily object to referring to Sienna's White Fang as terrorists. They were revolutionaries through and through who fought to protect and advance Faunus rights and we have canon evidence that her restrained violence WORKED as Blake herself admits that passed five years showed more progress than the entirety of TWF's previous existence. If you want to water fighting for rights down to "terrorism" that's up to you. But that's not how this works in a learned and nuanced society. You can't oppress a group of people for decades and expect them not to fight back for their right to survive. Racism, oppression, discrimination- THAT'S terrorism. The fight against that is literally what founded America and dozens of other countries    "
    By sssn-neptune-vasilias on tumblr

    We know there was a leader who brought about change to the White Fang five years before canon even if the name wasn't revealed and yeah the silhouette thing does bug me, maybe that's the council the brothers mentioned? But I still disagree she lacked important or weight.

    DezoPenguin said:
    2. Showing the recruitment scenes of Emerald and Mercury is about the characters of Emerald and Mercury. In those two short scenes we were given both of their backgrounds and the reason why Emerald is so dependent on Cinder (and simultaneously, why Mercury is not). While I agree that Cinder's position as subordinate to Salem was unclear until Salem actually appeared at the end of V3--though I would argue that it actually was foreshadowed in V3E7*--the idea of an onion plot where layers of villains each are pulled away is hardly unique (consider V1: most of the fandom thought Cinder was just one of Roman's subordinates until the end-of-volume stinger and nobody cared when she was revealed to be his boss).

    *Also V1E16 ("Queen has pawns")--though at the time it would be reasonable to assume "Queen" was Cinder, not that Cinder was one of the pawns; and V2E7 (i.e. "where did the computer virus come from?"). These were more in the nature of "ohhh, now I see what that was about" moments instead of true foreshadowing, though.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Revelations within the volume are a bit different to one's staggered out over volumes I feel and I can grasp why revealing Emerald and Merc was important, however I also see Nicholai's point about the issues with not revealing some hints sooner which also ties into my "Salem and Sienna are similar" argument, which is, we got no real hints of Salem until V3 (The narration stinger was clever, but we could have had an equivalent in the Blake flashback)

    Plus everything Nicholai about her importance, honestly some of the lack of immediate personal connections is why I feel she works better as a greater scope villain same as Salem and why Adam isn't an ideal stand in narrative wise I feel
     
    Last edited:
    So, instead of a steady diet of spoilers I am avoiding, I will instead provide the topic with this.

    There is only one best girl, there has only ever been one best girl, and there will only ever be one best girl.

    And her name is Nora Valkyrie.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top