RWBY Thread III: Time To Say Goodbye

[kokuenDG]

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.

 

[Uncle]

So you advocate the Penguin trying to murder Batman cos Batman was assaulting his guests, cos legally the Penguin has the right to open fire on Batman. Seriously, he's a gangster who wanted to mack on a girl he acknowledged as under age, he got smacked down and so did his gang, it is typical for the genre.

Click to shrink...

No. I haven't advocated that at all.

I don't know why this is so difficult. Yang walked to club to get information. And she went straight for the Jack Bauer method of interrogation to get. After that, Junior's guards rushed in, like any decent guard would, after seeing their boss sexually assaulted.

You could argue that Batman might have tried something similar but there have been times where doesn't have to resort to torture. He's intimidated and deceived people without having to lay a finger on them. And when he does torture people, like when he dropped a monster off a three story balcony, I'm against it.

Batman would have at least asked a question first before he grabs someone

 

[Zam]

No. I haven't advocated that at all.

I don't know why this is so difficult. Yang walked to club to get information. And she went straight for the Jack Bauer method of interrogation to get. After that, Junior's guards rushed in, like any decent guard would, after seeing their boss sexually assaulted.

You could argue that Batman might have tried something similar but there have been times where doesn't have to resort to torture. He's intimidated and deceived people without having to lay a finger on them. And when he does torture people, like when he dropped a monster off a three story balcony, I'm against it.

Batman would have at least asked a question first before he grabs someone

Click to shrink...

She didn't walk into a night club.
She walked into a club that is run/operated by and filled with gangsters.

She intimidated and threatened a gang leader, Batman and everyone other heroic vigilante ever says hello.
Mafia guards.
Also not sexual, anymore than punching someone in the boob is kicking them in the crotch is.

And funnily enough we have seen Yang not threaten people too.

Sure Batman would ask questions first.

Except when he doesn't.

 

[Uncle]

She didn't walk into a night club.
She walked into a club that is run/operated by and filled with gangsters.

She intimidated and threatened a gang leader, Batman and everyone other heroic vigilante ever says hello.
Mafia guards.
Also not sexual, anymore than punching someone in the boob is kicking them in the crotch is.

And funnily enough we have seen Yang not threaten people too.

Sure Batman would ask questions first.

Except when he doesn't.

Click to shrink...

So, do Mafia members not have right to self-defense?

Also, I don't see how grabbing another person's genitalia isn't sexual.

As for Batman, I already explained that I was against him using torture. At least he has the luxury of there being multiple interpretations of the character. Nolan's Batman is different from the various animated versions who are different from Miller's Batman who is different from Kilmer's. They're all Batman, but in their own ways according to the universe they inhabit.

 

[VolantRedX]

It's a show that attempts that to tackle the issue of raicism and implied slavery. And as far as I've seen, has done so poorly.

So forgive me for thinking this show was about more than fighting monsters.

Click to shrink...

It actually doesn't attempt to tackle those things at all. They're there in the background, but the show makes no attempt to explore the issue beyond "racism is bad, don't do racism". It's not trying to explore or examine the issues at all.

 

[Zam]

So, do Mafia members not have right to self-defense?

Also, I don't see how grabbing another person's genitalia isn't sexual.

As for Batman, I already explained that I was against him using torture. At least he has the luxury of there being multiple interpretations of the character. Nolan's Batman is different from the various animated versions who are different from Miller's Batman who is different from Kilmer's. They're all Batman, but in their own ways according to the universe they inhabit.

Click to shrink...

No clue, also not the issue, my issue was with you framing it like she assaulted a regular night club and beat up bouncers rather than a gang of criminals.

Because it was done to cause pain the same way bending someone's arm behind their back would if done hard enough, rather than for some kind of sexual thrill.

The Penguin opening fire one, and him attacking Iceberg lounge ones comes from one of the most popular iterations of Batman.
.
.
.

Look, if you're not comfortable with what Yang did in the trailer that's fine, I wasn't 100% behind it either, we can have different feelings and views on a character, that's fine by me so long as they are fair and based on what you say about Batman you may be the first one to indicate this is a balance response.

However what I am not fine with going on from that is lying about the context of the situation, IE, its gangster, not bouncers.
Or using the trailer as an excuse to blatantly lie about or mis-represent her character with the gas lighting and abusive stuff.

Seriously, Yang unironically uses the term 'bees knees' to convey how proud she is of her little sister getting into the same uni as her two years early and how special she thinks Ruby is. Of course I'll be nettled by people framing her like a bad person cos she picked a fight with some gangsters.

 

[hellgodsrus]

It actually doesn't attempt to tackle those things at all. They're there in the background, but the show makes no attempt to explore the issue beyond "racism is bad, don't do racism". It's not trying to explore or examine the issues at all.

Click to shrink...

Which it could be argued is a flaw of the show, but that's an entirely different argument - 'it's not doing this thing' vs 'it's doing this thing really fucking badly'.

 

[Claudette Savagely]

I see you skipped over the explanations that didn't involve "Its an action series, so much like an action movie trailer, you're gonna see violence"

Click to shrink...

Perhaps you'd like to actually try and follow what the argument is saying next time. It'd do you some good I think and help you avoid looking silly.

Click to shrink...

The argument and its underlying point of contention is an irrelevance to me; I don't care who wins this particular slapfight.

The edit: attitude that "it's only a painting/comic/movie/TV show/limerick/pop song/novel/anime, stop thinking too much about it lol" is an attitude I find more than a little boorish wherever it's expressed.

I mean who wants to consider the creative works upon which we spend our limited time and with which we fill our imaginations?

Thinking about things is so gauche, just consume instead

 

[jenalysis]

I think it's ok to have some stuff to enjoy on a shallow level. There's nothing wrong with enjoying cute girls doing cute badass things.

That doesn't mean that criticism should ever be silenced on the grounds of fluff.

 

[Zam]

The argument and its underlying point of contention is an irrelevance to me; I don't care who wins this particular slapfight.

The edit: attitude that "it's only a painting/comic/movie/TV show/limerick/pop song/novel/anime, stop thinking too much about it lol" is an attitude I find more than a little boorish wherever it's expressed.

I mean who wants to consider the creative works upon which we spend our limited time and with which we fill our imaginations?

Thinking about things is so gauche, just consume instead

Click to shrink...

Fair enough, even if I disagree with the Lets read crew, I do agree that looking at a work and reflecting on it is worthwhile, even if I also sometimes just enjoy switching off my brain for spectacle as much as I can anyway.

 

[VolantRedX]

The argument and its underlying point of contention is an irrelevance to me; I don't care who wins this particular slapfight.

The edit: attitude that "it's only a painting/comic/movie/TV show/limerick/pop song/novel/anime, stop thinking too much about it lol" is an attitude I find more than a little boorish wherever it's expressed.

I mean who wants to consider the creative works upon which we spend our limited time and with which we fill our imaginations?

Thinking about things is so gauche, just consume instead

Click to shrink...

That's fair, I suppose the better statement would be less "don't think" and more "think in context". The whole issue that started this argument is that people refuse to view the actions shown to us with their own internal logic and genre conventions. If people refuse to engage a work on its own terms then there's no actual analysis taking place.

 

[Squirtodyle]

The whole issue that started this argument is that people refuse to view the actions shown to us with their own internal logic and genre conventions.

Click to shrink...

In the context of the Yellow Trailer, the only thing we have to go on is that it's a shady club, that Yang clearly outclasses every single one of the combatants in it, and that she started the fight for fun, given that she didn't need to actually start it at all. In the context of everything so far from seasons 1 and 2, we know that Yang's a thrillseeker, so rather than trying to keep the streets safe, she was actively starting a fight with people that didn't pose a threat to her just for funsies, because that's what Yang's stated reason for becoming a super-powered Huntress is.

I've watched all of RWBY, and I like it. I like Yang quite a bit, in fact. But it's not actually impossible to read other interpretations into her actions from everything we see her do, even if that's clearly not what was intended, and it doesn't require ignoring the context purely for the sake of bashing.

 

[Zam]

In the context of the Yellow Trailer, the only thing we have to go on is that it's a shady club, that Yang clearly outclasses every single one of the combatants in it, and that she started the fight for fun, given that she didn't need to actually start it at all. In the context of everything so far from seasons 1 and 2, we know that Yang's a thrillseeker, so rather than trying to keep the streets safe, she was actively starting a fight with people that didn't pose a threat to her just for funsies, because that's what Yang's stated reason for becoming a super-powered Huntress is.

I've watched all of RWBY, and I like it. I like Yang quite a bit, in fact. But it's not actually impossible to read other interpretations into her actions from everything we see her do, even if that's clearly not what was intended, and it doesn't require ignoring the context purely for the sake of bashing.

Click to shrink...

I disagree given both the twins and Junior put up a decent fight and Junior did promise "She'd pay for that". Yang said she was a thrill seeker who:

"I'm a thrill-seeker. I want to travel around the world and get wrapped up in as many crazy adventures as I can. And if I help people along the way, then that's even better. It's a win-win, y'know?"

Note the bolded parts about traveling, adventure and how she considers helping people to be a good thing that makes such stuff better, then also remember that Yang later -in private rather than to her teacher- describes herself as lacking in direction or drive and keep in mind that both Weiss and Blake's explanations to Oobleck left out a lot of key details, likely just like Yang's did, especially when one thinks about her trailer quote.

I heartily disagree if the end result is "Psycho Yang" or "Gas lighter Yang" or "Abuser Yang". Edit: You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as noted above, don't expect it to go unchallenged.

 

[Claudette Savagely]

That's fair, I suppose the better statement would be less "don't think" and more "think in context". The whole issue that started this argument is that people refuse to view the actions shown to us with their own internal logic and genre conventions. If people refuse to engage a work on its own terms then there's no actual analysis taking place.

Click to shrink...

Whilst that's certainly valid to a point, genre conventions and preconceived notions only go so far in any examination of a piece of work, especially at the very beginning during the advertising phase.

Examining what is presented is also essential to honest engagement with creative work.

Certainly I can't know what the creators of the show had in their heads as they made Yang's vignette, and assuming that their understanding of genre conventions would line up with mine would be a significant assumption indeed, especially when coupled with the facts that I was not familiar with their work, and had no definite idea as to the genre or genres they wanted the show to fit.

There were certainly potential clues as to what influences the creators might have drawn from, but background details and props and minor trope-associated signifiers cannot form much or all of what we use to understand something. Certainly they shouldn't lead us to assume that some of what we see defines the whole, or that minor details elide broader issues such as, "is this character a hero or a villain based on their actions and apparent intent?".

A tommy gun doesn't make a gangster any more than a scythe makes someone Grim Death himself, and when the nigh-untouchable aggressor is framed as the protagonist, it's hardly unreasonable to wonder if they were in the right for striking first.

When they continue to take a certain glee in beating people weaker than they in successive serial installments, it becomes a recurring query.

One might say that this draws into question the character of a great many action show/comic/manga/film/saga protagonists, and might further beg the question as to whether or not they are good people (in as much as a fictional construct can be considered a person).

Perhaps it should.

TL;DR: reading loads into potentially significant but smaller details, such as as prop, music, and costume choices based on one's experience and associations with other work by other people, can really reduce one's ability to take in the whole of a given work.

 

[Mook]

Whilst that's certainly valid to a point, genre conventions and preconceived notions only go so far in any examination of a piece of work, especially at the very beginning during the advertising phase.

Examining what is presented is also essential to honest engagement with creative work.

Certainly I can't know what the creators of the show had in their heads as they made Yang's vignette, and assuming that their understanding of genre conventions would line up with mine would be a significant assumption indeed, especially when coupled with the facts that I was not familiar with their work, and had no definite idea as to the genre or genres they wanted the show to fit.

There were certainly potential clues as to what influences the creators might have drawn from, but background details and props and minor trope-associated signifiers cannot form much or all of what we use to understand something. Certainly they shouldn't lead us to assume that some of what we see defines the whole, or that minor details elide broader issues such as, "is this character a hero or a villain based on their actions and apparent intent?".

A tommy gun doesn't make a gangster any more than a scythe makes someone Grim Death himself, and when the nigh-untouchable aggressor is framed as the protagonist, it's hardly unreasonable to wonder if they were in the right for striking first.

When they continue to take a certain glee in beating people weaker than they in successive serial installments, it becomes a recurring query.

One might say that this draws into question the character of a great many action show/comic/manga/film/saga protagonists, and might further beg the question as to whether or not they are good people (in as much as a fictional construct can be considered a person).

Perhaps it should.

TL;DR: reading loads into potentially significant but smaller details, such as as prop, music, and costume choices based on one's experience and associations with other work by other people, can really reduce one's ability to take in the whole of a given work.

Click to shrink...

Wow this is some seriously selective viewing.

So Yang liking to fight reoccurring is something we're supposed to pay attention to but Junior's goons shoving a gun into the face of an old man to rob his store is not?

Yang having fun while fighting is something we have to pay a ton of attention towards while every single scene that shows her being a kind, sweet, warm and caring person are not worthy of consideration?

n the context of the Yellow Trailer, the only thing we have to go on is that

Click to shrink...

Pretty blatantly wrong. Even ignoring the fact that the episode immediately after the Yellow Trailer shows that Junior's goons are thugs that are happy to commit armed robbery if paid enough the Red, White and Black Trailers had already aired before the Yellow Trailer and firmly set the tone and genre of the show as a action adventure science fantasy style story with supernatural martial arts where one should expect plenty of action scenes but not a lot of death or maiming. The Yellow Trailer itself shows multiple times that people get up again from Yang's hits and that nobody really died. The worst one can reasonably Yang of is starting a one-woman bar fight, hardly worthy of labeling someone a psychopath over. This isn't Hellsing or Pulp Fiction where gallons of blood pour all over the place every time someone gets shot, its made clear right from the get go that this is the sort of genre where people can punch each other through giant boulders without inflicting any sort of serious or lasting injury.

If that's not your cup of tea then fine but don't go around pretending that its something its not.

 

[Kintty]

The argument and its underlying point of contention is an irrelevance to me; I don't care who wins this particular slapfight.

The edit: attitude that "it's only a painting/comic/movie/TV show/limerick/pop song/novel/anime, stop thinking too much about it lol" is an attitude I find more than a little boorish wherever it's expressed.

I mean who wants to consider the creative works upon which we spend our limited time and with which we fill our imaginations?

Thinking about things is so gauche, just consume instead

Click to shrink...

Suspension of Disbelief is a thing. If you are actively seeking to undermine your enjoyment of any given media by refusing to entertain even the most basic assumptions of a genre then I guess that's fine, you're perfectly free to do so.

Meanwhile, most people will spend their limited time filling their imaginations with creative works they enjoy, because they consciously or unconsciously recognize that such things aren't real, don't work under the same rules as real life, and therefore understand that applying real life standards is a risky bet at best, actively stupid at worst.

The term "overthinking" does mean something, and it's tied to being counter-productive. But I guess everyone's free to economize their time as they see fit.

Whilst that's certainly valid to a point, genre conventions and preconceived notions only go so far in any examination of a piece of work, especially at the very beginning during the advertising phase.

Examining what is presented is also essential to honest engagement with creative work.

Certainly I can't know what the creators of the show had in their heads as they made Yang's vignette, and assuming that their understanding of genre conventions would line up with mine would be a significant assumption indeed, especially when coupled with the facts that I was not familiar with their work, and had no definite idea as to the genre or genres they wanted the show to fit.

There were certainly potential clues as to what influences the creators might have drawn from, but background details and props and minor trope-associated signifiers cannot form much or all of what we use to understand something. Certainly they shouldn't lead us to assume that some of what we see defines the whole, or that minor details elide broader issues such as, "is this character a hero or a villain based on their actions and apparent intent?".

A tommy gun doesn't make a gangster any more than a scythe makes someone Grim Death himself, and when the nigh-untouchable aggressor is framed as the protagonist, it's hardly unreasonable to wonder if they were in the right for striking first.

When they continue to take a certain glee in beating people weaker than they in successive serial installments, it becomes a recurring query.

One might say that this draws into question the character of a great many action show/comic/manga/film/saga protagonists, and might further beg the question as to whether or not they are good people (in as much as a fictional construct can be considered a person).

Perhaps it should.

Click to shrink...

Really...

Like, seriously. Try putting those in any context and tell me they don't look shady. I guess you're trying to be smart by giving any and every character the benefit of the doubt, but I question your wisdom in doing so since it's apparent you can't recognize a mafia gang as obvious as the one pictured above. And if by the time the first punch flies you haven't recognized the genre yet, I must call you blind; it can hardly be more clear that cartoon physics and cartoon logic are in effect, in particular those of the "action" kind since, you know, a fight.

 

[The Narrator]

TL;DR: reading loads into potentially significant but smaller details, such as as prop, music, and costume choices based on one's experience and associations with other work by other people, can really reduce one's ability to take in the whole of a given work.

Click to shrink...

Are you familiar with the concept of "coding" as it relates to film analysis? It's a means by which the filmmaker implies information about a character to the audience without outright stating it through visual and behavioral cues that the audience will recognize as being associated with other figures that had similar cues and thus consciously or subconsciously assume that the character has similar attributes. Disregarding coding as you're apparently choosing to do will definitely reduce your ability to take in the whole of a given work.

Junior's goons were very strongly and blatantly coded as mob enforcers in every aspect of their visual aesthetic and behavior. The only way it could have been more bluntly implied is if they all sounded like the cast of The Sopranos. You can argue whether it was a mistake for Yang to provoke an unnecessary fight, but trying to claim that the audience wouldn't know that these were mobsters is at best oblivious and at worst insultingly disingenuous. They have everything short of a blinking neon sign over their heads proclaiming them as such.

 

[Mook]

Are you familiar with the concept of "coding" as it relates to film analysis? It's a means by which the filmmaker implies information about a character to the audience without outright stating it through visual and behavioral cues that the audience will recognize as being associated with other figures that had similar cues and thus consciously or subconsciously assume that the character has similar attributes. Disregarding coding as you're apparently choosing to do will definitely reduce your ability to take in the whole of a given work.

Junior's goons were very strongly and blatantly coded as mob enforcers in every aspect of their visual aesthetic and behavior. The only way it could have been more bluntly implied is if they all sounded like the cast of The Sopranos. You can argue whether it was a mistake for Yang to provoke an unnecessary fight, but trying to claim that the audience wouldn't know that these were mobsters is at best oblivious and at worst insultingly disingenuous. They have everything short of a blinking neon sign over their heads proclaiming them as such.

Click to shrink...

Its like watching this RWBY Chibi skit:


And not understanding that its a Film Noir parody. Even if you have never watched a Film Noir movie in your life you can still tell that its Film Noir, hell even if you have never even heard of or seen anything Film Noir related you can still tell that something is up without anyone having to explain it to you.

 

[Claudette Savagely]

Apparently not allowing visual associations and similar tropic preconceived notions to dominate one's view of a work, much less applying any sort of moral framework to the actions of its characters, is "selective viewing" and "choosing not to understand something" and "overthinking".

I'm a little amused, but not surprised that "acting shady" and "dressing wrong" and "looking like a bad guy" does in fact justify being attacked without provocation in the plot or other setup for the benefit of the audience, and I think this ties into something rather interesting but ultimately unknowable except by inference.

To what extent does fiction affect our lives? Does a strong reliance on visual coding subtly and unintentionally prime us to associate modes of dress outside of the respectable with criminality? Does that linkage in turn make it easier to dehumanise characters engaged in criminal activity in other work? Perhaps this turn makes it easier to prejudge people in real life, especially if these visual associations are drawn from real modes of dress deemed less respectable?

We are, in no small part, what we consume, and fiction is food for thought.

E: edited several times for content, grammar, spelling

 

[Kintty]

You must be a joy when you go to the movies with friends...

 

[Vindictus]

Try putting those in any context and tell me they don't look shady.

Click to shrink...

Jazz band.

 

[Zam]

Jazz band.

Click to shrink...

Jazz bands usually walk around night clubs glaring at people while carrying aces and swords?

 

[Kintty]

Jazz band.

Click to shrink...

You got me. I only figured that out some five minutes after posting.

They do lack some music instruments, though.

 

[Claudette Savagely]

You must be a joy when you go to the movies with friends...

Click to shrink...

>having opinions counter to my own makes someone a social weirdo, the unironic post

Mate you may need to step away from the keyboard and take this less seriously lol

 

[The Narrator]

I'm a little amused, but not surprised that "acting shady" and "dressing wrong" and "looking like a bad guy" does in fact justify being attacked without provocation in the plot or other setup for the benefit of the audience, and I think this ties into something rather interesting but ultimately unknowable except by inference.

Click to shrink...

Only the audience has to rely on coding, which is what coding is for. Characters in-universe are already familiar with the subjects at hand. Yang makes it clear that she knows who Junior is and what sort of business he's into.

Or did you want them to fit a complete recitation of the the criminal record of everyone there in a five minute short? The whole point of a trailer is to communicate as much as possible visually to save time.

Jazz band.

Click to shrink...

With hatchets? When someone calls their guitar an ax, that's not what they mean.

A hatchet isn't even a real weapon. It's a woodcutting tool. The only reason to be using it as a weapon, especially in a modern urban environment, is because you aren't allowed to have access to real weapons, which is why they're associated with criminal gangs like the Triads in the first place, as a way to get around restrictions on weapons possession.

 

[Vindictus]

Jazz bands usually walk around night clubs glaring at people while carrying aces and swords?

Click to shrink...

It's not the weirdest set of props for musicians.

Consider the wrecking ball...