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
    • Honestly it i tricky for me to offer my take on the 'did they hedge their bets' thing because 1, I'm not on the staff and I dislike making assumptions, and 2, I feel like it is very easy to come across like I'd be ragging on Blacksun and regardless of my opinions on said ship I don't want to be a dick.

    As it is, of the four main partner set ups of the series Renora, Arkos and Bumbleby all had one side specifically seek out another, only Ruby and Weiss were accidental, that might seem like a minor thing but given both the other sought out partnerships were romantically motivated, I don't think it is unreasonable to see that as a hint that (while not yet) Blake & Yang's partnership would have a high chance of eventually falling into the same category.

    There's obviously a lot more I could say from expressions, to body language to narrative focus and weight but even ignoring that there are a lot of essays on this front I still feel it would ultimately become a comparison game which I'd rather avoid for the sake of politeness.

    As it is though, Barbara said some things were planned from the beginning and I'll take her at her word.
     
    Is "wasted potential" just going to be abused into yet another synonym for "not what I personally wanted" in this fandom now? It seems like it's becoming the new go-to refrain for people who want to pretend that their personal opinions are objective facts when they complain that Miles and Kerry aren't personally catering their whims.
     
    Last edited:
    Leingod said:
    Is "wasted potential" just going to be abused into yet another synonym for "not what I personally wanted" in this fandom now? It seems like it's becoming the new go-to refrain for people who want to pretend that their personal opinions are objective facts when they complain that Miles and Kerry aren't personally catering their whims.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Seems like it, using language like that creates an impression of speaking from a place of fact and authority making it easier to trick people into thinking they have a valid point, a cheap and easy trick but it plays very easily especially to an audience already primed to accept the speakers words and it is also a convenient, cheap and easy way to try and dictate the discourse by automatically placing one's self in the right and anyone who disagrees on the defensive.

    Should I assume this is cos of Eruption Fang's whiny video where he wanted Ilia to fulfill the psycho lesbian trope so Adam, a guy introduced trying to manipulate his partner into a pointless act of mass murder, could somehow be written as a morally grey individual?
     
    To try to explain myself a bit, I don't think "wasted potential" is a term that should be applied to, oh, choosing not to make Adam a completely different character than the one they decided on. Because at that point, either intentionally or not, you're just using it as shorthand for "they didn't do what I wanted them to do with this." And I say this because that exact logic/argument could be applied to any choice the creators made that you would have made differently.

    I think the term "wasted potential" is best applied when a.) something is built up to and then abruptly dumped from the story at the earliest convenience, or b.) there was a clear opportunity to have something that was never followed up on in any way.

    Some examples of what I'd at least accept as arguably fitting this definition would be things like Sienna Khan (though I honestly haven't heard many suggestions of what she could have been used for in-series that I think would actually be an improvement), or the fact that Pyrrha and Penny had almost no onscreen interactions with anyone but Jaune and Ruby, respectively. Or, hell, the fact that Ruby and Blake almost never talk, period. Stuff like that.
     
    StellarSeeker said:
    I agree, but framing the use of "Ozma" as a man's name as one of those missteps (which is what prompted MinorGryph's comment) is excessively petty.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It's a misstep when Ozma is, in the source material, a woman who spent time as a man, and they're using the name for the previous incarnation of someone who frequently changes bodies. What would have been especially great in this case is that in addition to raising questions about the "actual" gender of the wizard, it would also have made her original incarnation lesbian on account of the thing with Salem. Considering how much the writers bragged early on about making their show LGBT friendly, this is kind of a cringeworthy missed opportunity.

    It doesn't help that they already kind of spat in the face of the original Oz books' feminist slant with their reimagining of the wizard and Glinda. Like, to an almost MRA-ish extent.

    But then again, they showed two girls holding hands recently in a scene with highly ambiguous framing, so I guess that makes up for it.
     
    Last edited:
    Leila Hann said:
    It's a misstep when Ozma is, in the source material, a woman who spent time as a man, and they're using the name for the previous incarnation of someone who frequently changes bodies. What would have been especially great in this case is that in addition to raising questions about the "actual" gender of the wizard, it would also have made her original incarnation lesbian on account of the thing with Salem. Considering how much the writers bragged early on about making their show LGBT friendly, this is kind of a cringeworthy missed opportunity.

    It doesn't help that they already kind of spat in the face of the original Oz books' feminist slant with their reimagining of the wizard and Glinda. Like, to an almost MRA-ish extent.

    But then again, they showed two girls holding hands recently in a scene with highly ambiguous framing, so I guess that makes up for it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Considering the link to any of the fairy tales in RWBY is basically hollow and token and exists for at most just a few character names and designs I don't think they really gave any thought to the Wizard of Oz books beyond looking up character names on Wikipedia. Like I literally just found out they were books right now when you brought it up, and honestly, it wouldn't shock me if that was also news to the writers here. I'm not saying it changes your argument but I don't think they thought "hey Ozma's a girl in the books should we do something with that?" and instead said "hey Google says one of the characters was named Ozma in the books, that sounds good like a good name for a wizard let's use that". People put way too much stock in this whole fairy tale connection.
     
    the fairytale motifs are there they're just not obvious Adam for example isn't the beast in beauty and the beast he is the curse, the curse that turns blake who is the beauty and beast into a paranoid exile and tried to turn her into a monster, but the curse is ultimately thwarted by love.
     
    Carrnage said:
    the fairytale motifs are there they're just not obvious Adam for example isn't the beast in beauty and the beast he is the curse, the curse that turns blake who is the beauty and beast into a paranoid exile and tried to turn her into a monster, but the curse is ultimately thwarted by love.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's pretty specious reasoning. Particularly because The Beast in the story is often depicted as having bullhorns and a terrible temper, and is super possessive.
     
    VolantRedX said:
    That's pretty specious reasoning. Particularly because The Beast in the story is often depicted as having bullhorns and a terrible temper, and is super possessive.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Original fairytale didn't specify what the beast looked like, except that it was ugly and well beastly.

    Also in the original fiarytale the curse came from an angry witch that tried to seduce the beast.
     
    Leila Hann said:
    But then again, they showed two girls holding hands recently in a scene with highly ambiguous framing, so I guess that makes up for it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Quick question, did you think Renora was canon after V4?

    VolantRedX said:
    That's pretty specious reasoning. Particularly because The Beast in the story is often depicted as having bullhorns and a terrible temper, and is super possessive.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Arryn has confirmed that Adam is Gaston. He is also possibly the curse given his symbol is a flower and the embodiment of the beasts curse was the flower.

    Meanwhile Blake was noted to be both beauty and the beast, however in Red Like Roses 2, the Lyrics of Blake & Yang flow into each other perfectly with Yang being described as a beauty, there's also a bunch of visual parallels, especially recently with the battle between Blake, Yang & Adam, I can link you some of the comparison pieces if you like.
     
    Reminder: Salem is both Rapunzel and the Wicked Witch of the West.

    They don't lock all the characters down to only being allowed to have one fairy tale influence
     
    Leila Hann said:
    It's a misstep when Ozma is, in the source material, a woman who spent time as a man, and they're using the name for the previous incarnation of someone who frequently changes bodies. What would have been especially great in this case is that in addition to raising questions about the "actual" gender of the wizard, it would also have made her original incarnation lesbian on account of the thing with Salem. Considering how much the writers bragged early on about making their show LGBT friendly, this is kind of a cringeworthy missed opportunity.

    It doesn't help that they already kind of spat in the face of the original Oz books' feminist slant with their reimagining of the wizard and Glinda. Like, to an almost MRA-ish extent.

    But then again, they showed two girls holding hands recently in a scene with highly ambiguous framing, so I guess that makes up for it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Except, Ozma's time as a man has little to no effect on them as a person. Ozma goes from 'protagonist boy' to a figure similar to Glynda in the Oz series - powerful and mysterious but not really a character in her own right. Hell, one of the later books (the eleventh I think?) she's straight reduced to a McGuffin that goes missing and triggers the actual plot.

    Also, while I am a big fan of the Oz books, they are not feminist (unless we mean in the most broad possible sense).

    I agree, it would have been an interesting thing to explore - and I want to write a fanfic now where it's the case - but I think regarding it as 'MRA-ish' or somehow anti LGBT rather than just a cool thing they could have done and didn't is completely and utterly nuts. Like, by this logic your favourite series, Metroid, should be pilloried equally for not exploring LGBT themes.
     
    hellgodsrus said:
    Except, Ozma's time as a man has little to no effect on them as a person. Ozma goes from 'protagonist boy' to a figure similar to Glynda in the Oz series - powerful and mysterious but not really a character in her own right. Hell, one of the later books (the eleventh I think?) she's straight reduced to a McGuffin that goes missing and triggers the actual plot.

    Also, while I am a big fan of the Oz books, they are not feminist (unless we mean in the most broad possible sense).

    I agree, it would have been an interesting thing to explore - and I want to write a fanfic now where it's the case - but I think regarding it as 'MRA-ish' or somehow anti LGBT rather than just a cool thing they could have done and didn't is completely and utterly nuts. Like, by this logic your favourite series, Metroid, should be pilloried equally for not exploring LGBT themes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The "MRA" ish comment was with regards to what they did to Glinda back in seasons 1-3. What they did with Ozma isn't nearly as bad on its own, but the former gives it a worse look than it would otherwise have had.

    Ozma was reduced to McGuffin in one book out of many, sure. But in others she was the main protagonist, and not just in "The Land of Oz" when she was in male form. "Glinda of Oz" in particular. Most of the main characters in the Oz books were female and did things proactively for their own reasons. The most powerful and dangerous entity in Oz, Glinda, was fully actualized in most of the books, and likewise did things for her own reasons (which were rarely, if ever, related to motherhood or sexuality, as female characters often get restricted to). Same goes for a lot of the villains too. There was some weird gender essentialist stuff in there too, and General Jinjur's revolt was...erm...something, but unless there's something awful I'm blocking out of my memory the series as a whole was, yes, pretty darned feminist.

    Metroid Other M still exists, however much we all wish it weren't the case, so pillorying that series for gender stuff isn't exactly a challenge. :(

    Zam said:
    Quick question, did you think Renora was canon after V4?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    They actually talked about how they were becoming a thing, in that scene. Like, it wasn't just handholding. They talked about it.
     
    Leila Hann said:
    The "MRA" ish comment was with regards to what they did to Glinda back in seasons 1-3. What they did with Ozma isn't nearly as bad on its own, but the former gives it a worse look than it would otherwise have had.

    Ozma was reduced to McGuffin in one book out of many, sure. But in others she was the main protagonist, and not just in "The Land of Oz" when she was in male form. "Glinda of Oz" in particular. Most of the main characters in the Oz books were female and did things proactively for their own reasons. The most powerful and dangerous entity in Oz, Glinda, was fully actualized in most of the books, and likewise did things for her own reasons (which were rarely, if ever, related to motherhood or sexuality, as female characters often get restricted to). Same goes for a lot of the villains too. There was some weird gender essentialist stuff in there too, and General Jinjur's revolt was...erm...something, but unless there's something awful I'm blocking out of my memory the series as a whole was, yes, pretty darned feminist.

    Metroid Other M still exists, however much we all wish it weren't the case, so pillorying that series for gender stuff isn't exactly a challenge. :(



    They actually talked about how they were becoming a thing, in that scene. Like, it wasn't just handholding. They talked about it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I must admit it's been many, many years since I've read all the Oz books, so I'll defer to your expertise here. That being said, I don't recall many other books where she was a major protagonist or did much, and I don't recall Glinda being that major of a player (even in Glinda of Oz - then again I recall I struggled to get through that one and it was literally over a decade and a half ago that I tried to read it).

    Moreover, Ren and Nora do not talk about their relationship at all. Ever. It's implied at just the same level as Bumblebee. So...
     
    Once you get to the point of saying any one character equals half a dozen other characters such concepts lose meaning.
     
    Leila Hann said:
    Hmm, so they don't.

    I still think the framing is quite a bit more overtly romantic than the Blake/Yang moment, but not by nearly as much so as I remembered.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Thanks :)

    Fair enough, though by the same token Ren and Nora never had Ren's ex show up and say they'd destroy everything he loves then cut to Nora arriving, or screaming at Ren "What does she even see in you!?" while trying to kill him ETC, so I feel there is that too.
     
    JSanders4 said:
    Keep in mind that Mook gave a Doylist explanation, whereas you're looking for a Watsonian one.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah, because a Watsonian explanation is far easier than saying "because plot, lol".
    Carrnage said:
    the fairytale motifs are there they're just not obvious Adam for example isn't the beast in beauty and the beast he is the curse, the curse that turns blake who is the beauty and beast into a paranoid exile and tried to turn her into a monster, but the curse is ultimately thwarted by love.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That or they just went full edge on the Beast and went "lol, stockholm syndrome, amirite?" instead of fully exploring what it means to be a beast.

    Think about how the "Adam = Gaston/Yang = Beast" angle fails.

    "Let's make the ugly, misshapen person the beautiful man with a black heart and let's make the beautiful woman the ugly monster with a heart of gold."

    The rupturing of that theme would only be more obvious is if they made a RWBY version of Quasimodo and made him a villain while making the RWBY version of Frollo a good guy.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top