Forums > RWBY

Quality Concerns

Posts (27)

  • user-5848d785b1a95

    user-5848d785b1a95

    #33660795 - 2 months ago

    I don't mean to come across as the sort of guy that just likes to bash things.I like the series a lot, but it's rather hard to enjoy it when there is basically no praise and all criticism.I think this still has a lot of potential despite the controversial 4th volume. But i'm having my doubts. The characters are great and the world is interesting, but it's marred by bad writing, like the silver eye deus ex machina and nothing getting done with the plot aside from some slight developments in vol 4, telling and not showing, like the human/faunus hate that hasn't really been seen, characters handled badly, like with Blake not being shown as the sympathetic girl we feel bad for, and made too mean spirited and almost dumb, and Ruby just not getting any development. ect. The worst part is it seems that the writing went sour in 3 and got worse in 4, and it seems like nothing will improve, I don't know if Miles and Kerry are still putting their best effort into it or what, or if we need some new writers or reviewers added. I honestly want to hear some news other than things getting worse, and is there anything us viewers can do about this?

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33661602 - 2 months ago

    In reply to user-5848d785b1a95

    You're not wrong about the writing going sour in season 3 and all of 4.  Hell, I predicted every piece of 4 just from knowing that RWBY was split up, and how utterly skeletal it all was.  And OH YES on the Silver Saiyan ex Machina, I've got a whole piece on that right here.

  • Vezeto

    Vezeto

    #33661784 - 2 months ago

    This isn't really my forte, but for the sake of a discussion I'll do a mind dump.


    There might be hope yet for volume 5. I feel that volume 4 had two main things working against it: happening right after a climax, and too many directions.


    Right after a huge climax in a story, it can be tricky getting things on track again. Since the climax is by definition one of the coolest things that can happen in the story, anything that comes immediately after it can never reach that same height for a while. The other issue is expectations. Binge watching a show and watching a show as it airs are very different experiences. I tend to forget weak episodes while binge watching, but those same episodes stand out more when it's the only episode I've seen that week. If a fan has joined within the past year or so, the highlights of RWBY will stand out in their mind, and that will shape their expectations. 


    And for the record, I'm not saying our expectations are too high, but more just pointing out how factors can subtly change our perception of quality. I still agree volume 4 has issues though.


    The other issue I mentioned earlier was too many directions. Most shows have an A plot and a B plot, and for good reason. By switching stories at the peak of each event, the show essentially creates mini cliffhangers that keep things interesting. Without a B plot, a show would basically be a string of "and then they _____, and then they _____, and then...". However, volume 4 had separate plots for RNJR, Blake, Yang, Weiss, and Oscar (plus another plot if you feel like counting Ren/Nora's backstory). That's 5 or 6 different plots in a show that only has 12 fifteenish minute episodes. Naturally they couldn't develop everyone because each character had to fit in a volumes worth of growth with only ~30 minutes each! (total time split even among them, which is technically bad logic but I'm sticking to it!)


    Good new is they can't stay split forever. Hopefully we'll be back to good ol' A plot B plot soon enough.


    I honestly have no idea how good or bad volume 5 will be. However, I'm not convinced the show is heading downhill yet. Volume 4 had lots working against it, so I'll withhold making predictions until volume 6.


    So what can we do about it?


    Best thing I can think of is maintaining a healthy and vocal community. I'm not sure if they actually listen to feedback on the forums, but short of storming their headquarters to takeover writing ourselves, this is the best way I can think of to make our concerns heard. It is in their best interests to make an appealing product for us, and most people I know would happily take suggestions that are better than their own ideas. 


    Emphasis on healthy community though. Whining does nothing, and frankly it makes me want to avoid to forums and comments all together. Call out the writers on their poor decisions, but do so intelligently! If you have a grievance, give specific examples and explain why it doesn't work. Don't attack the creators, deconstruct the decision. Give them a rational, well-thought out argument to persuade them you are correct. Make it clear that you have thought things through and are looking out for the well being of the show.


    Honestly, typed out that looks cheesy, and I am an idealist that has no business giving advice for the internet. But still, I can't think of anything else. The writers are people too. They make honest mistakes, have feelings, and are capable of change. We should give them a chance before lashing out.


    Speaking of which, if we DO decide to storm their headquarters, let me know! I'll bring my piano wire!

     

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33661803 - 2 months ago

    In reply to Vezeto

    As I said, I saw the issues with season 4 and its pacing and juggling several storylines in the obscenely short amount of time they had the second they revealed that team RWBY was split up.  I've been playing tabletop role-playing games for years, and the same kind of pitfalls are present when the PCs split the party: the GM MUST devote enough time to each without alienating any one section, and RT walked right into that trap.  It merely met my very low expectations, which were set from season 3, so those expectations are still that low.

    As far as giving them rational, well thought-out arguments, deconstructing their decisions, comparing them to similar events in other stories and showing just why it worked them but did not work in RWBY, and calling out the poor decisions intelligently, I have been doing that.  I've been doing that since the poor decisions made themselves known.  The problem might be that the quality hasn't actually dropped, but was ALWAYS this poor.  Remember, certain decisions were planned from the beginning, right?  And I've shown in great detail just why some of those decisions were the worst things they could have done.  Moreover, I never even needed to touch the aspects of allegory, symbolism or any other such purely subjective aspect.  I only needed the writing mechanic side of things to show all of my points.

  • user-5848d785b1a95

    user-5848d785b1a95

    #33662119 - 2 months ago

    (This was meant as a reply to Veseto.)Yea, I think that the main problem was the things you listed, plus being the first Vol without Monty at all. I have some hope for Vol 5, the one thing that really upsets me is that this is a web based show, a main advantage is no restrictions on how long or short an episode has to be, but they SOMEHOW managed to not get enough happening in every episode for us to see things moving and not skip over anything. But yes, as I said I'm not bashing just to point out flaws, it has a lot of potential despite some shakiness. Making criticisms politely will help that work out. I very much like this series despite its flaws. Also, do you know anything about that new writer rumor?

  • 09philj

    09philj

    #33663552 - 2 months ago

    The thing about RWBY is that it's a collection of good ideas that are badly put together and have several other bad ideas stuck on top. The series is entertaining, and I wouldn't continue to watch it if it wasn't, but the plotting and world building is always seriously flawed. As we get further on, earlier bad decisions will undermine the story more and more. It's unlikely to become less entertaining moment to moment, but it's also unlikely to get better on any other level. Volume 4 did leave the plot in a reasonably good place to force the rest of the show onto a more coherent through line, but I don't think the writers have the confidence or competence to change course that dramatically. It's possible when the show is finished some talented fans will try to remake the series from the ground up, in some form or another, and I hope they do, because RWBY contains too many positive things for them to be wasted on the show itself.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665867 - 1 month ago

    I think the draw of RWBY is and always has been its earnestness and sense of humor, not novel or especially well-constructed plotting, so nothing in the OP really bugs me. I don't expect sophisticated plotting or deep dialogue; I do expect layered characters that clumsily and meaningfully say what they want and who they are (and admit that I think of that clumsiness as its own kind of sophistication, intended or otherwise).


    What does bug me, as I rewatch Volume 3 now: why doesn't Qrow remember Mercury? In volume 3 he literally calls Mercury a "helpless kid" after Mercury's broken-leg incident with Yang, but the flashback in this same episode showed Qrow fighting Mercury. Was this inconsistency addressed while I wasn't paying attention, or do they later explain it somehow? Are he and Ozpin laying the world's worst and least well planned trap?

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665883 - 1 month ago

    Also, secondary complaint, also in Volume 3: doing away with Torchwick just as he finally gained some depth as a character (beginning to tell us that he doesn't do this because "Oh man, evil." but out of fear of his backers and a jaded, aggressive cowardice). Ugh. This is the very opposite of what I love about most of RWBY's characters. Torchwick seriously got shafted as main characters go.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33665890 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    Perhaps the plot does not have to be sophisticated, but it has to be SOLID.  No matter how simple your plot is, it kinda does have to be well-constructed.  People who know what to look for in that regard are going to notice it, and subsequently point it out.  Part of that is using your characters effectively, and there's a degree that they haven't, especially in their biggest moments.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665896 - 1 month ago

    I think it depends on what you mean by solid. I don't think the plot has been especially impressive in any season to date; seasons 1 and 2 were just fairly generic world building with at best modest and mostly coloring-in-the-lines character development. And yet RWBY was massively successful (edit: and I also loved and continue to love it, to be clear; the point of my post somewhat swamped properly conveying my feelings about the show). I attribute that to its earnestness and sense of humor.


    I agree that gaping plot holes could sink the ship, and that it could always be better by moving from "generic fantasy plot" to "heroic human story," but I don't think that's what has won RWBY's audience so far. And similarly for world-building: the notion that a world inhabited by generic evil critters and a school of individuals trained to fight them is the explanation for RWBY's success is really hard to swallow. To call that plotting "trite" is not only true: it's so commonly observed that to point out how trite it is... is itself trite.


    I think the worst that could be said about s3's plot and world-building is that they took more risks than s1 and s2. s1 and s2 were all about some limited focus on the main characters and their incredibly vanilla interactions with deeply non-threatening, almost totally uncharacterized enemies. s3 finally gave us something to care about in the bad guys of the RWBY universe, gave us events that actually matter to our heroes' lives, and made the threats they face feel real. Honestly, I think s3 was the closest the show's come so far to good story-telling; s1 and s2 were by comparison quite blasé.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33665933 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    Look at it this way (and I DO have to use Pyrrha's death as a prime example): if you're going to kill a character AND have someone get a power-up off of seeing it happen, you HAVE to at least give some sort of audience context as to what the power-up is, at least so we can start painting a picture in our own heads.  It matters not if what we think of is far off from what actually manifests, just that enough context is there that it's clearly not coming out of nowhere.  Second, you have to do one of two things, regardless of prior trauma level of the person getting the power up:

    1. you have to SHOW the relationship between the two characters (the one being killed and the one getting the power-up) developing on-screen well above the baseline of the character getting a power-up.

    2. In the case of a relationship that had been established prior to the narrative starting, you have to heavily emphasize it.

    You need to so one of these two things to clearly show that the bond between the two matters a great deal, so when the time comes to kill one, the emotions (and subsequent power eruption) carries its narrative weight.  And you have to do this regardless of prior trauma.  Simply put, a friend isn't enough anymore,  You now need a best friend, a cherished relative (be it a sibling or parental figure), a lover, etc.  Quite frankly, the only ones that would have made Ruby's Silver Eyes carry its weight are Jaune, Weiss, Penny or Yang.  Every other character is ill-suited to be the Silver Eyes catalyst.  Now, if JAUNE had been the one receiving the power-up, then Pyrrha is the BEST catalyst for it.  But she is not for Ruby. 

    This is an example of what I mean by using your characters effectively, and in the biggest moment of the first three seasons, they did not, plain and simple.  And when you flub on the mechanics end of things to this degree, any subjective concept you want to buld on that stops mattering.  That's the big thing people forget about writing: you are still BUILDING SOMETHING.  Just like the process of constructing a building, you have to make sure that your blueprints are calculated correctly and that your building materials are of the appropriate quality in order to make a solid support structure and foundation.  If that's not done, it doesn't matter how good the aesthetic is.  All of this applies to writing a story as well.

    In addition, her death served no functional purpose.  Every defense that the fans and the writers have used to justify Pyrrha's death had actually been more than sufficiently achieved at some point prior during the Invasion (go ahead and pick one, I can tell you exactly how it wasn't an applicable reason). 

    Just so you know, I had absolutely no problem with Penny's or Roman's death.  The two of them were billed as support characters, were used as such, and recieved a character death within that character tier.  However, a billed MAIN character, if you are actually going to use them as such, is entitled to a couple things.

    1. Any character arcs need to be completed to satisfaction
    2. their final moments need to be about them first and foremost

    Pyrrha was granted neither of these things.  IIRC, the season 1 commentary made mention about how they'd envisioned JNPR as a "B" team, but elevated them to an "A" team alongside RWBY in the closing moments of early development.  That's all but saying "this group of four characters are now on the same level as RWBY, MAIN tier characters".  With Pyrrha, the character arc she got first was the Maiden plot, but it wasn't about taking the powers or not, it was about (when you factor in all the dialogue by several characters associated with that plot) the direct ramifications on herself with either option.  Not only that, Ozpin's tone, the very different way he was associating with a student compared to every other time we see him interacting with a student, as well as the situation, made it clear that Ozpin, despite his words, didn't actually intend this to be a choice for Pyrrha.  However, her emotional connections made since she came to Beacon made it a choice in her own perspective, thus the drama that came from the Maiden plot carried its narrative weight.  HOWEVER, the events of the Invasion made her going for those powers a mere act of desperation to quell the Invasion, as was in no way based on that dilemma, so that character arc received a "no conclusion".  Her emotions and narrative drama ultimately never mattered.  Then, you have TWO MORE character arcs fall into Pyrrha's lap, brought on by her accidentally killing Penny: "how does she deal with the guilt of killing an innocent?" and "how does she deal with the loss of her reputation?".  As of right now, assuming Pyrrha is no longer going to be used as a character in her own right (I cannot objectively rule out a possible resurrection, I don't care how you personally feel about such a thing happening), both of these character arcs received a "no conclusion".  All three of these character arcs required her to grow from the experience, which means she at least has to live long enough to decide for herself, much like how Yang has to decide whether or not she's not going to be so reckless in combat again: either she does or she does not, but the fact is, she has to LIVE for the audience to see the results.  This means that the death of the character is NOT a satisfactory conclusion to ANY of these character arcs.

    Finally, her final moments were not about her at all.  The fight against Cinder was more about showing off Cinder's new powerset with Pyrrha as the punching bag, and that is reinforced by the fact that the Ozpin/Cinder fight was NOT shown in detail (and what little we DID get implied that OZPIN was winning).  Not only that, Pyrrha would never have lasted that long against CInder on her own right.  To this, I bring forth Glynda Goodwitch, who was used as a benchmark for how powerful Cinder was in the very first episode.  First, Glynda has years more experience than Pyrrha.  Second, Glynda's main method of attack, a general telekinesis, is used to a FAR greater degree of power than Pyrrha's ever used Polarity, AND Glynda is far more versatile than Polarity.  Next, they powered up Cinder AND emotionally/mentally weakened Pyrrha before the two of them fought.  Finally, Cinder had already displayed a character trait of toying with a clearly inferior opponent once the job had been completed (her skirmish against Ruby in the comm tower in season 2).  Combine all of that, and the result is clear: Pyrrha only lasted as long as she did because Cinder was TOYING WITH HER.  Therefore, it is NOT Pyrrha who drives the narrative here, it is Cinder.  And of course, the death itself just being the catalyst for the Silver Eyes means that RUBY was in the driver's seat, not Pyrrha.  For someone who is supposed to be a MAIN character, she died two tiers BELOW that, and doing that is not effective use of your characters, glaringly so if this misuse happens during your big three-season payoff.  Pyrrha's agency and ability to be the main driver of the narrative ended the second she burst out of the broken elevator, and that's inexcusable for a main character who the writer has given their final moments.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665947 - 1 month ago

    I agree that using Pyrrha as the initial catalyst for Ruby's eyes was a somewhat awkward choice; I don't think it was a terrible one (because Pyrrha was still reasonably important to the story/viewer and Ruby's general investment in everyone's safety and the world's stability are well-established), but certainly there are plenty of other characters that had closer connections to Ruby and would have made more sense as her trigger, particularly any of her immediate teammates or relatives.


    I'm not sure I'm sold on the rest, though. These two requirements seem somewhat arbitrary to me:

    1. Any character arcs need to be completed to satisfaction
    2. their final moments need to be about them first and foremost


    Denying an important character either or both of these graces seems to me a way to make their demise more painful for the viewer. Watching Pyrrha die was all the more upsetting because she had so much left to complete that existed only in implication. That leaves Pyrrha an only partially completed character, and means her build-up and death were used primarily as tools for moving the story forward and impacting the viewer's feelings, but I don't think those are illegitimate uses of a character.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33665949 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    "Denying an important character either or both of these graces seems to me a way to make their demise more painful for the viewer. Watching Pyrrha die was all the more upsetting because she had so much left to complete that existed only in implication. That leaves Pyrrha an only partially completed character, and means her build-up and death were used primarily as tools for moving the story forward and impacting the viewer's feelings, but I don't think those are illegitimate uses of a character."

    And it takes agency away from them AS a character.  They are no longer characters, but mere plot devices.  Pyrrha's aesthetic doesn't matter anymore.  Hell, with that kind of logic, it could have been anyone up there, which still takes away from any significance of it being her in the first place.  Not only that, you've essentially implied that it is OK to do this to ANY character, regardless of their ability to drive a narrative.  Imagine that they decided that Ruby gets to die via being hit by a car midway through season 6 without accomplishing anything.  It might be an extreme scenario, but your logic process and your reasoning remove from you any ability to criticize it.

    This concept is why the supporting cast exist in the first place.  Take Star Trek for an example.  I assume you've heard of the term "Red Shirt" before, yes.  Well, if you haven't, it refers to the security officers that tended to accompany Captain Kirk and the rest of the landing parties, and would eventually die to showcase the dangers of the episode.  Sometimes they may have names.  However, this is the sum total of their ability to drive a narrative.  That is why they are there.  The story doesn't truly revolve around them, and they have no other purpose.  Of course they may end up with a rich backstory and some other cool things about them and their own adventures that they may go on off-screen (the "Hero of Another Story" trope), but the narrative we are seeing is not about them, it is about Kirk, Spock and McCoy.  To subject them to such a sudden and immediate end removes a key piece of Star Trek's overarching narrative.  I would also refer you to read up on the "Stuffed in the Fridge" trope for the textbook explanation of what kind of death Pyrrha suffered, and how it is especially jarring to see it happen to main characters.  This excerpt is notable:

    "While it is strictly true that Tropes Are Not Bad, this one, especially as a catchphrase, is often given a very negative connotation as it is all too often a hallmark of supremely lazy writing—using the death of a character as "cheap anger" for the protagonist, and devaluing the life of that character in the process, instead of giving the villain something actually interesting to do that can involve all three characters and more emotions than simple anger and angst."  And it very much IS lazy writing (with everything I've said so far laying out why it is lazy writing), writing that would have been called out 20-30 years ago.  Penny was most certainly Stuffed In The Fridge as well, but as a support character, it is mechanically appropriate.


    Or take Maes Hughes of Full Metal Alchemist.  Pure support from the start and made a lovable character, abruptly cut off by Envy just he was about to relay important information to Mustang.  As gut-wrenching as the death was, I had to problem with it because the mechanics in the writing were sound on all fronts.  The same goes with Penny Polendina.  On these characters, it's ok to cut off their story in the middle because their function within the narrative is to support others.  That is their level of ability to drive the narrative.  The problem with modern authors, not just RWBY's, is that it seems like they're more than willing to ignore these mechanics to deliver shock moments just to affect the audience, regardless of whether or not it's actually a good move in terms of the function of the story, as well as the inability (or unwillingness) of the modern audience to recognize this and rightfully call it out.  And ultimately, there can BE no story without the characters to populate it, therefore it is THEIR feeling and emotions, supported by the objective mechanics of writing, that matter most, not us.  This isn't about you or me, it's about THEM.  Withing the scope of the narrative, THEY matter more than we do, and I know that's going to be a hard truth to swallow in today's selfish world where we're only concerned about what an author can give us.  I'd like you to read one of my writings on RWBY on my profile, specifically the DBZ/RWBY comparison.  I go into great detail about why Goku's ascension to Super Saiyan carried its narrative weight, and why Krillin, despite the audience KNOWING he as going to come back, was the ONLY correct catalyst for that plot event, and ultimately, why the scene in and of itself carries its weight and is still powerful, even as the modern audience lambasts DBZ for much everything else.

    And finally, what cuts into your counter is how RWBY was initially presented to us, as well as the comments about JNPR being elevated to an "A" team as RWBY already was: the impression was that the story was to be about ALL OF THEM, and as such, they all would have prime ability to drive a narrative.  According to Orson Scott Card's MICE Quotient, it was presented as a Character core narrative (the "C"), but the reveal via the writer's own comments around season 3 revealed that it was not intended to be that, but another core narrative entirely, the Event narrative.  Thus, they broke another of Card's concepts, called the "Contract With The Reader", which, at its simplest, is that you do not lie about the core narrative of your story to your audience.

    http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/Workshop-stuff/MICE-Quotient.htm

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665950 - 1 month ago

    Yes, I agree that in Pyrrha's final moments she became a plot device. I just don't think that's necessarily a bad decision. Not every character in every show needs to be a fully realized human being at all times. Sometimes throwing a character under the bus to create a desired emotional reaction in the audience is the right choice.

    And, yeah, I agree that many characters could have performed the same job in the plot. I think Pyrrha was an OK choice, as her nobility, skill, and sense of duty made her rushing to the tower-top to confront Cinder a very natural thing for her to do, but I do think many characters could have served almost the same role, and a character emotionally closer to Ruby would have made the most sense (with suitable story-boarding changes to explain how that character ended up facing off with Cinder).

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33665952 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    You still have to use the RIGHT character to throw under the bus.  Pyrrha was not that character, and in this case, it was very much a bad decision.  Believe it or not, fiction does not follow the rules of reality (you know, where our own lives can be cut off at any time by stupid shit), no matter how much we want them to, and focus characters get elevated above the rest.  They are entitled to things that the supporting cast are not.  In fiction, not all characters are created equal, again another hard truth that must be acknowledged.  You simply do not treat Captain Kirk like a Red Shirt, and you don't treat Han Solo like an Imperial Stormtrooper.

    Quite frankly, if they truly wanted to show that no one was safe, they would have either had Adam kill Yang (with Ruby getting to them with just enough time to let Yang give her good bye as a main character is entitled to, kick-starting the Silver Eyes), or had Jaune die to Cinder.  Unlike Pyrrha, Jaune's main character arc, that of the desire to be the hero, DOES have death as a satisfactory conclusion.  Hell, I could easily detail the basics of how that could have gone down.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665953 - 1 month ago

    Yeah, as I said, I agree that she probably wasn't the best choice, but I also think she was far from the worst one. I'm not sure what else to say about that; it's difficult to quantify precisely how far from optimal she was as a choice and how important that suboptimality was. I don't think it was so bad a choice that it struck a particularly crucial blow to the plot's quality, but your mileage may certainly vary there, as deciding precisely how important some particular character's demise (versus the hypothetical demise of some other character) is to plot quality's a pretty fuzzy thing. We could write a thesis on trying to axiomatize, formally measure, and reasonably standardize the "correct" magnitude of that disappointment, but I think it's more reasonable to not do that. stuck_out_tongue

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33665954 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    Actually, I CAN rank them for the purposes of finding the best catalyst (and I have to be able to for the purpose of in-depth critical analysis of fiction), and all I have to do is look at their on-screen developing relationship (or emphasis of a pre-existing relationship) as well as what they had going on in terms of character arcs.  Of the sum total of the cast, you have five characters that Ruby shows affection to beyond her baseline for friendship: Jaune, Weiss, Penny, Yang and Qrow.  Six if you count Taiyang, but he's more tied into Yang's development (in short, while he'd serve as an effective catalyst for Ruby, he'd serve as an even more effective catalyst for Yang).  With the first three, we have a decent amount of screentime devoted to their development.  With the latter, it's an emphasized pre-existing relationship.

    I'll edit this later, but my final rankings, taking into account the above are from least effective to most effective: Jaune, Weiss, Penny, Qrow, Yang.  No one else has sufficient screentime interacting with Ruby to place them above her baseline for friendship.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33665955 - 1 month ago

    While I think that's a reasonable ranking (though I might throw Blake into the mix as well), ranking and measuring (at least in the sense that I was using it) are rather different things. Ranking is ordinal, but the important measurement here is presumably cardinal, albeit with considerable interpersonal variation.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33666123 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    I would not throw Blake into that, as Ruby's not had any inter-personal screen-time with her yet.  All of Blake's time has been taken up by either Weiss, Sun or more notably Yang, so if you were to kill Blake to give someone else a power-up, it'd have to be either Sun or Yang...and with Yang, you'd be doing double-duty with Ruby.  You get the emotional impact from seeing Yang killed, and you erupt the Silver Eyes.  This is why it's odd to me: the scene with Yang/Blake/Adam show that the writers DO know how to apply these mechanics, and yet in their biggest moment, they face-plant the landing.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33666157 - 1 month ago

    It may be that they wanted Pyrrha to be the one to die atop the tower because she symbolizes the current world's stability and safety. She's always been an untouchable fighter and the paragon of duty/nobility. Having Cinder destroy her drives home in a crispy, human-shaped message that peace is at an end.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33666160 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    And we go back to the concept that your mechanics have to be solid, otherwise your aesthetics, such as symbolism, do not matter.  It's like giving an answer on a test without showing your work.  You don't get credit for just giving the answer, you have to demonstrate your understanding of the material being tested.

  • neverconvex

    neverconvex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    #33666173 - 1 month ago

    I disagree. I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33666181 - 1 month ago

    In reply to neverconvex

    Is that the best you can do?  Saying that doesn't actually put any weight behind your claim, since all you did was defend a claim with another claim, with no real words to back up either claim.

    When you write, you are, in effect, building something.  That means that you have to have a solid foundation and support structure to support your work's aesthetics, just as an architect has to have a properly calculated blueprint and sufficient-quality building material to support whatever the building's going to look like.  And when that's not in place, none of the building's appeal matters, not when it's going to crumble under its own weight.  So yes, the analogy applies, as does this one.  For the biggest payoffs in your work of fiction, you HAVE to put in the proper investment, and RT didn't do that.

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33666183 - 1 month ago

    In reply to DavidLekin

    Not quite true there.  I understood the mechanics behind the drama surrounding Pyrrha and her arc to be mechanically sound, thus it rightfully carried its narrative weight, just as the mechanics around her death were shoddy.  Really good setup, horrible execution, and I would have said that regardless of any personal feeling towards the character or not.  This is most definitely not a case of "if you liked her then it works".

  • WrightKnight

    WrightKnight

    #33666293 - 1 month ago

    In reply to DavidLekin

    By good setup, I was referring to the main character level plot hooks Pyrrha got into, stuff that was appropriate for her character tier.  Also, Fridging can happen to ANY character.  It is not required for the character to be shit.  She was snuffed by Cinder in a battle that only served to show off Cinder's new powers, and Ruby got a powerup off of it.  That's textbook Fridging right there.


    As far as my previous post is concerned, I laid out in great detail those terms as applied to RWBY.  It's not my fault if you chose not to read them....and then I remember exactly who it is I'm dealing with.  HI MEK!  Nice to know you're still sealioning as usual.