Discussion TearJerker / RWBY

That doesn't mean every entry on the page is written as an audience reaction. An entry doesn't have to use the words "the audience" this or that, but it has to make it clear that what's been discussed is the audience's reaction and not be a character reaction or a scene summary.

I think this would work better:

• Ironwood's final moments show how far he's fallen from a powerful, respected, larger-than-life leader, through killing allies and burning bridges with friends to the pathos of his end: he's reduced to nothing, barely acknowledged by Salem, and dying unmourned and alone under the debris of the kingdom he sacrificed everything and everyone to save.

That's fine by me.

As the person who originally added the initial edit (NOT the version with the misused dramatic irony edit) I agree with this edit with a few addons.

• Ironwood's final moments show how far he's fallen from a powerful, respected, larger-than-life leader, through killing allies, burning bridges with friends and sacrificing/threatening the lives of the civilians he swore to protect to the pathos of his end: he's reduced to nothing, barely acknowledged by Salem when the two finally come face-to-face, and dying unmourned and alone under the debris of the kingdom he sacrificed everything and everyone to save.

That works for me.

That's fine by me as well.

The Greatest Kingdom: Penny's return is also a reminder of the people that died because of Cinder's actions in Volume 3. While this brings to mind Roman and Pyrrha, Lionheart's statement in Volume 5 about most of Mistral's Huntsmen dying to stop Grimm attacks that night means that countless lives were lost that night, and the only ones that came back were Penny and Ozpin, the latter reincarnating into Oscar.

Side note: Would it be fair to describe Penny and Ozpin as catalysts for the Fall of Beacon? A lot of what happened was due to Ozpin's actions, but Cinder might not have been able to cause as much harm if Penny wasn't in the tournament.

Ace Operatives: While the episode is exciting as the cast show their new upgrades, it also reminds them of what they've lost or suffered on their journey:

• Jaune's new gear includes a smaller red sash, meaning he has to remove the one he's been wearing in Pyrrha's memory, running his hand across it as he realizes this. That the new sash is shorter is a reminder of Pyrrha's diminishing role in the show.
• Ren is now carrying his father's knife in a sheath on his arm.
• Clover asks Qrow about his old team. Qrow comments that he was on a team, but found working alone to be better, remembering Raven's betrayal in Volume 5, as well as her and Summer disappearing.
• Once in the mine, Blake, Weiss, and Marrow have a conversation about the treatment of Faunus. Blake realizes this is where Ilia lost her parents. Weiss recalls how furious her father was over the accident, a factor in her "difficult childhood" as she put it in Volume 1, and tells Blake she wishes she could take back what her family's done. Marrow's part is how they can't really stop the bigotry because humans have no incentive to fix things, bringing to mind Ilia's enraged declarations in Volume 5, and even Velvet's bullying from CRDL in Volume 1.

I'm fine with the Greatest Kingdom rewrite. I'd just change 'brings to mind...' to 'reminds the audience of...'

I would disagree with Penny and Ozpin being catalysts for the fall of Beacon. The only way Ozpin would be a catalyst is in the sense that he built the schools to protect the Relics and Salem wants the Relics. However, Salem has also stated she wants to destroy everything Ozpin has ever built, so it doesn't really matter what Ozpin does or doesn't do — Salem wants to 'destroy' him either way.

Regarding the Ace Ops rewrite:

• I'm fine with the Jaune entry.
• Ren's is a bit zero context.
• Clover entry about Qrow is very speculative, almost borderline Fridge.
• The mine is okay, but I'd change 'brings to mind Ilia's...' to 'reminds the audience of Ilia's...'

The Greatest Kingdom: Penny's return is also a reminder of the people that died because of Cinder's actions in Volume 3. While this reminds the audience of Roman and Pyrrha, Lionheart's statement in Volume 5 about most of Mistral's Huntsmen dying to stop Grimm attacks that night means that countless lives were lost that night, and the only ones that came back were Penny and Ozpin, the latter reincarnating into Oscar.

Ace Operatives: While the episode is exciting as the cast shows off their new upgrades, it also reminds them of what they've lost or suffered on their journey:

• Jaune's new gear includes a smaller red sash, meaning he has to remove the one he's been wearing in Pyrrha's memory, running his hand across it as he realizes this. That the new sash is shorter is a reminder of Pyrrha's diminishing role in the show.
• Ren is now carrying his late father's knife in a sheath on his arm. Even though he killed the Grimm that killed his parents in Volume 4, he's essentially wearing his feelings on his sleeve.
• Clover asks Qrow about his old team. Qrow confirms that he was on a team, but found working alone to be better, the tone of his voice reminds the audience of how Team STRQ was torn apart over the show's run.
• Once in the mine, Blake, Weiss, and Marrow have a conversation about the treatment of Faunus. Blake realizes this is where Ilia lost her parents. Weiss recalls how furious her father was over the accident, a factor in her "difficult childhood" as she put it in Volume 1, and tells Blake she wishes she could take back what her family's done. Marrow's part is how they can't really stop the bigotry because humans have no incentive to fix things, which reminds the audience of Ilia's enraged declarations in Volume 5, and even Velvet's bullying from CRDL in Volume 1.

Looks good to me.

The only real-life examples that I can see are Jen Brown's tweets, the part about BlazBlue and Monty's death, and why Miles doesn't write for Jaune. Everything else is good, and looking at it again, I don’t know why the whole folder was removed in the first place.

See the Real Life Maintenance thread.

Links appear to not be working.

Thread Name: Real Life section maintenance

Page Number: 291

First off, Blake has admitted several times that Adam didn't start off a psychopath, he was gradually warped into one. He might not have been a good person, Rooster Teeth hasn't explained his past, but it's established that Adam isn't the same person he used to be. And whatever hardships he put up with in the past, again RT, it was bad enough to justify committing terrorism. Just like Blake did when she became a terrorist, and she's from a wealthy family. Torchwick said it best: it's the uncaring elite that are cause of the faunus' lot in life; they're all victims of people and forces they can't control.

Second, the flashback portions of volume 3 showed that Adam listened to Cinder's proposal, refused by citing the risk to his people, and sent her away before Cinder forced him when she got her powers - a big difference from the Adam that murdered Sienna Khan with a smile on his face. Yes, he showed no remorse in the Black trailer; not seeing the victims makes it easy to ignore them. Oobleck and Team RWBY killed a lot of people in volume 2 but you probably didn't catch it at first because the Grimm masks hid their faces. And how many people do you think Roman and Neo killed in volume 3?

The Grimm invasions of volumes 2 and 3 and the Battle of Beacon destroyed whatever morals Adam had once he saw what his alliance allowed him to accomplish. And yeah, the fox twins are following his orders now since they all agree the Belladonnas are a threat. But if Adam can't be controlled, he ends up just like Sienna, and ultimately still a victim like he's always been. So while Adam's irredeemable, he's not without some measure of pity.

"And whatever hardships he put up with in the past, again RT, it was bad enough to justify committing terrorism." So i'm supposed to be sorry for him for him because he became a villain? Sorry, but like you said we haven't seen his past, we don't know what made him into what he is. We only know that Blake either saw him fall or simply misjudged him.

"Second, the flashback portions of volume 3 showed that Adam listened to Cinder's proposal, refused by citing the risk to his people," as far as i remember Exact Words were:"You're asking my men to die for your cause. A human cause." emphasis his. For all we know he might've been just unwilling to let his men help humans. We know he hates humans.

" Oobleck and Team RWBY killed a lot of people in volume 2 but you probably didn't catch it at first because the Grimm masks hid their faces. " I'll suprise you but i did. No immediately, i assumed they might've survived thatnks to Aura, but later Em mentioned a lot of faunus dying. And yes i DID feel sorry for them, as most of them trully fought for what they believed is right, just like RWBY.

"And how many people do you think Roman and Neo killed in volume 3? " Directly? A ship's crew, dozen or so. Indirectly? Everyone who died because of reprogramming the equipment, probably going in hundreds. None of this had anything to do with Adam's actions in Vol.5

"But if Adam can't be controlled, he ends up just like Sienna, and ultimately still a victim like he's always been." Sienna died because HE betrayed her. He and no one else is responsible for her death. Heck even Hazel was disgusted with what he did. If Foxbros decide that he cannot be trusted with leadership it will be his own damn fault for being shortsighted and blinded with revenge. Because i don't believe for a second that orders to kill Ghira and Kali are anything other than Revenge by Proxy on Blake for leaving him.

My point is: Even if it's tragic that Adam fell, right now he had shown no care for the Faunus and i see no reason to feel sorry for him in this specific episode and most definitely i don't see Foxbros as using him as a pawn.

He still allowed Cinder to make her proposal and let her team leave unharmed, despite letting them in at all being a security risk and having the numbers to kill all three of them. He hates humans, but back then he still had some restraint.

The Albains tell Ilia in episode 5 that Sienna was usurped by Adam and that they're using the "story that was agreed upon" to inform the other White Fang branches, calling it "the operation." Sienna's death was planned. And at the end of the episode, Fennec's already having doubts about Adam, and Corsac says that he's the leader "for now" and that they should do what's best for the Faunus. They're following Adam's orders for now but they are not loyal to him, just the White Fang's cause, and they'll dump him if they need to. Adam's become a monster, no denying that, but ultimately he's still a victim.

Whose victim? Foxbros are questioning if he's a good leader, but haven't made a move against him yet. And the reason they're questioning him in the first place is because he might be letting vengance and hatred blind his judgement. He murdered Sienna, now he ordered Ghira's assassination, because he hates him. Ilya is right that this isn't a good move. But for Adam it doesn't matter. Foxbros aren't using him and they're not questioning him because he outlived his usefulness, but because they realised that the man they're working for might not be what they initially thought. And if they turn on him it will be because f his actions. No matter how you look at it i don't see how this situation can be sad or tragic.

Roman's death isn't set up in any way except to make it feel deserved. I hate to inform of this, but a very, very large portion of the fanbase has....well, hopped on Roman's dick for quite a while now. I'm not trying to be rude, I just need to communicate the extent of it. I could not explain Roman's popularity if I tried.

But there do need to be in-story reasons for something to be worth tears in the first place. As upset as many a fan might be that Roman is dead, I assure you very few of them shed legitimate tears over it the way I'm crying about Pyrrha right now.

Question, though: Isn't a Tear Jerker defined by a viewer's emotional reaction? As such, does the trope *explicitly* require an in-story reason? I mean, I get it - from a storytelling and visual standpoint, Pyrrha's death is arguably the saddest seen thus far, and definitely worse than Roman's - but I (and many others, apparently) was still sorry to see him go. Just asking for the sake of clarification.

There are plenty that would argue that back and forth for days. In the end, I would say yes, an in-story reason is necessary. Otherwise, you'd get people like in the discussion above trying to call faunus in a trailer a tear-jerker, or the one from below us who insisted Weiss being jealous of NDGO for three seconds that were clearly meant for humor was a tear-jerker. There should probably be in-story reasons, and even if they aren't necessary, it's better to have them anyway.

Good ways to decide whether something is a real tear-jerker or not are one, if it needs prefacing. If you find yourself saying "For some, XYZ is definitely..." or "Not everyone feels..." then you probably are better off not adding it. The second way is, did you actually cry? Now, that's an intensely subjective rule, for example: I am hard pressed to cry about anything, just because I don't cry easily. But if you replay a scene and try to picture someone in actual tears over it, and it seems a bit stretched....well, you have your answer.

I am extremely sorry to see Pyrrha go....but what makes her death a tear-jerker isn't her death itself, but how cold and cruel and sadistic it was how she suffered before dying. Do you get what I'm saying?

Oh, I totally get it. Pyrrha was my favorite character since the show started. In terms of the overall narrative and tone, however, her death was unfortunately the most likely out of the main cast. *Especially* once she was asked to become a Maiden. Before that, I was expecting her to get a heel injury at the very least, thus fulfilling the reference to Achilles. Afterwards, her death seemed inevitable. Its brutality was shocking and traumatic nevertheless. It was much like Yang's amputation; it was foreshadowed throughout Volume 3 - seriously, the writing in this season is rife with subtext, and deserves a deeper analysis - but the mere image of it was horrifying.

Much like Roman's death. And honestly, I agree with you.The fan base *is* absolutely rabid for him, and certainly far more than I. It's understandable, though. It's a testament to Rooster Teeth's writers; they took what was supposed to be a one-off character and made him interesting, or at the very least, entertaining. Funny, dark, competent, etc. A credible threat, but relatively lighthearted. Can you imagine if Adam or Mercury took his place? And therein lies the issue; they made him likable enough that the audience - not all, but many - actually cared that he died. I don't think it's so much about its suddenness or graphic nature, but what it represents. Though he was a villain, he was one of the most prominent vestiges from Volume 1, when the tone was still light and Remnant seemed like a fun, fantastical world. With him dead, part of that fantasy - and the whimsical feelings it evoked - is dead as well.

And yes, that is worth crying over.

The latter half of Volume 3 constantly hammers in the idea that the world (and thus the tone) has irrevocably changed. It wasn't necessary for Roman to suddenly go all Nietzsche Wannabe at the end, but apparently the writers wanted to make the change even more blatant. It's more sad to me because, from a writer's standpoint, there's more that could've been done. *All* of the Volume 3 casualties save Amber could've kept going in this new setting. Roman certainly had a place there; just imagine how a sly, opportunistic crime boss would've fared in post-invasion Vale. Unlike Emerald, whose redemption was already foreshadowed, Roman's development would not be so predictable. He was just starting to become a more interesting character, only to be cut short. Just like Pyrrha and Penny.

Anyway, I'd rather avoid a debate. I just wish there was some way to make interpreting the Tear Jerker less ambiguous. It would save everyone a lot of headaches. Its inherent subjectivity is the real issue here. Judging by the ridiculous amount of edits and deletions that have been going on these last few episodes, all tropers would benefit from a clearer definition.

I'm sorry to tell you that this isn't doing much for the perceived problem of adding it because of an emotional upset over Roman being dead.

What you're talking about isn't Roman's character, it's meta. It's a reflection on how Roman as a device had potential or not, and what was done with him. For the sake of this discussion, it can be said that tear-jerkers should be from an in-story standpoint, whether they have in-story backing or not. There are plenty of places and pages to discuss all of the possibilities Roman had to offer to the story—this isn't one of them.

Very well, then. I was merely discussing the most likely reasons for Roman's appeal. Putting him aside, there is still the issue of how tropers understand the Tear Jerker. It would be beneficial to make the distinction - that Tear Jerkers should be from an in-story standpoint - on the page itself. As it's currently broadly defined as an audience reaction (and thus its subjectivity), it's bound to be misinterpreted. Considering how messy editing has been as of late, many tropers clearly aren't getting the proverbial memo. It's fortunate that some of the more...passionate fans haven't come out of the woodwork and devolved the pages into an edit war. That's the last thing any of us need.

In regards to in-depth meta discussions - character dynamics, foreshadowing, subtext, theming, etc. - would these be better suited for the YMMV page, or strictly the Analysis page? This show deserves deeper critique in many respects. Now that the story has transitioned past its first act, this is the ideal time to do so.

Seems like you'd put that under Analysis.

There should be a reviews tab. If not, you're welcome to make one.

Um....no....

Whoever wrote that should calm down...

No, I don't. In fact, it makes me rather angry how she reacted. Neptune isn't Weiss's boyfriend—it wasn't cruel of him to say what he said because he can flirt with anyone he wants to. Flirting is not a sin. And when Neptune's attention is on girls that aren't her, Weiss starts cheering for the other team. It actually shows more how Weiss feels than how he feels, because evidently his own success didn't matter THAT much.

Please don't even bring Kick the Dog here, I'm so sick of this. Neptune has every right to deny a girl a date. He may have flirted and paid attention to her, but that doesn't automatically mean he has to go to a dance with her. He had his own reasons for doing that and they had nothing to do with an uncaring attitude. I'm not going to feel sorry for Weiss and I'm damn sure not going to feel sorry for Jaune. Neptune's choosing to go to the dance alone was none of Jaune's business and he had no right to confront Neptune over it as if it was. I'm still pissed at him over that.

This is crap. This isn't a tearjerker. This is just crap.

These are some interesting circumstances but perhaps it's wiser to not mislead people into a Tearjerker that varies from perspective, especially because the Tearjerker itself doesn't actually exist as shown in the next episode.

From what I've seen, tropes that are left to a person's interpretation is never accepted if the answer is given at some point later in the series and, in this case, it happened right after. Seems more like the trope is trying to convince you that you should feel bad about Ruby when in reality, the real Tearjerker is in Ruby's expressions which shown that she's disappointed of herself for not being able to stop Cinder. And those who know Ironwood's character can tell that he's wise enough to not jump into conclusions.