Follow TV Tropes
So, should I watch this?
Only if you want to.
It's great, practically flawless.
I... wouldn't recommend it right now. It's not incredibly bad or anything, but it's run of the mill, the problems are aplenty, and the fandom is generally insufferable no matter which way they skew, so I'm not sure it's worth it. There's better entertainment out there.
And back on the Watts thing: really, how many of us would ever have pointed towards Watson if there wasn't a book telling us that that's his inspiration? I mean, Hazel at least has the dead sister backstory and an appearance that could match. Watson is a really hard stretch, and the show has given nothing to even seem close to the idea of him being inspired by that.
Also, it's occurred to me once in a while, but what's RT's problem with showing instead of telling? They tell us everything outside the show no matter how easily it would have been to simply put that information in it, but seem to vehemently refuse letting the show tell us things on it's own. I legit think there might be more information about this show that's Word of God than information the show has actually given us.
We don't know much about Watts I think he has less then five minutes of screen time all we know is that he has some kind of doctorate (or he think he should have one) and he some kind of scientist and he a bit of an douche.
Which is about as much as we knew about Hazel before his freakout at the end of Volume 5, and yet there were people pointing at the possibility of him being Hansel before that was confirmed.
If you are considering whether to watch RWBY, then this thread may not be a good place to seek a recommendation, as both not representative of the average viewer and mostly negative about the show itself.
Your best bet is to just give it a go and see if you like it. Warning: First two volumes are a bit of a rocky start in terms of overall technical look.
@Watts: I've been of the opinion that he's far closer to Victor Frankenstein as the inspiration. He might turn to be a mishmash of a vaguely Doylist character with the aforementioned.
Edited by FergardStratoavis on Aug 22nd 2019 at 2:14:34 PM
Being a fan isn't about actively and aggressively defending the flaws that RWBY has. It's admitting RWBY has flaws and liking it despite that.
Part of the reason the RWBY fandom gets so much shit is because anyone who brings up a simple complaint just ends up being crucified by the RWBY fanbase. Doesn't even matter if hundreds of people have that same complaint and that it was shown in the show proper, people will legit make you out to be a pariah because they'd rather ignore the problems that RWBY has.
In my experience? I've seen people talk about how the fan base loathes anyone who's a critic and such, but while I'm sure there are people who can't take when the show is criticised. Most of the time when someone gets "Crucified" its over them being a Prick as opposed to just being a critic(Hey Adel Aka)
Hell guys who criticise the show all the time(Unicorn of war, The Judgemental critter) have said they can't stand most of the Hatedom either.
Naturally, but quite a few people in this thread admitted they're staying around only to see how far this rabbit hole goes rather than because they like the show.
Yeah, I can classify RWBY as a Trainwreck Anime with no sign of stopping.
Unicorn of War cannot stand people who disagree with him in general. I've talked to people whom he supposedly harassed on Twitter over soundtrack discussions and he takes quite a lot of time in his videos to rant about how the critics are awful and isn't beyond crapping on specific people while doing so. The worst Adel Aka ever did was... what exactly? I get that his hatred for the characters can get jarring, but has he ever insulted an actual, living person beyond critisizing their work or business policies?
Also, any remotely harsh critic will be called a prick no matter how polite they are being. If anything I'm under the impression that the 'haters' are generally more polite than the postive side. Like, I remember posting a comment under Eruption Fang's video saying that Blake and Yang were entirely justified in killing Adam and the only conflicting replies I got were polite and constructive. Can't say the same about RWBY subreddit, for example.
Edited by Tharkun140 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 9:53:29 PM
For all it's worth, everyone posting here is pretty civil regardless of their stance on the show and the fandom.
...there was that one Cinder fan, but he got troll post'd quite fast.
Heh that sounds hilarious.
Yeah everyone is pretty civil for the most part. Sure there’s arguments but no one generally goes as far as insulting the other.
Edited by slimcoder on Aug 22nd 2019 at 2:37:22 AM
Most critics I've found for RWBY tend to fall into three camps.
Edited by RebelFalcon on Aug 22nd 2019 at 5:54:55 AM
So none of them are good critics then?
That last one seems like pretty good critics.
Well I do wonder what category you would put me in. Also, I find it amusing that I like at least one critic from each of these categories.
Well, ignoring the fact that the creators have repeatedly said that characters who have been inspired by fairy tale or literature characters will never be carbon-copies of them in terms of either story, ability or future (Red Riding Hood is rarely depicted as being able to fight, for example), it's not reaching.
Watts physically fits the description of Watson from A Study in Scarlet and his behaviour fits both the Sherlock Holmes parody Without A Clue and Doyle's descriptions of Moriarty's abilities.
In Without A Clue, Holmes is an invention of Watson's. All the scientific knowledge, deductive reasoning and vast intellect are Watson's. However, despite the ploy (which was designed to separate Watson's abilities from his role as a mainstream doctor), Watson eventually becomes the 'Crime Doctor' because he grew increasingly bitter that his talents and achievements are not being acknowledged.
If this is the idea of a Watson who supports Moriarty instead of Holmes, then any Without A Clue spin means that Moriarty would be Watson's invention, rather than Holmes.
Moriarty was a scientist and inventor while Holmes was a forensic detective.
Actually, a lot of fans called it.
And, as I've said in the past on this very forum: the fandom debate between whether Watson was based on Victor Frankenstein or Dr. Watson had merits in either direction, but I favoured Dr. Watson for a couple of reasons, including the obvious connection of the name 'Arthur' to the author — but also because Watts has a lot in common with Moriarty. And, as I said above, Watt's appearance comes straight out of A Study in Scarlet (tanned, thin, moustache).
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 22nd 2019 at 12:21:34 PM
The name "Improvement Critics" just seemed like previous discussion.
Edited by randomness4 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 3:57:38 AM
I've seen some of Unicorn of War's stuff. The only rants I've seen them descend into have been towards what you describe as the Caustic Critic group , and towards people whose arguments against Bumblebee are very obviously routed in anti-LGBT+ attitudes. In other words, people who aren't engaging in good-faith arguments. There's a lot of self-deprecating deadpan snark going on his reviews that would certainly convey the sense that he's an 'entitled critic'.
He's nowhere near as bad as EruptionFang, who I'd place closer to the Caustic Critic category than Entitled (he's a bit of both — and you mentioned what annoyed you about Adel; EruptionFang does a similar thing). I don't know anything about Mediacrity to compare. I'd say Unicorn is closer to your 'improvement critic' category than the 'entitled' category (he's a bit of both).
Yes. None of them are good.
I'm not a huge fan of most of the YouTube RWBY critics that I've come across. While some are definitely worse than others, I don't think any of them are good. Unicorn of War is better than most, but I still wouldn't recommend them. After all, they're clearing a low bar — a very, very low bar.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 22nd 2019 at 12:23:21 PM
What are the standards for "very obviously" and what makes UoW qualified to judge who is being homophobic and who's not? Or what arguments are made in bad faith, for that matter? He doesn't even deal with attitudes exclusively and has insulted people for holding 'wrong' ideas about the show or complaining too much.
Edited by Tharkun140 on Aug 23rd 2019 at 3:39:45 PM
Well, that's a defensive post. You've just jumped down my throat in a way that makes me ask: how much you dislike UoW, have you interpreted my post as a defence of UoW, and do you think defending UoW is wrong?
Just to be clear here: I'm not defend him. I'm not defending any of them. Of all the ones I've see (and I have not seen all the critics and reviewers that exist out there), I don't like any of them.
To address your points:
Total aside from RWBY critics, there are implication within your first sentence that makes me want to ask you a question:
Do you think people require qualifications before they're allowed to say something comes across as homophobic to them?
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 23rd 2019 at 10:22:31 AM
When it come to critics, I havent seen much because most of what can be said it have being said here in this thread, but I kinda enjoy fatmanfalling but I consider him bizarre, he dosent like the show but unlike he other, he saw it and not only the show but the behind the scene stuff and was one of the few who actually criticize monty ideas like the train fights(it was there because Monty wanted boss fights, that it), which is usually something I fine lacking in critics who usually used the "Monty didnt want this" as shield to smack the show over, my issues is his videos were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY longer that is need it(sometime by passing the hour) eventually get fill by endless and annoying nickpicknig over and over and over.
Eruptionfang I didnt find him so bad in general, aside of throwing whatever theory he think would work, his distrust of Ozpin even after the reveal and him being fan of Adam let him to blind to some points(like thinking Blake is Adam morality pet when it reallity he is toxic friend to her), but so far some of is points were good(Yang PTDS was kinda sort of there, Adam semblence being off, etc) and even is post about Yang and Blake was more grounded than general, even saying that if you enthusly like or dont like the ship...is ok as long you are not a dick about it.
Over than that I havetn seen that much critics for the same reason actually.
Anyway if Watts is watson....what would be is semblence?.
Don't get me wrong, they're all capable of hitting good points about the show. But, like you say, it's nothing that any of us haven't already discussed, and at least we don't usually have to plough through all the contradictory ranting and 'everyone else is wrong' complaints to find them.
Although they might have to plough through a couple of posters who like posting excessively long posts — at least videos are easier to skip.
We still don't know Tyrian's Semblance either, do we? I've seen theories floating around that his ability to create poison is his Semblance, but I'm not sure I buy into that one. I see that as part of his Faunus trait (a scorpion tail), especially since his eyes change colour whenever he goes into 'poison mode'.
I have to admit, as much as I felt it was likely that Watts' name was connected to Doyle and Watson and that he was displaying a lot of Moriarty traits, I have been struggling with ideas for his Semblance beyond the extremely obvious option of a Semblance that helps him innovate — but, to be honest, what little we've seen so far hasn't been anything that Atlesian technology doesn't seem capable of.
I am still wondering if Watts is connected to what Ironwood said in V3 to Pyrrha about Atlesian research into studying and capturing Aura with technology. Pyrrha mentioned that she felt it was wrong, and Glynda indicated she also feels it's wrong. If this research is morally ambiguous, then it could be that it's based off research Watts was engaging in.
It would also explain the theory that Watts is bitter about lack of recognition — if Penny (for instance) is the ultimate achievement that has so far come from Watts' research, and that the military is continuing that research while he's suffering the disgrace for it, then that would be quite a chip on the shoulder to have.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 23rd 2019 at 10:43:05 AM
Your questions, in the order they were originally written:
Quite a lot.
Yes. You pointed out that the only people he rants about are caustic critics and supposed homophobes, with the implication that those groups deserve to be insulted or at the very least insulting them is more acceptable. You then said that he is better than most RWBY critics, which is also a form of defense since it puts them above some sort of bar. Regardless how justified that defense is, it does count as defense.
Disclaiming that you ultimately don't like something doesn't mean that you are unable to defend it. I don't like many people out there, but I would defend them if I heard them be falsely accused of something, or if I believed they were judged too harshly for that matter. If someone here claimed that UoW goes around kicking puppies on the street, I would defend the guy by pointing out how unproven that claim is. Conversely, if UoW was kicking puppies and someone tried to downplay the number of puppies he kicked, that would count as a defense, just not an absolute one.
In any moral sense, no. It doesn't bring harm to anyone, at least not in any way that can be predicted in advance, so it's alright by my moral values. I do however believe that particular defense to be flawed to say the least and will call it out, perhaps less politely that I would deal with a dissenting opinion about some aspect of a work of art. For what it's worth, I apologise if my post came off as insulting.
No, but using that as a weapon in discussions isn't exactly an example of good behavior, mostly because it is rarely just saying that something "comes across" as homophobic or bigoted. When you talk about somebody like that in a medium where they can't immediately respond, such as a youtube video, you are at the very least making others question said person's character. If someone's comments seem bigoted to you, you should either talk it out with them or ignore them, not go around pointing fingers unless they actually proved where their beliefs lie through some other action than not liking a fictional gay pairing or a character. Aside from that though, discussions about works of art and other people's beliefs should generally be kept separate. You will just end up making the climate toxic and making ad hominem arguments, even if you don't intend to.
As for the claims that all RWBY critics attack differing opinions... really? I don't think I've seen all the content coming from any of them, but most of them don't appear to have that bad of an attitude. Murder of Birds organized a crowdfunder to support Eruption Fang despite their views on the last Volume being largely incompatible and I can vaguely recall at least a few examples of youtubers from different sides of the "spectrum" being friendly towards each other. Perhaps each of them said something that can come off as insulting at one point, but the general attitude is that of at least tolerating differing opinions. UoW really seems to be below whatever bar we try to place that has most of the "hatedom" below it.
And as for why people would prefer to listen to videos instead of reading our posts... well, I think the guys from youtube beat us at entertainment value.
Edited by Tharkun140 on Aug 23rd 2019 at 12:49:56 PM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?