[001]
coolwali
Current Version
Changed line(s) 6 from:
n
Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine I made a Batman movie where Batman kills people indiscriminately throughout the movie but my intention as the writer is that he\'s the good guy. Obviously there would be people who would argue this Batman is not the good guy. If someone on TV Tropes wrote \
to:
Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine I made a Batman movie where Batman kills people indiscriminately throughout the movie but my intention as the writer is that he\\\'s the good guy. Obviously there would be people who would argue this Batman is not the good guy. If someone on TV Tropes wrote \\\"there are people who don\\\'t think this Batman is a good guy, even though he doesn\\\'t kill anyone\\\", that would be a misrepresentation because it presents that \\\"the story just has a good Batman that people missed\\\" rather than the more accurate \\\"This Batman kills people which made people think he\\\'s bad rather than good as the writer intended\\\".
That\\\'s the issue I have with the original troper\\\'s points. For example, they wrote that Ironwood is ruthless and untrustworthy. But The story literally has Ironwood sparing Watts and working with Team RWBY even after they betray him to Robyn who he still works with. There is no example of V7 Ironwood doing the things the Troper says he does. So is there any wonder why there\\\'s a Misaimed Fandom? It\\\'s not a surprise.
As a result, the story fails to clearly communicate he\\\'s the villain. Had he upfront been difficult to work with and ruthless and untrustworthy that the writers wanted to intend, then the story would have communicated clearly which would have prevented the Misaimed Fandom (see Cinder). Even the whole \\\"abandoning Mantle\\\" doesn\\\'t paint him in a universally bad light because Ironwood, as presented in the story, is ruthless and uncaring, but because it was an actual plan to defeat Salem and save some lives that team RWBY messed with despite not having a plan themselves. With the way the story was presented, it would have showed Team RWBY dooming everyone.
Again, I understand the writers did not intend this. As they have said, they wanted Ironwood as the villain with Team RWBY having to stop him, but they inadvertently wrote the opposite, and the evidence given for their intentions doesn\\\'t match up.
If I were writing the original entry, it would be something like \\\"even though the writers intended for Ironwood to be the villain for V7 and 8, many viewers viewed him as the hero given his rather mature and trusting nature and approach while Team RWBY\\\'s approach seemed naive and childish, hiding clear information and working against someone who was trusting them. Even abandoning Mantle was presented as showing a difficult choice Ironwood was making to defeat Salem while Team RWBY didn\\\'t really have a plan\\\".
I\\\'d argue that would have gotten the point across better while still showing stuff that happened in the actual show.
That\\\'s the issue I have with the original troper\\\'s points. For example, they wrote that Ironwood is ruthless and untrustworthy. But The story literally has Ironwood sparing Watts and working with Team RWBY even after they betray him to Robyn who he still works with. There is no example of V7 Ironwood doing the things the Troper says he does. So is there any wonder why there\\\'s a Misaimed Fandom? It\\\'s not a surprise.
As a result, the story fails to clearly communicate he\\\'s the villain. Had he upfront been difficult to work with and ruthless and untrustworthy that the writers wanted to intend, then the story would have communicated clearly which would have prevented the Misaimed Fandom (see Cinder). Even the whole \\\"abandoning Mantle\\\" doesn\\\'t paint him in a universally bad light because Ironwood, as presented in the story, is ruthless and uncaring, but because it was an actual plan to defeat Salem and save some lives that team RWBY messed with despite not having a plan themselves. With the way the story was presented, it would have showed Team RWBY dooming everyone.
Again, I understand the writers did not intend this. As they have said, they wanted Ironwood as the villain with Team RWBY having to stop him, but they inadvertently wrote the opposite, and the evidence given for their intentions doesn\\\'t match up.
If I were writing the original entry, it would be something like \\\"even though the writers intended for Ironwood to be the villain for V7 and 8, many viewers viewed him as the hero given his rather mature and trusting nature and approach while Team RWBY\\\'s approach seemed naive and childish, hiding clear information and working against someone who was trusting them. Even abandoning Mantle was presented as showing a difficult choice Ironwood was making to defeat Salem while Team RWBY didn\\\'t really have a plan\\\".
I\\\'d argue that would have gotten the point across better while still showing stuff that happened in the actual show.
