Follow TV Tropes
Ok so the \"Others\" section got removed completely for having IRL examples, apparently not supposed to be on Tear Jearker pages. But some of these are reactions to Fanart or Meta such as the Volume 3 DVD music. So unless anyone minds I\'ve put it back for now to be discussed here on the discussion page, since very few people read the forum/know that page even exists.
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
There's something I've been thinking about asking: aside from mentioning Monty Oum's death, should we also mention deaths of the series' main staff and cast members in the Others section or would those go in other folders?
If i may ask... WTF?! "After all his work and the suffering he's endured and caused to better the lives of the Faunus", yeah, no. He didn't do it for the faunus, he did to to hurt humans. And i haven't seen a single bit of suffering he suffered... but i can name plenty of what he caused. Secondly as for now the Foxbros arent using him as a pawn, they're following his instructions, but they're having doubts of their own. And quite honestly it's about time someone saw that his leadership isn't exacly the best.
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.
Something I've been meaning to ask; do we REALLY need to list the Faunus in a camper as a tearjerker? We have no evidence that it's a sign of stigma and the same entry even points out that it's just likely to be how Vacuo is. It seems pointless to leave it in if we can't directly confirm that it's worth jerking tears...
Whoever wrote that should calm down...
I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but if a large portion of the fandom considers the death of Roman, a noted breakout character, to be sad, shouldn't it be allowed to stay? After all, the Awesome/Funny/Heartwarming/Nightmare Fuel/Tearjerker tropes are considered YMMV. At the very least, his clear concern for Neo should be kept.
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.
Neptune's actions in New Challengers and what they mean to Weiss and Jaune were added and deleted twice so I'm starting a topic for this.
The recent delete explains that there is a difference between a Tearjerker and something you don't like.
My reasoning for adding the event are hopefully explained in the event itself. Sure. What Neptune did was a bit cruel of him and cruel it's not the same as Tearjerker but that's not really what's sad about it but the idea that Weiss has such a big crush on Neptune and spent the previous Volume trying to win his affection... only to receive a Kick the Dog from Neptune who shows how little he cares about her feelings. Whether you like it or not makes little difference because it's Weiss's feelings what would bring a tear. Not to mention that Jaune himself gave up on his feelings for Weiss and helped her with her crush for "that" to happen in the end?
You do have to feel sorry for Weiss and Jaune.
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.
Should this example be on the page? It seems to have interpreted as a tearjerker based solely on someone assuming things that hadn't even happened, and those assumptions being confirmed wrong the very next episode. Is this just premature troping or a genuinely example for the page?
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.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?