Discussion WesternAnimation / RayaAndTheLastDragon

There was an ATT thread about this trope, but it fell silent a while back.

Yes, the thread was kinda non-conclusive. I'll extend an invitation to FishiousRend for this discussion.

As it stands, it's too YMMV. If Villain Has a Point gets made YMMV, I'm all for it.

As absolutely dumb as the scene is, Disney really makes it clear Raya was somehow wrong for not trusting the backstabber about to pull the trigger on Sisu.

The YMMV stuff is covered by Unintentionally Unsympathetic.

Agreed. For all Raya gets compared to ATLA there's one big difference: when Zuko (i.e. the backstabber who betrayed them at Ba Sing Se) is asking the Gaang to trust him, he both figuratively and literally throws himself at their mercy. Namaari, on the other hand, brings a weapon to a peaceful negotiation.

This scene could have been brilliant but, to quote Fishious Rend, it's absolutely dumb.

FishiousRend could you please elaborate on why "it's too YMMV"? What do you mean by this exactly?

How does "Disney really makes it clear Raya was somehow wrong for not trusting the backstabber about to pull the trigger on Sisu."

Please support this statement. I've gone back and read your "Ask The Tropers" post as well and I'm still not completely following your train of thought.

It reads like complaining, as is. If I recall, when it comes to guidelines on contentious bits like this (like, say, the constant Alternate Character Interpretation on The Lost World: Jurassic Park), we should only be concerned with how the film portrays the moment, and any speculation/opinion needs to be kept to YMMV.

Keeping "Villain Has a Point" to simply stating Namaari stating Raya being just as guilty of killing Sisu is enough. Anything else would go to, as before, Unintentionally Unsympathetic or What An Idiot.

You're free to watch the movie again, but I don't recall Raya giving a counterargument when Namaari accuses her of being as guilty for killing Sisu in the palace.

Thanks for elaborating on your position. I think we are actually on the same page here in that we both believe Namaari is to blame not Raya.

Where we differ is that I'm not seeing Namaari's statement as "Villain Has a Point" but rather "Villain Makes Accusations".

In re-reading the definition and examples for Villain Has a Point it really seems that in order for the trope to to be valid, the point or points the villain makes have to resonate as "true" to some degree with the audience or the hero. Otherwise it's just the villain blame-casting.

This is a issue that's been picked up by others. For example, Cellspex, a noted animation critic, doesn't agree with Namaari's "as much to blame" accusation in her review of the movie.

Hell, even Honest Trailers goes out of its way to call bullshit on Namaari in the scene where she blames Raya for Sisu's death.

I'm going to be AFK until Friday, so I'll give this further thought in the meantime, but as it stands I'm really not sure a Villain Has a Point entry is justified.

You mention "guidelines on contentious bits" could you please direct me to where those guidelines are as I'd like to review them?

The main issue is that - correct me if I'm wrong - Raya doesn't offer a counterargument, and the big moral is trust. Namaari directly says Raya's lack of trust led to Sisu's death.

Outside of the story, that's bullshit, but with the way it's framed in-story, it's to show she has a point.

(Of note, this may fall under Broken Aesop, or Clueless Aesop, which I'm surprised is NOT YMMV.)

It looks like the mod ruling itself for stuff like The Lost World: Jurassic Park, which had a LOT of (IMO, less warranted) complaining about the characters was deleted (these were rulings from the old owner of the site, Fast Eddie).

We'd have to get someone like Fighteer to rule in since Fast Eddie's comment was deleted.

In reading the definition and examples for Villain Has a Point, I'm not seeing a mandate that says a hero has to have a rebuttal for the villain and if they don't it automatically means they accept the villain's point.

When this issue was posted to "Is this an Example" it got no feedback. I posted a reworded version of the question here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13543987200A54420100&page=613#15320

Troper underCoverSailsman asked some follow-up questions that I found interesting. Look up his questions and my responses and his conclusion on the same page.

So far underCoverSailsman, RoundRobin, Tuvok, SGamer82 and myself have all weighed in on Namaari being at fault, plus the non-Tvtropes opinions of Cellspex and Honest Trailers.

I'll grant that it seems that the intention of the framing was to give Namaari some weight to her claims, but it came across badly in the final product. So much so that I don't think the intention counts for much anymore especially lacking any sort of Word of God support.

I just don't think Namaari's blame-casting works as Villain Has a Point anymore.

EDIT: It's now a moot point. Moderator crazysamaritan has pointed out that the responses from various ATT and "Is this a trope" postings yield a firm consensus that Raya is not an example of "Villain Has a Point".

see: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=98794&type=att

Per the laconic, The villain isn't really wrong about their statement. Raya didn't need to argue a "you're wrong" for the statement to hold weight.

And no offense, but the fact it's still being added means there's something wrong here. It coming across badly or not in the final product isn't YMMV. I've asked brian8871, H 8 Fear ADR Luv, and Melbell 18 to weigh in.

Note that crazysamaritan says this was the consensus for the last query.

FishiousRend Help me here. I do not understand why you are so focused in listing a trope that you don't believe has been accurately expressed in the movie. It seems as if the majority of the feedback here agrees that Namaari is at fault and has no grounds for assigning blame.

Yet we want to list a trope in which Namaari accuses Raya of being equally at fault. A trope that implies her accusation has merit.

You've mentioned "intention" and "framing" before in a way that makes it feel like we are obligated to include the example even when discussion has pointed out how the film-makers failed to portray their intention adequately.

There's also been significant mention of YMMV but I'm not understanding how presenting a example along with saying how it's been done poorly while directly pointing to actions or dialog in the movie that work against Villain Has a Point is subjective and YMMV.

For example, the "shooting of Sisu" scene would support Namaari's accusation scene much, much better if there was more ambiguity about actions and responses.

Instead the scene shows us Namaari's finger starting to pull the trigger followed by a cut to Raya's eyes looking that action, her face responds with alarm, and then she reacts with a defensive sword-whip.

There's no real ambiguity here. The edit is too tight for misinterpretation.

When I look at it, it seems as though the former could be posted, acknowledging that the example is "inverted". It's more like, "Villain has an Assumption". While Namaari is at least right that she didn't intend to cause the end of the world, like you said, she doesn't see the bigger picture.

If so, perhaps there should also be an entry in YMMV, "Alternative Character Interpretation": Is Namaari right about how Raya's distrust caused the misfire? Or is she only ASSUMING Raya was distrusting Sisu when she created the misfire?

Either way, I hope my input was helpful in deciding how the trope should be handled.

If you need anything else, just message me and I will respond promptly. Thank you!

In going through all the various threads on ATT and "Is this an example", it's becoming clear to me that there's an odd situation in this movie.

Namaari's ""you're as much to blame" scene appears to be Disney really wanting to invoke the Villain Has a Point trope for that scene. Raya even has a shocked face when Namaari delivers the line followed by a meaningful look at her reflection in her sword implying that the words have struck a chord in her.

However, the visuals in the "Sisu is shot" scene just don't support Namaari's accusation making her points come across as accusations and shifting blame.

Technically, this would mean the trope never really comes into play. Yet it's obvious Disney wanted to the trope to be in play but kinda failed to support the Villain. This would imply the trope is either "inverted" or "zig-zagged" in terms of its presentation.

Since the two scenes are so conflicted, I'd lean with "zig-zagged" because the trope is kinda all over the place. Therefore, I'm now proposing this wording....

• Villain Has a Point: Zig-zagged. After Raya defeats Namaari, the creative team tries to invoke this trope when Namaari says "I don't care if you believe me. Sisu did. But you didn't trust her. That's why we're here. Do whatever you want. But you're as much to blame for Sisu's death as I am". Unfortunately, the scene where Sisu is shot does not validate Namaari's accusation. When Namaari draws her cross-bow, Raya moves to respond but is stopped by Sisu who says "I got this" and Raya stands down removing her hand from her sword. Although Sisu has gotten in trouble before by trusting the wrong person, Raya is willing to let her try. She watches cautiously but doesn't take any action until she sees Namaari's finger actually pulling on the trigger and only then does Raya lash out with her whip-sword making it hard to say that she didn't trust Sisu or jumped the gun with her defensive action.

I think both the Villain Has a Point and the What the Hell, Hero? entries need to be cleaned up, so they should look less like YMMV tropes.

I am just sort of noticing that the Dragon who "brought the Rain" was the Dragon who gave Sisu her "final form" ability to finally fly by running on raindrops—and then we were shown in the Flashback that Pengu was the Leader of the Dragons who Initiated the creation of the Dragon Gem. And again when Sisu introduced her to her younger or older sibling statues while mentioning what power their shard gave her, I find it important that she after a quite frantic scene paused and then with genuine reverence said "this is OUR BIG BROTHER [as in the Oldest Dragon Sibling of Sisu —which as far as we know call EVERY Dragon her sibling] PENGU. He was also shown as their Leader in the Flashback and he was the one who Desided to create the Dragon Gem. And this is just me being me, but the phrase "He brought the Rain" feels overly religious in comparison of Shapeshifting, Fog and Glowing.

Top God implies that he's the leader of all the dragons, since that refers to the leader of the pantheon. Since there are many more than Sisu's family, to call him such would be a stretch.

I agree that Sisu speaks of Pengu with a sense of respect but it comes across as a little sister who is immensely proud of her big brother for his courage and unwillingness to give up even though their family were the last ones left in the fight with the Druun. But no matter how many times you write "OUR" in capitals, it's not changing that Sisu's phrase "He's our big brother" just sounds like she's talking about her family. To say that that dragons might call EVERY dragon their sibling is pure speculation. Nothing in the film supports that. I can respect that "He brings the rain" conveys a sense of religious solemnity to you, but that's not enough to justify the Top God label for Pengu.

As of today 7/9, there's been no further input on this issue.

The consensus from the discussion here and from "Is this an example" favors that the movie DOES NOT provide sufficient information about the pantheon of dragons to be able to justify the Top God title to Pengu.

Removing the entry.

My two cents: none of them are proper examples.

• Benja's diplomatic dinner failing does not count. The flashback takes place after Raya introduces the post-apocalyptic world, so the viewer already knows this will not go well. There's no surprisingly realistic outcome.
• Raya's I Work Alone attitude: what is the "realistic consequence" played by the narrative here?
• Fang getting the blame: How is that "realistic" and not just "plot happened"?
• Raya vs. Namaari: This reads more like Fridge Brilliance, since the movie never explicitly says Namaari beats her because Raya is undernourished.
• Namaari accidentally shooting Sisu reads more like "a character makes a mistake".

Okay, so going to go through this point by point:

• Normally in a Disney movie, only one person or being — the villain— commits a grand act of selfishness. That sets the rest of the tone for a Downer Beginning. Here, we see that multiple people are responsible, which you can't exactly see coming. Plus, this is the only movie that in my opinion tried to acknowledge that Humans Are Flawed, but does so by putting their worst behavior on display rather than glimmers of hope.

• Likewise, Shaming the Mob is more likely to happen in an animated movie (Paranorman, Princess Mononoke) and it makes the people involved realizing they're being really stupid. Here, there is none of that. One idiot with a crossbow shoots Benja in the leg, and we get some old-fashioned panic.

• It's surprising to have a female protagonist that has a visible trauma response and in a Disney movie no less. Usually, the characters in the feature films take some time to grieve and then bounce back. What's more, it was relatable; thanks to a troll who impersonated multiple people and faked their death four times, I am a bit more suspicious of people and was on Raya's side for most of the story. Rather than going the No Sympathy route, Boun acknowledges that Raya has a point and goes Not So Different by tasting the food.

• The Fang tribe becoming the scapegoat is realistic and a surprise because we are expecting Virana to be the Big Bad and Namaari to be The Dragon. That's not the case; the movie aimed for a Deconstruction of both, if not a good one. Virana is selfish and destructive but not fundamentally evil like a typical Disney villain. (It's hard to root for either Namaari or Virana in their goals.) Instead, each chief has refused to take responsibility, and most get turned to stone. That leads to no one being the Big Bad. It also means that no one wants to trust Namaari, for a good reason, and she simply can't be nice, even to her own people.

• You can add this to Fridge Brillaince if you'd like. I figured it was a surprise because Raya is The Dreaded to the Fang tribe, and in an R-rated or PG-13 movie she'd be on a revenge quest. Then the confrontation happens...and she loses. It's not a complete surprise to Raya or her crew, but it is to the viewers.

• If it's not surprising, this can go under Taught by Experience. Sisu convinces Raya to try for a truce first, but Raya is not going to be stupid about it. She has the crew hide in the shadows in case the truce goes wrong and keeps her sword sheathed. Someone remembers what happened the last time that Namaari attempted to be selfish. Sisu's attempts to defuse the situation go wrong because she thinks that walking towards an armed person is a great idea. It was not going to have a happy outcome, regardless of what Raya did or didn't do.

I personally just don't see "this convoluted thing commonly happens in animated movies" as an exact enough set up for SRO. Ideally it should be is one pinpointable moment where one pinpointable convention is subverted.

• Shaming the Mob: I can see an argument for "trying to calm a crowd and then someone shoots you". But while someone shooting you is surprising, is it really realistic? Talking Is a Free Action has its subversions, see the example on The Incredibles on that page.
• "It's surprising to have a female protagonist that has a visible trauma response and in a Disney movie no less." The entry is all about her I Work Alone attitude. That very trope (also under TRS) admits that it is often a trait the character grows out of (we also have Ineffectual Loner). "Raya undergoes Character Development, even if it is realistic growth", is not a surprisingly realistic outcome. You may have been surprised that she ended up surly, but this also came out the same week as the Wanda Vision finale (Woman Having A Trauma Response: The Show), so YMMV.
• "No chief claims responsibility for helping bring about the apocalypse" is honestly a premise that is so fantastic it is impossible to say what a "realistic" outcome for this would be. See this discussion. (Also: are they really Big Bad and The Dragon? She is an antagonist, but not the overarching antagonist of the story required to be BB. Ergo she's not a deconstruction of one either.)
• Raya losing to Namaari: Maybe. I don't really care about whether or not it's Fridge Brilliance, but it's not an example of SRO if you're surprised but you have to think of an extratextual reason she might've lost.

If I recall, Surprisingly Realistic Outcome factors consequences of characters making decisions and letting them play out with no Deus ex Machina or Hand Wave to justify it.

• I think that someone being an idiot during a tense situation is realistic, of one person going trigger-happy. There is plenty of examples in history and current events that I could name. Our own American lore had the Boston Massacre, which occurred because a colonizer had a stone and British soldiers had weapons.

• First off, Wanda was already surly and cynical, and that is live-action as compared to animation. Secondly, most animated Disney female leads are optimistic and idealistic.

• Again, history has many instances of groups responsible for a tragedy to find a scapegoat. Current events do too. They then engage in propaganda to absolve themselves of responsibility. Case in point: how Americans conveniently forget that many people hated Martin Luther King, Jr. to the point where the FBI tried convincing him to commit suicide and that there were adult women shouting at Ruby Bridges for the crime of attending school, but they absolve themselves of that guilt. You don't need a Dragon Gem for people to go Never My Fault and Self-Serving Memory.

• How is this extratextual? It's established in the movie that Raya is practically starving and she has no sparring partner. She also avoids a direct confrontation with Namaari unless it's absolutely necessary. It stands to reason that Raya knows she can't defeat Namaari in a straight fight, but Namaari and Virana also know that adrenaline and revenge can cause people to do amazing things.