Do we actually need to sympathize fully for this trope to be in play? While that would generate some, the fact remains that all the tragic events of the movie, including her mother's fate, was entirely caused by her actions.
It is YMMV, so you don't have to agree for the example to apply; if enough of the fandom feels a certain way, then you can add the trope. Just swap "[her constant denial] comes off as" to "can come off as" to make is less of an absolute.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Are you saying that Raya should’ve just killed Namaari when she had the chance, even as she practically begged her to do so? Because that would’ve been too cruel for the protagonist.
That is very presumptuous to say and not a reason to blank out the entry after there was a discussion saying that it could stay. Also, that's an extreme response. I didn't feel anything for Namaari. Raya could have given her a cupcake and I wouldn't have cared at all. That the Darkest Hour inspires nothing when Namaari is at her lowest ebb is a red flag. The filmmakers failed at making Namaari an Anti-Villain who wins others' sympathy, and as you can see in this discussion, a portion of the viewers agree with that.
Edited by Jayalaw
Well, that seems pretty harsh for a film that garnered a 95% approval rating from critics and a 97% rating from audiences. And clearly, the people who made this film must know better than we do.
And when Namaari said that Raya was just as much to blame for Sisu's death as she herself was, she really wasn't wrong, was she?
Edited by BrianKT
So it's got a high ranking in RT, so what? You're missing the point of what YMMV is: you feel Namaari is sympathetic and in the right, others (myself included) think she's talking out of her ass when she blames Raya for Sisu's death since, y'know, she brought a weapon of murder into a peaceful parlay.
Raya is a gorgeous-looking film, with great characters and an amazing story. I really liked it. But that conversation is a weak point and could've been handled better.
PS. Critics don't always know better. Do a bit of research on high-ranking and award-winning films and you'll be surprised by what you'll find.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
I wasn't saying that Namaari was entirely in the right (which not the same as being sympathetic). I was just saying that she kind of had a point in what she said, and she was having just as much of a major learning experience as Raya was.
P.S. I also said it’s the filmmakers, not the critics, who must know better than we do.
Edited by BrianKT
5% and 3 % disapproval still matter. Not to mention that Honest Trailers outright expressed dislike about their movie in the dislike, and CinemaSins only took a few sins off for some of the animation moments but also called Namaari out for her actions. A small percent has a voice, and the criticisms are legit.
Also, Namaari claims that Raya is as much to blame, but if she had been sensible and not tried to kidnap a dragon at crossbow-point or had taken her finger off the trigger because Reckless Firearm Usage, the confrontation wouldn't have happened. The other crew members explicitly warned her that if she tried anything, they would be on her. Even at that range, Sisu would have died if Raya had done nothing.
Filmmakers don't always know better. They have intentions, but execution and mandates can mess with those. That's the whole reason that Author's Saving Throw exists when a creator admits that they fudged it and try to correct an error. Disney has those directors as well.
Raya may have a high audience approval because the only way to watch it is either via Disney Plus or pirating, while critics received review copies. Some countries don't have Disney Plus or would have to risk going to movie theaters during a pandemic to watch it, risking a flop.
I don't feel that the Ass Pull example is warranted and am going to remove it. This isn't inviting discussion, per se but rather it's a long explanation of why it doesn't apply and I didn't want to create a Wall of Text edit reason.
- Ass Pull: The audience is left wondering why all the dragons came back in the climax when the Gem is reassembled and blasts away the Druun. It's implied (and later confirmed via Word of God) that the reason was because people from all five nations acted in unity without help from the dragons and they all showed an immense amount of trust by letting Namaari be the Sole Survior who reassembles the gem, but this is not explained in the movie proper.
The movie actually does explain this.
When Sisu takes Raya to the statues of her petrified family and recounts the creation of the dragon gem she says "When they put their faith in me, it empowered me beyond anything I could imagine. The same can happen with Namaari."
Then when Raya, Boun, Noi, Tong, and Namaari are having their final standoff against the Druun in Fang, Raya has a flashback to Sisu and her family and says "It's not about her magic, it's about trust. That's why it worked. That's why we can do it too. ... To finally trust each other and fix this."
Then she gives up her Dragon gem to Namaari and is petrified. This leads the others to place their trust in Namaari and it empowered her beyond anything she could imagine and the restored Dragon Gem was now powerful enough to banish the Druun and revive the dragons.
Could it have been presented in a clearer way... Yes.
Is it a complete Ass Pull... no.
Edited by rva98014
The Moral Event Horizon trope has been added for Dang Hu thusly:
- Moral Event Horizon: Dang Hu (the Talon cheiftain) initially comes off as a Cool Old Lady and Reasonable Authority Figure... till she threatens to leave Sisu (disguised as a human) at the mercy of the Druun unless she tells her where the gem shards are. Unlike Virana and Namaari (who seek redemption), Dang Hu is motivated by greed. Sisu would have died if Raya and co. didn't come to her aid immediately.
I'm on the fence about this. Dang Hu is referred to in the movie as "the most vicious chief Talon has ever seen" and certainly locking someone outside the city with the Druun is a crappy thing to do.
The problem is that the scene shows that Dang Hu is using the situation to extort Sisu into revealing where the other dragon gem pieces are. She's having the doors shut slowly by her henchmen to intimidate Sisu into talking and Sisu is running towards the still-open doors.
However the timing is such that Raya rides in and saves Sisu before the scene fully plays out. Had the doors shut, I'd say that yes Dang Hu crossed the line. But what's shown is a pretty intense extortion scene in play (and since Dang Hu wanted the pieces, letting Sisu get petrified wasn't in her best interests).
Currently my thinking is the Dang Hu is a pretty shitty piece of work but I don't know if she actually crossed the line.
Feedback welcome.
Edited by rva98014
- Fandom-Enraging Misconception: Comparisons to the Avatar: The Last Airbender, particularly accusations of copying Avatar, quickly earned backlash from Asian viewers, since most of the comparisons are brought upon by being Asian-inspired medieval fantasies with the typical genre tropes also seen in other entries in the genre that aren't based on Asian cultures, such as A Song of Ice and Fire and The Lord of the Rings. Exploration of Asian cultures, especially Southeast Asian cultures, is very rare to see in Western media and suggesting Raya is uncreative because Avatar already did is insensitive towards the effort to vocalize Asian representation in the West.
Asian-Indian viewer here. I can say that the movie felt like Avatar the Last Airbender with its intent, but without the nuance that helped Avatar create compelling antagonists and moral ambiguity.
I'm removing this Alternative Character Interpretation (ACI).
- The moment where Raya attempts a You Shall Not Pass! against Namaari so that the others can escape Tong's hut. Was it just a case of More Expendable Than You or Suicide by Cop? Given that Raya knows she's not a One-Woman Army like her father and the fact that if she were killed then it'd be up to everyone else to reunite the gem shards, it seems to be desperation at the moment. Plus, she admits she's living with the guilt everyday of trusting Namaari.
The point of ACI is that the presentation of a character is ambiguous enough such that nothing in the story invalidates the alternate interpretation. They are both equally supported.
In the film, we had an entire conversation where Raya said that she was only going to stall because she could push Namaari's buttons.
Just before she leaves the Spine compound she says "Note to self, don't die". She immediately goads Namaari into a one-on-one duel so she doesn't have to face the entire army. While she's fighting Namaari, she's constantly checking to see that the others are escaping as planned. Everything shown supports that Raya was indeed following her plan, stall until everyone's out, then bolt.
What Raya didn't expect was that Namaari had been seriously training and was better than Raya in hand-to-hand fighting. Also, having to fight Raya in front of her army probably motivated Namaari's performance as well. Thus Sisu had to step in and help.
But More Expendable Than You or Suicide by Cop don't seem to be justifiable given what is shown. Raya thought she could handle it but failed, she didn't walk out with a Death Wish.
Edited by rva98014
"I don’t know. With her apparent suicide wish near the end, it would be very cold not to fully sympathize with Namaari."
No, I don't sympathize with her and my anger is fiery, not cold. Namaari caused most of the problems in the movie and refused to acknowledge that it was her fault. This opinion is YMMV, don't forget; it's based on what the viewer sees, not what the screenwriter intends.
Hide / Show Replies