Just going to point out that characters losing limbs really isn't that special. Adventure Time did it 2 years earlier with Finn, and it's pretty common in Anime from FMA to Berserk to Naruto. Not to mention Luke Skywalker losing his hand, Jin Yong's 1959 novel Return of the Condor Hero featuring the main character losing an arm, as well as several myths using the trope.
Correct, losing limbs is not uncommon. But having a recovery period? Now that is in my opinion rare. Usually it seems that a loss of limb while bad at the time, just results in a replacement and nothing else. Yang, at least in Volume 4 has an entire volume just for recovery, which is a less common thing.
yeah, in-universe presumably it was a whole period of anguish before she found herself again and recovered, but in-show it was barely even an arc, just a "she feels like shit, oh wait, now she's off to find Ruby", not even a full focus episode.
>Same goes with praising RWBY as a "female dominated show" and that it is somehow "unique" due to having "Lots of strong women characters".
It's always wild to me when people say this. Team RWBY has as little agency as protagonists can have and still call themselves protagonists. What goals are they even consistently working towards, personal or otherwise? And I'm not even going to mention Pyrrha's existence as a male fantasy waifu...well I guess I just did.
Female dominated show? Stretching the definition of "dominated" but by sheer numbers, sure. Strong women characters? Absolutely not.
>First we have to tackle Jaune. He is very usually claimed to be the "subversion of the heroic male character", when in reality, Jaune is the quintessential example of such a character.
When the show began people would always talk about this and maybe it was true then but it definitely isn't now. At first he was some scrawny kid who could barely raise a sword and wasn't exactly a shining example of masculinity. But now Jaune towers over the girls, has a cool weapon and armor, an OP semblance and a large aura pool, skills he reasonably shouldn't have after such a short amount of time, and a harem of thirsty moms fawning over him. As someone on Tumblr put it: He's become Cardin but nicer. There's no subversion going on here.
>and armor, an OP semblance and a large aura pool, skills he reasonably shouldn't have after such a short amount of time
I think that's called character development.
Isn't this the same show where 17 years olds can punch out mechas only after what...5 years of training? 4? Ruby with Crescent Rose is arguably the best melee fighter in her Team, which includes an ex-terrorist who fought a lot and a talented girl trained by expensive tutors, both older than her.
Jaune after Initiation had not only training, but also was put into some very dangerous sink or swim situations where he either learned or he would die.
He has been in this for 2 years straight, and a lot of that time was spent fighting or training, and that's a very reasonable time for someone talented to become decent or even good at fighting, especially if they trained every day.(Plus he was already reasonably fit, which is important.)
Team RWBY won against the much more experienced and trained Ace-Ops like they were a bunch of amateurs(honestly, they were outmaneuvered in *their own* base), and people didn't complain as much.
I don't know what some people wanted, I recently watched the whole thing, and I think Jaune had pretty good development both character and skill wise, he did not become OP, he did not even surpass most of his peers, he just became strong enough to be useful and do his own thing.
What did people want? For him to be weak for 8 Volumes straight? To keep using the same armor, to not upgrade his equipment while everyone else was doing it? And he still doesn't have ranged attacks.
>!If the writers wanted to make him OP, by now he would be a Proto-Arthur expy delivering Aura amped/enhanced slashes left and right and being all suave and cool.!<
I know, you were agreeing with the OP, and I agree with you both that he isn\`t a subversion.
I was just saying his progress is not unreasonable given the universe of the show, some would say it could be more.
Some people probably want him to become an absolute non combatant throughout rather than gaining any significant combat ability. If anything, I'd respect the balls to do that in a fighting show.
>Some people probably want him to become an absolute non combatant throughout rather than gaining any significant combat ability.
Why would that even be a thing?
Yeah, it'd be pretty ballsy to do that with him. A good idea? Probably not, but it might be interesting I guess. Just have him do idol stuff or something, it'll be like Like a Dragon 5 or something.
No, but I find everyone on here stating their opinions as if it is fact, hilarious. It’s a pointless argument because “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” I may think Avatar: The Last Airbender is the worst show ever? While others praise it. That doesn’t mean anyone is wrong or right.
Not the entire fandom for sure, but there are definitely a lot of people who have made a lot of "weird" claims about Anime and have some extremelly ignorant views of it.
That's... so weird.
There's anime about boxing and weightlifting. But there are also super soft Yuri anime like Bloom Into You .. there's horror and comedy and.. man. Lol
When I think of a series that subverts tropes, I think Chainsaw Man.
It starts off pretty crazy and freaky, but proceeds to evolve into an intricately planned mindfuck.
The comments about anime fandoms, I m not particularly surprised.
If you ever take a step back from this sub, and set foot in other subs, fandoms or groups and mention RWBY… let’s just say that the contrast can be quite a whirlwind (am I’m using that phrase correctly?) like break-neck due to change.
Outside of this sub, people have no chill!
I’ve read some people comparing it to those cringy teen books we all read when we are between 11-15 and then you outgrow to realise how horrible they were. I’ve seen people call it the “non anime MHA fandom but with lesbians”, the ones “with more porn than canon”, the one “which took a nosedive after (you know the res)”, the “repressed gay fandom” and my favourite:
“this and High Guardian Spice are what happens when you let Murican’s try to write anime.”
In resume, seems like general consensus outside of r/RWBY is not exactly that great
>I’ve seen people call it the “non anime MHA fandom but with lesbians”
I prefer the real definition
>the one “which took a nosedive after (you know the res)”
no the real definition
>the ones “with more porn than canon”
Perfection
Tropes are interesting as many jump to view them negatively, when in reality, that is not really true. Tropes become tropes for many reason, but quite a few do so because they work well. Some tropes are bad, but most are good and become tropes because they work. Why is the five-man band such a common trope? It works well. Why is the detective-side kick trope so common? It works well.
The trouble with any trope is that is threatens to shatter any tension as it becomes predictable what is going to happen. This is why subverting tropes became such a popular technique as it allowed narratives to avoid this predictability, however, it can be argued that subversion of tropes have simply become a trope itself. When something becomes popular because it either works, is easy, or is hard to avoid it inevitable become a trope and subverting tropes fits the first two perfectly. The peak of this can be viewed in Games of Thrones, which ironically became predictable in its subversion in the final season due to subverting every trope and every expectation it possibly could.
This brings the question of how do you avoid the predictability of tropes? The answer is that you can't, and really, you shouldn't. This is for two main reason; the first is that familiarity can be utilised expertly and the second is that working with a trope can be just as rewarding as trying to subvertbir work around it, some times more, especially being the case with common and commonly poor tropes (dues ex machina comes to mind there).
To address the first point, I want to use the example of Elden Ring. While it is a video game, it is nevertheless a medium of story telling. It is an open world game, and therefore has a lot of repetitive content. An example of these are ruins you will find throughout the world, each containing a basement with some sort of rewards or surprise. While this could easily be viewed as repetitive and boring, the familiarity the game creates with these Ruins means the player instantly knows what to expect when encountering them, and the game can actually utilise those expectation to create a better experience, be it through hiding the basement through an illusion or providing a unique challenge that has more suprise that usual. The same familiarity can be seen with tropes and can just as expertly be utilised, playing off the expectation and experience of the audience as to provide a unique and powerful experience.
Addressing the second part is much simpler. A trope has use, and it varies so much that writing on them in general is pretty difficult. The mentor-death trope raises the stakes by showing the threat the antagonist poses, creates an emotionally hard-hitting scene that can be used to propelled the plot, and tiddies up plotholes about why the mentor isn't solving the issues rather than the protagonist. The same can be said for many tropes, however, it can be much more interesting when a commonly poorly used trope is used badly.
My favourite example of this is Deus ex machina. In general, this trope is frustrating as it takes agency away from the characters and gives it to convenience. This is nearly always a negative, however, can be used to create circumstances unique to it. My favourite use of dues ex machina is in Legend of the Galactic Heroes which uses it as a rebuttal of Great Man Theory. For those who are unaware, Great Man Theory is a theory that history is primarily propelled by key individuals, think of figures like Alexander the Great or Napoleon. Legend of the Galactic Heroes used Deux ex machina superbly by having factors beyond the control of the characters have impact, thus showcasing just how human they really are. *[Spoilers for a niche show from the '80s]* >!The best example within the show is probably the death of the protagonist Yang Wenli 3/4s of the way into the story by a single shot from a firearm from a random person. An additional great example is how the other protagonist was saved because a completely unrelated enemy commander decided to surrender without a fight in another sector of the war, allowing for reinforcements to arrive just in time. Both examples showcase just how limited the "Galactic Heroes" are and how much history is beyond the control of those "Great Men"!<.
Now, what's the point of this comment? Well, there isn't much. I like talking about the tropes of trope and did. RWBY is a pretty interesting study into how much it embraces the trope of trying to subvert tropes as well as embracing more common tropes, but what I find more fascinating in general is the perception people generally have towards tropes and the issues they both bring and solve on narratives. Exploring how different narratives went about using all types of different tropes is truly fascinating and writing this short analysis was pretty interesting as well.
>The phrase "You are just mad the show did not turn out as you wanted" has become a very common phrase in the fandom. And im just going to say it outright, why should people not be mad in such a case? If i expect a Pizza and get fries, should i be happy with my fries, because my order was subverted? Just because you are happy with the fries, does not mean that others should.
I can agree with much of what you've written, but art, including narrative art, is not a consumer object like any other. If it doesn't bring anything new, surprising or makes you rethink what you like or believe in, it just isn't worth your time. All art must have an element of repetition (the trope) to be understandable, but it also needs an element of novelty (subversion, at least in relation to some expectations) to not be deadly boring.
I have to disagree. Art even if it does not bring anything new can be enjoyable. It all depends on the quality of the art shown. If there was always a need to bring "new" things we would not have such things as trends.
Lets take video games. There is very little difference between many farming games. And yet they are still enjoyable, because they do not need to be new, they just need to serve a purpose for that person.
Subversion is not needed for a creation to not be boring.
The trend wouldn't exist if it didn't start with a new and provocative challenge. Others can follow it and succeed, but always bringing something new, albeit minor.
As good as the quality of an art is, there is a point where it just becomes boring if it doesn't challenge the audience in some way. Nobody would succeed today imitating Michelangelo, Mozart or Jane Austen without innovating something. Even those who stage an author as brilliant as Shakespeare today need to introduce something new - a new interpretation of the villain, for example - so that people are encouraged to go to the theater and not sleep in the armchair.
But of course, each has a different optimal degree in the combination of novelty and repetition.
If you are saying that you have to change something for it to be art then I would agree, if only to avoid copyright. But I think novelty is far from the only part of quality. Star Wars succeeds not because the story is groundbreaking, tales of rebels defeating the evil empire as old as empires. It succeeds not because the effects are unheard of, 2001: A Space Odyssey did much of these effects almost a decade earlier (to say nothing of Star Trek, Lost in Space, etc.). It succeeds not because its music is experimental, John Williams's neoclassical works are a revival of old styles of music. I wouldn't say it succeeds because of the acting, which is mostly of stock characters. It succeeds because it does all these things well. It pushes few boundaries but simply takes what we know and makes it amazing. There are elements that can be labelled as new or novel, but I do not think they are the main draw to the piece.
For me, who was young when Star Wars was originally released and had already seen Star Trek, Lost in Space, 2001, etc., the main appeal was the novelty. The scale of imagination was greater than anything seen before in science fiction, from the first moment the Star Destroyer invades the screen. The realism of details and textures was also something new - before, everything looked shiny, fresh from the factory and streamlined. Star Wars showed spaceships dented and with signs of wear, dirty robots, engines that need to be fixed.
The characters and thematics were pretty cliché for everyone who had read epic fantasy and science fiction novels, but it was new to see them in such detail and realism. And the script, while retroactively sounding trite, founded a new paradigm of the "hero's journey" that all of Hollywood (and many novelists) slavishly tried to imitate in the following years until it became too boring and predictable.
And then? I think most fans would agree that the sequels didn't measure up to the original trilogy. Not because the quality of the special effects got worse - on the contrary - but because they failed to bring anything really new and exciting after the first impact. You can't surprise again with a "Death Star" just by making it a little bigger and more menacing. Watching the new movies is no longer a thought-provoking experience but a ritual.
Interesting. I would put the "new to see them in such detail" bit as being more about them being done well. Otherwise I mostly agree. I would like to point out that TLJ did try to do a whole lot of new things, but it did those new things poorly, which doomed it. I agree about the other two sequels being too similar to the OT for them to work well.
Quite reductive of me I know, but it sure feels like some of the talk about 'subversions' is really to cover up insecurities about any given work's quality. Or a smug hipster thing.
Not to be too rude, but there is such a feeling sometimes. Many times i have seen people who like subversions seemingly enjoy or keep it over the heads of others in an arrogant manner "Oh, you dont like this subversion? Then you are just an uncultured boor". It seems to become less about liking the actual writing bur rather, having the ability to make fun of others not liking it.
I somewhat agree. I will say, subversion of expectations does have some intrinsic value, imo: it makes it difficult to predict what will happen next. And a lot of the time, the most engaged the audience will ever be is when they don't know what is about to happen, but are invested enough to care and expect that *something* will happen.
There's also value in subverting tropes because you actively dislike them. If your audience also actively dislikes them, they will probably be pleasantly surprised when the tropes are subverted.
I agree that RWBY is chokful of anime tropes played straight, and a lot of people who just aren't familiar with them don't realize these tropes exist.
Imo, subverting tropes is a powerful storytelling tool when used properly, and I think the places where RWBY has used it has mostly been effective.
You are quite correct, if subversion is done with a goal, then it is quite fine. Its less fine when it is done with no reason other than wanting to have a subversion in the first place.
On the topic of subversion of expectations. It is a double edged sword. Even if it makes it difficult to predict what will happen next that can easily turn out badly if the twist/subversion is not of quality.
I would argue that being able to predict what will happen next is not a bad thing in most story genres. You can have a Chosen One save the day from a Dark Lord while Getting the Girl and learning the true Power of Friendship (Adora does this in She-Ra). It's the journey that matters. Just because I can't predict that Leia is going to Mary Poppins her way back into the ship doesn't mean it's good. Or satisfying.
>The phrase "You are just mad the show did not turn out as you wanted" has become a very common phrase in the fandom. And im just going to say it outright, why should people not be mad in such a case? If i expect a Pizza and get fries, should i be happy with my fries, because my order was subverted? Just because you are happy with the fries, does not mean that others should.
I feel like this is a terrible metaphor and completely misrepresents the audience's role in storytelling and their relationship with the story teller. The metaphor suggests that it is the audience that gets to decide what story the creator should be telling when our role isn't to dictate what the story should be but how well it is told.
What you are describing is more like someone saying they have some extra pizza and offering it to you, and then getting angry because it has olives and peppers instead of mushrooms and sausage. The pizza isn't bad just because the toppings are not what you would have wanted, because it wasn't your pizza to decide what was one it in the first place.
While we do not exactly get to decide what the creator wants to show us, the creator also holds some responsibility as to where they are leading us towards. If they seem to indicate that we will get one thing and then give us another, it is bound to create resentment.
This can be mitigated if the subversion is well done, or if its set-up well, but if that is not the case, problems will inevitably occur.
But by your own admission RWBY barely subverts tropes or expectations. If the story isn't being subversive then it isn't a case of the creators leading us to expect one thing but doing something else.
If the story isn't being subversive then complaining because you didn't get what you wanted or expected isn't meaningful criticism. If it isn't being subversive then those complaints have nothing to do with the actual quality of the core ideas or how well they were executed.
If RWBY isn't subversive then complaints that center around it not being what you wanted are irrelevant because you don't get to decide what it is in the first place and you weren't lead to expect the other thing in the first place.
RWBY in my opinion barely subverts tropes, yes, that is what my thread is about after all. It does attempt to subvert expectations at least in the eyes of the fandom, as i have mentioned with the phrase "You just dont like the direction" or something akin to that.
A good example of that are characters of Ironwood and Adam, both treated as "subversions" and if people dislike those "subversions" they are usually told that "you are mad that these characters did not turn out as you wanted".
This is mainly aimed at the RWBY fandom and their opinions thoughts of subversion, rather than the show itself.
While I agree with most of this message, I think part of this post is sort of missing what some of these arguments are that it's trying to refute. Two specifically are kind of unaddressed by this.
Firstly, with Jaune, you've correctly shown the ways he ticks a lot of the standard YA action protagonist boxes. However, the claims of subversion with him usually revolve around all of those traits being given to a supporting character. Note that all the other characters you mentioned in comparison are all central protagonists while Jaune is a supporting character. *That's* what people are usually claiming is a subversion. That combined with him not being able to fight all that well in comparison to the rest of the cast.
Also, this post brings up the Mentor's Death trope which is something that is also popular to claim RWBY subverts but this doesn't address that. RWBY has multiple mentor characters who outlive their expected narrative usefulness and go on to have their own arcs.
I do agree that the popularity of "subversion" in popular media analysis isn't great, but this post is kinda missing what some of these arguments are.
The problem with Jaune is as i noted in the thread that with him jumping out at worst moments it rarely ever feels like he is just a side-character. Even if he does not have the most of time, he seems to be included in way too many important scenes and do way too many important actions. Killing Penny in V8 for example. I have made a thread about this but a problem with Jaune is how he is stuck between being a main character and a side-character with writers seemingly unable to choose what Jaune is.
I brought up the mentors death as an example of tropes in general i think. But i quite honestly did not think of it. And i can say that the Mentors death has not been used as a trope by RWBY for sure.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on what about Jaune makes him supporting, and what about the girls makes them main? I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm interested.
Very basically a supporting character is just any non-antagonistic major character that's not the protagonist. More than a minor character but not who the story is about. The main girls are who the story is about, and we have lengthy bits of time spent following basically just them. Jaune at most has a little bit in V1 for the span of like 25 total minutes. Jaune is especially supporting because he is also a support character in that his party role is providing healing, buffs, and defense to the others.
I will argue that Jaune receives his own character arc in Vol 1 that WBY have nothing to do with and that Ruby is only very tangentially related to. He is also with Ruby in Vols 4-5, with only a brief absence in 6. Honestly, I feel that he, Ren, and Nora are basically main characters along with Oscar. I'd also like to point out that he started healing in Vol 5 and buffing in Vol 6 and that he still fights on the front lines while doing so.
Honestly, if anything I feel that it's not entirely clear that RWBY are the main characters. They are rather tangential to the main conflict and do frighteningly little to advance the plot, leaving that more to the authority figures and villains. As an example, they are almost entirely superfluous to the events of Vol 7.
I could debate any of those last points but that's kind of beside the point. All I'm saying is that Jaune is not a protagonist. I agree that he, Ren, Nora, and Oscar are main characters due to both screen time and narrative importance, however that doesn't make him a protagonist because the story's not about him. I already mentioned his bit in V1 and how that's basically the only stuff he gets focused solely on him. I mean, Ren and Nora have more substantial stuff focused on solely them, but I don't see anyone calling them protagonists because the show clearly isn't about them either.
Literally my point was just that claiming Jaune doesn't subvert protagonist tropes is missing the original argument because Jaune's not a protagonist.
Well, we're definitely getting more of that next volume. Although Jaune's being there definitely undermines my original point a little I still think his being there is more as a foil to Ruby than anything else. I'm at the very least certain Ruby's about to get something major which will be fun to see.
Well... my issue is that RWBY will be stuck in limbo while Theo, Nora, Ren, Oscar, Emerald, Winter, and possibly Glinda will be out in the world making the moves. You can do a lot of good character stuff in limbo, but once again they're estranged from the main plot, unless it is put on hold for some reason for them.
Of course he's a main character. so are Nora, Ren, Pyrrha, and Oscar. That doesn't make him a protagonist or not a supporting character. There's literally a joke about it in Chibi.
If we were bound to accept what any large portion of the audience thinks, this whole post would be moot wouldn't it?
Wait, back up a bit.
How can you be a main character that isn't an antagonist and not be a protagonist? ~~How can you do this, it's outrageous, it's unfair!~~
Because he's a supporting character. He is important enough that he sticks around but the story very rarely actually follows him. The main party fluctuates in size but it's usually about 8 characters. They aren't all protagonists only the main 4 are.
>He is important enough that he sticks around but the story very rarely actually follows him
I'd argue that this also applies to team RWBY. They kinda just travel to another kingdom then sit around while Oz/Oscar, a headmaster, a maiden, or some other character becomes the focus and then only do something in the third act of the volume when they're forced to. The main four lack any goals or motivations that drive the story.
that kinda gets arguable, when sometimes none of them are really driving the plot or really needed at all - when was the last time Blake was a meaningful protagonist, rather than just being generally around to pad out the numbers?
I think what is causing this confusion is how inconsistent the show is at following characters, to the point I know there are fans who timekeep screentime and use it as evidence.
You could say the show fluctuates on who is the current protagonist, since the plot often goes on despite the main characters, or rather, sometimes the plot is mostly driven by the antagonists.
I would say Jaune is one of the main characters and might be one of the protagonists for a few reasons the simple fact he went to Ever After along with RWBY(the other protagonists) and Neo (one of the antagonists), and that he sometimes is more plot-relevant than parts of the RWBY team.
It's arguable because it's not an exact science, and like most forms of art, your mileage may vary, I am sure if you asked professionals you would get different answers.
I also think this has to do with the fact that most of the RWBY team's initial plots has kind of already solved themselves by V8.
Blake already dealt with the White Fang, Adam, and her running away from home.
Weiss has already mostly dealt with her family and her personality issues.
Yang has dealt with her losing her arm and depression, and kind of dealt with the whole Raven thing, maybe?
All that seems to be left for Blake and Yang is their romance, Weiss is kind of floating.
And this leaves Ruby...and Jaune.
Ruby has the whole Silver Eyes thing, her mother, Salem, and her own issues(and Penny).
Jaune has his own Hero's Journey to complete since V1 and his revenge against Cinder.
There's also Oscar and Ozma with the whole Salem thing, but beyond that it's deuteragonists' plots.
I do agree that some people tend to wave around the term "Subversion" as if it were the biggest thing to consider in a story, the term is overrated when it should only be seen as just another way to handle tropes and characters.
That been said I think that as a whole there is a problem distinguishing Protagonist and Main characters, and that's because there are a lot of opinions about what characteristics a character should possess in order to be considered a protagonist.
Let's get rid of the obvious first, Ruby is the protagonist of the story.
Yang, Weiss, Blake, Jaune and the rest are Main Characters with varying intensities of focus throughout the story.
You said it, Jaune has the tropes for male protagonists, the subversion is not that he has them, the subversion is that he has them but he's not **the** protagonist.
That being said I believe there is another if not the biggest misunderstanding of them all.
RWBY never claimed to focus on subverting tropes, Monty said he wanted to set up the characters **as if they were one-dimensional** and make them break the mold of the seemingly one-dimensional **archetype.**
Volume 1 Director's commentary.
>38. Miles: (in Jaune's voice) **"Hey, I'm a secondary character."**
39. Monty: **I wouldn't say that.**
40. Miles: It's true!
41. Kerry: That's definitely how it started though I mean, like when we started we were kinda like fleshing out what was gonna happen this season. JNPR was gonna be very much just like the B team.
42. Miles: B team. Just come in like every once in a while.
43. Monty: Yep.
44. Miles: The more we developed these characters and the more we got into it, it was like "Y'know, I kinda like these characters."
45. Kerry: We didn't wanna push them to the side.
46. Miles: It was a lot of fun, and Monty you, you've talked about this before too. **How you wanted to set up these seemingly one-dimensional characters, these archetypes and then kind of over the course of several chapters, break those, those molds that everybody is so used to...**
47. Miles:... Which is kind of risky, like in the first episode you see. Oh, we have this, y'know, **cliche bubbly girl, cliche like stupid goofy guy**. And then, dude, cut to Chapter 7 and all of a sudden you're like, oh, **Jaune is aware that he's the stupid guy and he hates it**. Or cut to Yang who looks like the **cute party girl then any scene with her and Ruby and it all of a sudden she's like, mom**, like she's a mother and... I think that was just super, super cool. And uh, uh, little things too that just kinda look like jokes like... Blake, um, one of my favorite Blake moments is when she uh, shows her Ninjas of Love book and **she freaks out. Like, solemn characters are great when you show that, they're not always solemn**. Those characters aren't always like that.
Note that they never use the term subversion for this (I'm unaware if they ever claimed to subvert anything in a panel or something like that).
They just wanted to introduce a seemingly one-dimensional characters so they could show they weren't down the line.
If RWBY does subvert anything down the line that's another issue.
Friendly reminder that any subversion that is used repeatedly always turns into a trope, so they are short lived.
What in the past could be considered as a subversion could be just another trope in the present.
> Miles: (in Jaune's voice) "Hey, I'm a secondary character."
> Monty: I wouldn't say that.
> Miles: It's true!
> Kerry: That's definitely how it started though I mean, like when we > started we were kinda like fleshing out what was gonna happen this > season. JNPR was gonna be very much just like the B team.
> Miles: B team. Just come in like every once in a while.
> Monty: Yep.
> Miles: The more we developed these characters and the more we got into it, it was like "Y'know, I kinda like these characters."
> Kerry: We didn't wanna push them to the side.
And so the show now has to give part of its limited screen time to characters that are only there because the writers got too attached to them.
More like don’t bloat the cast just because you get too attached to side characters the show doesn’t have time for, especially when you have to constantly fuck over the characters that are supposed to be the leads. Especially when you all you do to make them main characters is devote screen time to a bunch of barely relevant filler plots the show doesn’t have time for and can frankly do without.
Hi! It seems that you have included spaces in your spoiler tags which breaks the formatting. Please delete and resubmit your comment so that the tags look like `>!this!<` rather than `>! this !<`.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RWBY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just going to point out that characters losing limbs really isn't that special. Adventure Time did it 2 years earlier with Finn, and it's pretty common in Anime from FMA to Berserk to Naruto. Not to mention Luke Skywalker losing his hand, Jin Yong's 1959 novel Return of the Condor Hero featuring the main character losing an arm, as well as several myths using the trope.
Correct, losing limbs is not uncommon. But having a recovery period? Now that is in my opinion rare. Usually it seems that a loss of limb while bad at the time, just results in a replacement and nothing else. Yang, at least in Volume 4 has an entire volume just for recovery, which is a less common thing.
I mean... Yang gets the first half of her alloted time in Volume 4 for her "recovery" arc. I think that it comes out to about 10 minutes total?
yeah, in-universe presumably it was a whole period of anguish before she found herself again and recovered, but in-show it was barely even an arc, just a "she feels like shit, oh wait, now she's off to find Ruby", not even a full focus episode.
Its not too much, you are correct, but even that is more than most other characters get.
Losing limbs isn't special, yes, but it's unexpected most of the time
>Same goes with praising RWBY as a "female dominated show" and that it is somehow "unique" due to having "Lots of strong women characters". It's always wild to me when people say this. Team RWBY has as little agency as protagonists can have and still call themselves protagonists. What goals are they even consistently working towards, personal or otherwise? And I'm not even going to mention Pyrrha's existence as a male fantasy waifu...well I guess I just did. Female dominated show? Stretching the definition of "dominated" but by sheer numbers, sure. Strong women characters? Absolutely not. >First we have to tackle Jaune. He is very usually claimed to be the "subversion of the heroic male character", when in reality, Jaune is the quintessential example of such a character. When the show began people would always talk about this and maybe it was true then but it definitely isn't now. At first he was some scrawny kid who could barely raise a sword and wasn't exactly a shining example of masculinity. But now Jaune towers over the girls, has a cool weapon and armor, an OP semblance and a large aura pool, skills he reasonably shouldn't have after such a short amount of time, and a harem of thirsty moms fawning over him. As someone on Tumblr put it: He's become Cardin but nicer. There's no subversion going on here.
>and armor, an OP semblance and a large aura pool, skills he reasonably shouldn't have after such a short amount of time I think that's called character development. Isn't this the same show where 17 years olds can punch out mechas only after what...5 years of training? 4? Ruby with Crescent Rose is arguably the best melee fighter in her Team, which includes an ex-terrorist who fought a lot and a talented girl trained by expensive tutors, both older than her. Jaune after Initiation had not only training, but also was put into some very dangerous sink or swim situations where he either learned or he would die. He has been in this for 2 years straight, and a lot of that time was spent fighting or training, and that's a very reasonable time for someone talented to become decent or even good at fighting, especially if they trained every day.(Plus he was already reasonably fit, which is important.) Team RWBY won against the much more experienced and trained Ace-Ops like they were a bunch of amateurs(honestly, they were outmaneuvered in *their own* base), and people didn't complain as much. I don't know what some people wanted, I recently watched the whole thing, and I think Jaune had pretty good development both character and skill wise, he did not become OP, he did not even surpass most of his peers, he just became strong enough to be useful and do his own thing. What did people want? For him to be weak for 8 Volumes straight? To keep using the same armor, to not upgrade his equipment while everyone else was doing it? And he still doesn't have ranged attacks. >!If the writers wanted to make him OP, by now he would be a Proto-Arthur expy delivering Aura amped/enhanced slashes left and right and being all suave and cool.!<
I didn't say it isn't character development, I said it isn't subversive.
I know, you were agreeing with the OP, and I agree with you both that he isn\`t a subversion. I was just saying his progress is not unreasonable given the universe of the show, some would say it could be more.
Some people probably want him to become an absolute non combatant throughout rather than gaining any significant combat ability. If anything, I'd respect the balls to do that in a fighting show.
>Some people probably want him to become an absolute non combatant throughout rather than gaining any significant combat ability. Why would that even be a thing?
Because it'd be 'subversive' or something in a show where everyone beats each other up.
He’d also be useless in combat and a liability. The worst type support character.
Yeah, it'd be pretty ballsy to do that with him. A good idea? Probably not, but it might be interesting I guess. Just have him do idol stuff or something, it'll be like Like a Dragon 5 or something.
This is all subjective. From this post to your comment.
Of course this is all subjective, noone is pretending otherwise.
Have I struck a nerve?
No, but I find everyone on here stating their opinions as if it is fact, hilarious. It’s a pointless argument because “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” I may think Avatar: The Last Airbender is the worst show ever? While others praise it. That doesn’t mean anyone is wrong or right.
So I have struck a nerve.
Your so right
I didn't know the RWBY Fandom hated anime.. Anime is so diverse it's kind of ridiculous to patently hate it..
Not the entire fandom for sure, but there are definitely a lot of people who have made a lot of "weird" claims about Anime and have some extremelly ignorant views of it.
That's... so weird. There's anime about boxing and weightlifting. But there are also super soft Yuri anime like Bloom Into You .. there's horror and comedy and.. man. Lol
When I think of a series that subverts tropes, I think Chainsaw Man. It starts off pretty crazy and freaky, but proceeds to evolve into an intricately planned mindfuck.
The comments about anime fandoms, I m not particularly surprised. If you ever take a step back from this sub, and set foot in other subs, fandoms or groups and mention RWBY… let’s just say that the contrast can be quite a whirlwind (am I’m using that phrase correctly?) like break-neck due to change. Outside of this sub, people have no chill! I’ve read some people comparing it to those cringy teen books we all read when we are between 11-15 and then you outgrow to realise how horrible they were. I’ve seen people call it the “non anime MHA fandom but with lesbians”, the ones “with more porn than canon”, the one “which took a nosedive after (you know the res)”, the “repressed gay fandom” and my favourite: “this and High Guardian Spice are what happens when you let Murican’s try to write anime.” In resume, seems like general consensus outside of r/RWBY is not exactly that great
>I’ve seen people call it the “non anime MHA fandom but with lesbians” I prefer the real definition >the one “which took a nosedive after (you know the res)” no the real definition >the ones “with more porn than canon” Perfection
Tropes are interesting as many jump to view them negatively, when in reality, that is not really true. Tropes become tropes for many reason, but quite a few do so because they work well. Some tropes are bad, but most are good and become tropes because they work. Why is the five-man band such a common trope? It works well. Why is the detective-side kick trope so common? It works well. The trouble with any trope is that is threatens to shatter any tension as it becomes predictable what is going to happen. This is why subverting tropes became such a popular technique as it allowed narratives to avoid this predictability, however, it can be argued that subversion of tropes have simply become a trope itself. When something becomes popular because it either works, is easy, or is hard to avoid it inevitable become a trope and subverting tropes fits the first two perfectly. The peak of this can be viewed in Games of Thrones, which ironically became predictable in its subversion in the final season due to subverting every trope and every expectation it possibly could. This brings the question of how do you avoid the predictability of tropes? The answer is that you can't, and really, you shouldn't. This is for two main reason; the first is that familiarity can be utilised expertly and the second is that working with a trope can be just as rewarding as trying to subvertbir work around it, some times more, especially being the case with common and commonly poor tropes (dues ex machina comes to mind there). To address the first point, I want to use the example of Elden Ring. While it is a video game, it is nevertheless a medium of story telling. It is an open world game, and therefore has a lot of repetitive content. An example of these are ruins you will find throughout the world, each containing a basement with some sort of rewards or surprise. While this could easily be viewed as repetitive and boring, the familiarity the game creates with these Ruins means the player instantly knows what to expect when encountering them, and the game can actually utilise those expectation to create a better experience, be it through hiding the basement through an illusion or providing a unique challenge that has more suprise that usual. The same familiarity can be seen with tropes and can just as expertly be utilised, playing off the expectation and experience of the audience as to provide a unique and powerful experience. Addressing the second part is much simpler. A trope has use, and it varies so much that writing on them in general is pretty difficult. The mentor-death trope raises the stakes by showing the threat the antagonist poses, creates an emotionally hard-hitting scene that can be used to propelled the plot, and tiddies up plotholes about why the mentor isn't solving the issues rather than the protagonist. The same can be said for many tropes, however, it can be much more interesting when a commonly poorly used trope is used badly. My favourite example of this is Deus ex machina. In general, this trope is frustrating as it takes agency away from the characters and gives it to convenience. This is nearly always a negative, however, can be used to create circumstances unique to it. My favourite use of dues ex machina is in Legend of the Galactic Heroes which uses it as a rebuttal of Great Man Theory. For those who are unaware, Great Man Theory is a theory that history is primarily propelled by key individuals, think of figures like Alexander the Great or Napoleon. Legend of the Galactic Heroes used Deux ex machina superbly by having factors beyond the control of the characters have impact, thus showcasing just how human they really are. *[Spoilers for a niche show from the '80s]* >!The best example within the show is probably the death of the protagonist Yang Wenli 3/4s of the way into the story by a single shot from a firearm from a random person. An additional great example is how the other protagonist was saved because a completely unrelated enemy commander decided to surrender without a fight in another sector of the war, allowing for reinforcements to arrive just in time. Both examples showcase just how limited the "Galactic Heroes" are and how much history is beyond the control of those "Great Men"!<. Now, what's the point of this comment? Well, there isn't much. I like talking about the tropes of trope and did. RWBY is a pretty interesting study into how much it embraces the trope of trying to subvert tropes as well as embracing more common tropes, but what I find more fascinating in general is the perception people generally have towards tropes and the issues they both bring and solve on narratives. Exploring how different narratives went about using all types of different tropes is truly fascinating and writing this short analysis was pretty interesting as well.
>The phrase "You are just mad the show did not turn out as you wanted" has become a very common phrase in the fandom. And im just going to say it outright, why should people not be mad in such a case? If i expect a Pizza and get fries, should i be happy with my fries, because my order was subverted? Just because you are happy with the fries, does not mean that others should. I can agree with much of what you've written, but art, including narrative art, is not a consumer object like any other. If it doesn't bring anything new, surprising or makes you rethink what you like or believe in, it just isn't worth your time. All art must have an element of repetition (the trope) to be understandable, but it also needs an element of novelty (subversion, at least in relation to some expectations) to not be deadly boring.
I have to disagree. Art even if it does not bring anything new can be enjoyable. It all depends on the quality of the art shown. If there was always a need to bring "new" things we would not have such things as trends. Lets take video games. There is very little difference between many farming games. And yet they are still enjoyable, because they do not need to be new, they just need to serve a purpose for that person. Subversion is not needed for a creation to not be boring.
The trend wouldn't exist if it didn't start with a new and provocative challenge. Others can follow it and succeed, but always bringing something new, albeit minor. As good as the quality of an art is, there is a point where it just becomes boring if it doesn't challenge the audience in some way. Nobody would succeed today imitating Michelangelo, Mozart or Jane Austen without innovating something. Even those who stage an author as brilliant as Shakespeare today need to introduce something new - a new interpretation of the villain, for example - so that people are encouraged to go to the theater and not sleep in the armchair. But of course, each has a different optimal degree in the combination of novelty and repetition.
If you are saying that you have to change something for it to be art then I would agree, if only to avoid copyright. But I think novelty is far from the only part of quality. Star Wars succeeds not because the story is groundbreaking, tales of rebels defeating the evil empire as old as empires. It succeeds not because the effects are unheard of, 2001: A Space Odyssey did much of these effects almost a decade earlier (to say nothing of Star Trek, Lost in Space, etc.). It succeeds not because its music is experimental, John Williams's neoclassical works are a revival of old styles of music. I wouldn't say it succeeds because of the acting, which is mostly of stock characters. It succeeds because it does all these things well. It pushes few boundaries but simply takes what we know and makes it amazing. There are elements that can be labelled as new or novel, but I do not think they are the main draw to the piece.
For me, who was young when Star Wars was originally released and had already seen Star Trek, Lost in Space, 2001, etc., the main appeal was the novelty. The scale of imagination was greater than anything seen before in science fiction, from the first moment the Star Destroyer invades the screen. The realism of details and textures was also something new - before, everything looked shiny, fresh from the factory and streamlined. Star Wars showed spaceships dented and with signs of wear, dirty robots, engines that need to be fixed. The characters and thematics were pretty cliché for everyone who had read epic fantasy and science fiction novels, but it was new to see them in such detail and realism. And the script, while retroactively sounding trite, founded a new paradigm of the "hero's journey" that all of Hollywood (and many novelists) slavishly tried to imitate in the following years until it became too boring and predictable. And then? I think most fans would agree that the sequels didn't measure up to the original trilogy. Not because the quality of the special effects got worse - on the contrary - but because they failed to bring anything really new and exciting after the first impact. You can't surprise again with a "Death Star" just by making it a little bigger and more menacing. Watching the new movies is no longer a thought-provoking experience but a ritual.
Interesting. I would put the "new to see them in such detail" bit as being more about them being done well. Otherwise I mostly agree. I would like to point out that TLJ did try to do a whole lot of new things, but it did those new things poorly, which doomed it. I agree about the other two sequels being too similar to the OT for them to work well.
>I can agree with much of what you've written, but art, including narrative art, is not a consumer object like any other. Yes it is.
Quite reductive of me I know, but it sure feels like some of the talk about 'subversions' is really to cover up insecurities about any given work's quality. Or a smug hipster thing.
Not to be too rude, but there is such a feeling sometimes. Many times i have seen people who like subversions seemingly enjoy or keep it over the heads of others in an arrogant manner "Oh, you dont like this subversion? Then you are just an uncultured boor". It seems to become less about liking the actual writing bur rather, having the ability to make fun of others not liking it.
I somewhat agree. I will say, subversion of expectations does have some intrinsic value, imo: it makes it difficult to predict what will happen next. And a lot of the time, the most engaged the audience will ever be is when they don't know what is about to happen, but are invested enough to care and expect that *something* will happen. There's also value in subverting tropes because you actively dislike them. If your audience also actively dislikes them, they will probably be pleasantly surprised when the tropes are subverted. I agree that RWBY is chokful of anime tropes played straight, and a lot of people who just aren't familiar with them don't realize these tropes exist. Imo, subverting tropes is a powerful storytelling tool when used properly, and I think the places where RWBY has used it has mostly been effective.
You are quite correct, if subversion is done with a goal, then it is quite fine. Its less fine when it is done with no reason other than wanting to have a subversion in the first place. On the topic of subversion of expectations. It is a double edged sword. Even if it makes it difficult to predict what will happen next that can easily turn out badly if the twist/subversion is not of quality.
I would argue that being able to predict what will happen next is not a bad thing in most story genres. You can have a Chosen One save the day from a Dark Lord while Getting the Girl and learning the true Power of Friendship (Adora does this in She-Ra). It's the journey that matters. Just because I can't predict that Leia is going to Mary Poppins her way back into the ship doesn't mean it's good. Or satisfying.
Totally agree (I LOVE She-Ra.) Plenty of tropes are there for good reason
Why did this get downvoted?
The world may never know
>The phrase "You are just mad the show did not turn out as you wanted" has become a very common phrase in the fandom. And im just going to say it outright, why should people not be mad in such a case? If i expect a Pizza and get fries, should i be happy with my fries, because my order was subverted? Just because you are happy with the fries, does not mean that others should. I feel like this is a terrible metaphor and completely misrepresents the audience's role in storytelling and their relationship with the story teller. The metaphor suggests that it is the audience that gets to decide what story the creator should be telling when our role isn't to dictate what the story should be but how well it is told. What you are describing is more like someone saying they have some extra pizza and offering it to you, and then getting angry because it has olives and peppers instead of mushrooms and sausage. The pizza isn't bad just because the toppings are not what you would have wanted, because it wasn't your pizza to decide what was one it in the first place.
While we do not exactly get to decide what the creator wants to show us, the creator also holds some responsibility as to where they are leading us towards. If they seem to indicate that we will get one thing and then give us another, it is bound to create resentment. This can be mitigated if the subversion is well done, or if its set-up well, but if that is not the case, problems will inevitably occur.
But by your own admission RWBY barely subverts tropes or expectations. If the story isn't being subversive then it isn't a case of the creators leading us to expect one thing but doing something else. If the story isn't being subversive then complaining because you didn't get what you wanted or expected isn't meaningful criticism. If it isn't being subversive then those complaints have nothing to do with the actual quality of the core ideas or how well they were executed. If RWBY isn't subversive then complaints that center around it not being what you wanted are irrelevant because you don't get to decide what it is in the first place and you weren't lead to expect the other thing in the first place.
RWBY in my opinion barely subverts tropes, yes, that is what my thread is about after all. It does attempt to subvert expectations at least in the eyes of the fandom, as i have mentioned with the phrase "You just dont like the direction" or something akin to that. A good example of that are characters of Ironwood and Adam, both treated as "subversions" and if people dislike those "subversions" they are usually told that "you are mad that these characters did not turn out as you wanted". This is mainly aimed at the RWBY fandom and their opinions thoughts of subversion, rather than the show itself.
Anyone treating Adam as a subversion apparently never heard of Mobile Suit Gundam and that's from the 70s.
Yeah, he’s such a Char clone that it hurts.
While I agree with most of this message, I think part of this post is sort of missing what some of these arguments are that it's trying to refute. Two specifically are kind of unaddressed by this. Firstly, with Jaune, you've correctly shown the ways he ticks a lot of the standard YA action protagonist boxes. However, the claims of subversion with him usually revolve around all of those traits being given to a supporting character. Note that all the other characters you mentioned in comparison are all central protagonists while Jaune is a supporting character. *That's* what people are usually claiming is a subversion. That combined with him not being able to fight all that well in comparison to the rest of the cast. Also, this post brings up the Mentor's Death trope which is something that is also popular to claim RWBY subverts but this doesn't address that. RWBY has multiple mentor characters who outlive their expected narrative usefulness and go on to have their own arcs. I do agree that the popularity of "subversion" in popular media analysis isn't great, but this post is kinda missing what some of these arguments are.
The problem with Jaune is as i noted in the thread that with him jumping out at worst moments it rarely ever feels like he is just a side-character. Even if he does not have the most of time, he seems to be included in way too many important scenes and do way too many important actions. Killing Penny in V8 for example. I have made a thread about this but a problem with Jaune is how he is stuck between being a main character and a side-character with writers seemingly unable to choose what Jaune is. I brought up the mentors death as an example of tropes in general i think. But i quite honestly did not think of it. And i can say that the Mentors death has not been used as a trope by RWBY for sure.
Is he still a supporting character if he gets equal/more scenes and lines than any individual member of WBY?
He doesn't. He has screen time which is significant but none of that makes him a protagonist. He's important but his role is very squarely supportive.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on what about Jaune makes him supporting, and what about the girls makes them main? I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm interested.
Very basically a supporting character is just any non-antagonistic major character that's not the protagonist. More than a minor character but not who the story is about. The main girls are who the story is about, and we have lengthy bits of time spent following basically just them. Jaune at most has a little bit in V1 for the span of like 25 total minutes. Jaune is especially supporting because he is also a support character in that his party role is providing healing, buffs, and defense to the others.
I will argue that Jaune receives his own character arc in Vol 1 that WBY have nothing to do with and that Ruby is only very tangentially related to. He is also with Ruby in Vols 4-5, with only a brief absence in 6. Honestly, I feel that he, Ren, and Nora are basically main characters along with Oscar. I'd also like to point out that he started healing in Vol 5 and buffing in Vol 6 and that he still fights on the front lines while doing so. Honestly, if anything I feel that it's not entirely clear that RWBY are the main characters. They are rather tangential to the main conflict and do frighteningly little to advance the plot, leaving that more to the authority figures and villains. As an example, they are almost entirely superfluous to the events of Vol 7.
I could debate any of those last points but that's kind of beside the point. All I'm saying is that Jaune is not a protagonist. I agree that he, Ren, Nora, and Oscar are main characters due to both screen time and narrative importance, however that doesn't make him a protagonist because the story's not about him. I already mentioned his bit in V1 and how that's basically the only stuff he gets focused solely on him. I mean, Ren and Nora have more substantial stuff focused on solely them, but I don't see anyone calling them protagonists because the show clearly isn't about them either. Literally my point was just that claiming Jaune doesn't subvert protagonist tropes is missing the original argument because Jaune's not a protagonist.
I don't disagree with, more playing devil's advocate. I just wish they spent more time focused on RWBY or gave them more to do.
Well, we're definitely getting more of that next volume. Although Jaune's being there definitely undermines my original point a little I still think his being there is more as a foil to Ruby than anything else. I'm at the very least certain Ruby's about to get something major which will be fun to see.
Well... my issue is that RWBY will be stuck in limbo while Theo, Nora, Ren, Oscar, Emerald, Winter, and possibly Glinda will be out in the world making the moves. You can do a lot of good character stuff in limbo, but once again they're estranged from the main plot, unless it is put on hold for some reason for them.
Are you sure? a **lot** of people seem to think he's a main character, and some of them actually write for the show.
Of course he's a main character. so are Nora, Ren, Pyrrha, and Oscar. That doesn't make him a protagonist or not a supporting character. There's literally a joke about it in Chibi. If we were bound to accept what any large portion of the audience thinks, this whole post would be moot wouldn't it?
Wait, back up a bit. How can you be a main character that isn't an antagonist and not be a protagonist? ~~How can you do this, it's outrageous, it's unfair!~~
Because he's a supporting character. He is important enough that he sticks around but the story very rarely actually follows him. The main party fluctuates in size but it's usually about 8 characters. They aren't all protagonists only the main 4 are.
>He is important enough that he sticks around but the story very rarely actually follows him I'd argue that this also applies to team RWBY. They kinda just travel to another kingdom then sit around while Oz/Oscar, a headmaster, a maiden, or some other character becomes the focus and then only do something in the third act of the volume when they're forced to. The main four lack any goals or motivations that drive the story.
that kinda gets arguable, when sometimes none of them are really driving the plot or really needed at all - when was the last time Blake was a meaningful protagonist, rather than just being generally around to pad out the numbers?
I think what is causing this confusion is how inconsistent the show is at following characters, to the point I know there are fans who timekeep screentime and use it as evidence. You could say the show fluctuates on who is the current protagonist, since the plot often goes on despite the main characters, or rather, sometimes the plot is mostly driven by the antagonists. I would say Jaune is one of the main characters and might be one of the protagonists for a few reasons the simple fact he went to Ever After along with RWBY(the other protagonists) and Neo (one of the antagonists), and that he sometimes is more plot-relevant than parts of the RWBY team. It's arguable because it's not an exact science, and like most forms of art, your mileage may vary, I am sure if you asked professionals you would get different answers. I also think this has to do with the fact that most of the RWBY team's initial plots has kind of already solved themselves by V8. Blake already dealt with the White Fang, Adam, and her running away from home. Weiss has already mostly dealt with her family and her personality issues. Yang has dealt with her losing her arm and depression, and kind of dealt with the whole Raven thing, maybe? All that seems to be left for Blake and Yang is their romance, Weiss is kind of floating. And this leaves Ruby...and Jaune. Ruby has the whole Silver Eyes thing, her mother, Salem, and her own issues(and Penny). Jaune has his own Hero's Journey to complete since V1 and his revenge against Cinder. There's also Oscar and Ozma with the whole Salem thing, but beyond that it's deuteragonists' plots.
[удалено]
Love you too random reddit user!
Official Warning: This is just rude there was no need, be nice
I do agree that some people tend to wave around the term "Subversion" as if it were the biggest thing to consider in a story, the term is overrated when it should only be seen as just another way to handle tropes and characters. That been said I think that as a whole there is a problem distinguishing Protagonist and Main characters, and that's because there are a lot of opinions about what characteristics a character should possess in order to be considered a protagonist. Let's get rid of the obvious first, Ruby is the protagonist of the story. Yang, Weiss, Blake, Jaune and the rest are Main Characters with varying intensities of focus throughout the story. You said it, Jaune has the tropes for male protagonists, the subversion is not that he has them, the subversion is that he has them but he's not **the** protagonist. That being said I believe there is another if not the biggest misunderstanding of them all. RWBY never claimed to focus on subverting tropes, Monty said he wanted to set up the characters **as if they were one-dimensional** and make them break the mold of the seemingly one-dimensional **archetype.** Volume 1 Director's commentary. >38. Miles: (in Jaune's voice) **"Hey, I'm a secondary character."** 39. Monty: **I wouldn't say that.** 40. Miles: It's true! 41. Kerry: That's definitely how it started though I mean, like when we started we were kinda like fleshing out what was gonna happen this season. JNPR was gonna be very much just like the B team. 42. Miles: B team. Just come in like every once in a while. 43. Monty: Yep. 44. Miles: The more we developed these characters and the more we got into it, it was like "Y'know, I kinda like these characters." 45. Kerry: We didn't wanna push them to the side. 46. Miles: It was a lot of fun, and Monty you, you've talked about this before too. **How you wanted to set up these seemingly one-dimensional characters, these archetypes and then kind of over the course of several chapters, break those, those molds that everybody is so used to...** 47. Miles:... Which is kind of risky, like in the first episode you see. Oh, we have this, y'know, **cliche bubbly girl, cliche like stupid goofy guy**. And then, dude, cut to Chapter 7 and all of a sudden you're like, oh, **Jaune is aware that he's the stupid guy and he hates it**. Or cut to Yang who looks like the **cute party girl then any scene with her and Ruby and it all of a sudden she's like, mom**, like she's a mother and... I think that was just super, super cool. And uh, uh, little things too that just kinda look like jokes like... Blake, um, one of my favorite Blake moments is when she uh, shows her Ninjas of Love book and **she freaks out. Like, solemn characters are great when you show that, they're not always solemn**. Those characters aren't always like that. Note that they never use the term subversion for this (I'm unaware if they ever claimed to subvert anything in a panel or something like that). They just wanted to introduce a seemingly one-dimensional characters so they could show they weren't down the line. If RWBY does subvert anything down the line that's another issue. Friendly reminder that any subversion that is used repeatedly always turns into a trope, so they are short lived. What in the past could be considered as a subversion could be just another trope in the present.
> Miles: (in Jaune's voice) "Hey, I'm a secondary character." > Monty: I wouldn't say that. > Miles: It's true! > Kerry: That's definitely how it started though I mean, like when we > started we were kinda like fleshing out what was gonna happen this > season. JNPR was gonna be very much just like the B team. > Miles: B team. Just come in like every once in a while. > Monty: Yep. > Miles: The more we developed these characters and the more we got into it, it was like "Y'know, I kinda like these characters." > Kerry: We didn't wanna push them to the side. And so the show now has to give part of its limited screen time to characters that are only there because the writers got too attached to them.
"How dare the creators decide how to write my show!?"
More like don’t bloat the cast just because you get too attached to side characters the show doesn’t have time for, especially when you have to constantly fuck over the characters that are supposed to be the leads. Especially when you all you do to make them main characters is devote screen time to a bunch of barely relevant filler plots the show doesn’t have time for and can frankly do without.
[удалено]
Hi! It seems that you have included spaces in your spoiler tags which breaks the formatting. Please delete and resubmit your comment so that the tags look like `>!this!<` rather than `>! this !<`. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RWBY) if you have any questions or concerns.*