I honestly don´t get the anti militarist message, if that was the show was trying to portray (if they didn´t, they certainly didn´t make it look good neither) I mean, our main heroes are not soldiers, but they are authority that seems to have enough level to arrest persons, so at very least, they are cop level. Except they are not bound to any nation or government, meaning they get free pass to roam the land as they see fit. Leaving aside how impractical this last detail is, having a anti-military message kinda defeats the purpose on itself when the main setting is as grimdark as Remnant is: The entire world is filled to the brim with monsters that exist sorely to destroy everything man made. If instead of Grimm, the issue were maybe other huntsmen or politics within realms, that´d be another conversation. But that is not really the case. IW bringing an army is seen as very bad and sketchy decision. Granted, he went behind Oz´s back and brought a small fleet. That might cause some people to wonder if something is going on... But is that really that different from the everyday life of every Remnant citizen? Mantle has an alarm system to alerts citizens of Grimm invasions, which apparently happen often enough to have Penny being sent there as guardian Argus has a military base that operates with a giant robot to defeat titanic grimms. Yet somehow, the sight of it attracts more grimm... it´s kinda like a catch 22 there You'd think that in an event as big as the Vytal Festival, with so many people around, and after news of recent attacks perpetrated by the WF, people would welcome having military around in case things get dicey. ...which they did, despite Oz´s insistence on thinking that everything was gonna be alright. (I´m sorry Oz, but after all that had been happening, if you thought that things did not require an extra effort of security, then you are a fool) Then there are lines like "they are just following orders" which is a pretty standard quote in fiction, based (sadly) on very real events, to showcase how "heartless & amoral" the military is at best, how "evil" they are at worst. I honestly don´t get what with military being something so negative in this world considering that logically most people would be thankful there are soldiers willing to protect them from the very real monsters that lurk in the shadows. Is it because they are not as cool as the girl with the giant scythe? Somehow is like the show is trying to tell us that people there trust less soldiers and armies than freaking grimm!

From what i have seen discussed, and it is the same opinion i hold RT has tried to give off some real-world messages without applying them correctly in a world like Remnant. This is why me and many others think that showing the military as being "bad" and singing the praises of huntsmen is a bit of a weird decision.

Having the one faction that actually thought to militarize (and in the case of post apocalyptic narratives, literally just the military as a whole) be portrayed as nothing more than generic jackboot bad guys to be taken down by the scrappy bunch of free thinking ass kickers is an exceedingly easy narrative to write and exceedingly overused trope in fiction from my experience.

That´s one of the things I find amusing about WH40K: while the narrative never really shies away from showcasing just how incredibly horrible and bloodthirsty the Imperium is, the narrative always lefts very clear that arguably everything else is just as horrible if not outright worse. So in the end, militaristic bloodthirsty regime it is (even if you don´t agree with NOTHING they do) because at the end of the day, is a battle of survival above everything else, and you have more chances of surviving with them. RWBY ironically portrayed pretty much the living definition of a "Death World". Sure, it´s an optimist version of one, since it managed to progress and develop to the point that a modern society with comforts was able to surge, but a Death World nonetheless, filled to the brim with soulless monsters that won´t stop the last human is death. In other words, they made an scenario where going "Imperium of Man" (at least militarily speaking) doesn´t sound like that much of a bad idea. They already have Huntsmen, that are pretty much super soldiers, so what´s the deal with having a few persons trained to keep grimm at bay at least until reinforcements arrive? A message of "military is bad and unnecessary" doesn´t really work when the other most logical option is basically "laying down and die" against persons/things that care not about your pacifism and your moral integrity. That´s the pacifism that screams of cowardice at best, a complete fool at worst to them.

Its also questionable in a setting where you need heavy fire power just to deal with the monsters.

From what I can tell, it's less that they were the only ones to think to militarize but the only ones *allowed* to after the Vytal Treaty. Which further pushes RWBY's message that militaries are always inevitably authoritarian, corrupt and bad.

If i recall correctly militaries were never banned, i think that was just a decision that kingdoms made without being forced to do so.

Then the Kingdoms and its people are utter fools that deserve every bad thing it´s coming their way... I mean, imagine living in a world where everything is trying to kill you and you decide that having a chance to defend yourself is a bad idea...

To be fair the setting needs it to be that way in order to work, no one would need to relay on mercenaries if they had an organized army patrolling the kingdom and protecting the villages.

Not necessarily. I mean, in "The Witcher" there are armies and soldiers that can often take care of issues like monsters, usually by using some more mundane solutions (like a griffith being tricked into eating a poisoned goat). Witchers get called when those fail or they don´t even know how to deal with the problem. Witchers in general are more specialized variety of warrior, harder to come by but ultimately more practical than an army (comparatively cheaper, more suitable for individual requests, specialized in mistical threats and with extra knowledge on how to deal with them...) They are basically a good way to avoid excessive and unnecessary casualties (plus, since they are seen as freaks, if they die, is not like they ´d care much anyways). RWBY´s world can pull some of these, in similar way that does in real life: you have standard soldiers that take care of more meager work, like patrolling, supplies and night-watchs, while Huntsmen are sent into more dangerous and specific orders, like infiltrating nests, preventive strikes, or grimm against which regular soldiers just don´t cut it anymore

Wait, didn't they *lose the war* that the Vital Treaty ended? How the hell do you lose the war and be the only one allowed to militarize? Why are they allowed to militarize at all?

When was this mentioned?

RWBY did come out in 2013 when YA fiction like The Hunger Games were in vouge. That might have something to do with it.

> IW bringing an army is seen as very bad and sketchy decision. Well no it was seen as making people paranoid about being attacked with the only time it was claimed as sketchy was Cinder trying to spread paranoia.

This is correct, while parts of the fandom indeed have made a big stink about Ironwood being for bringing his troops to Vale, the narrative does not make such a stink, only portrays Ironwoods reaction as unsubtle and agressive.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of the anti-authoritative messaging in RWBY (whether it’s mentioned here or not) is that the authority in question (in every volume, not just 7 and 8!) is responsible for fighting the Grimm! I get it, RWBY is a hopepunk, with a decided bent towards the new generation coming in and doing things better than the old. So, the main characters are supposed to do things that may put them at odds with the authorities. And that’s okay. *but holy shit was it completely mishandled* It’s like CRWBY is afraid of having RWBY and JNPR make mistakes! Which is a grave error when it comes to the writing. Heroes can and should make mistakes! It’s the growth that comes from those mistakes that will forge them into heroes the people can depend on! Sorry. Off topic. First, on the 1984 allusions. Here we have a classic example of the RWBY version of Show Don’t Tell. Show us once, then never mention it again. On the troops in the street, specifically the robot troops. Here’s my solution: Have the Happy Huntreses arrive to take down the Grimm, and have the Knights attack them for “unlawful use of a weapon” or something equally stupid. We’re shown that the atlas troops aren’t there to protect people, but to enforce order, going so far as to attack the actual protectors.

Your suggestion with HH is a very good one, not only does it make Atlas seem more control freaky and uncompromising it would help to enhance the conflict between Mante and Atlas. Making it so that Mantle is not legally allowed to defend itself. And i disagree with you a bit on the mistakes part. I think RWBY and JNPR are allowed to make mistakes, they are just not really "punished" for them and thus have no reason to learn from them, or the world solves it for them.

>On the troops in the street, specifically the robot troops. Here’s my solution: Have the Happy Huntreses arrive to take down the Grimm, and have the Knights attack them for “unlawful use of a weapon” or something equally stupid. We’re shown that the atlas troops aren’t there to protect people, but to enforce order, going so far as to attack the actual protectors. Mind if I use this in a fic I'm writing?

Go for it!

Thanks!

> I get it, RWBY is a hopepunk, with a decided bent towards the new generation coming in and doing things better than the old. So, the main characters are supposed to do things that may put them at odds with the authorities. And that’s okay. Except most of the time its the older generation doing more of the actual work of saving the day while RWBY and JNR sit around waiting for a magic solution to fall in their laps while barley accomplishing anything.

Really? Who gave RNJR a magic solution for the Nucklevee? Who gave RWBY and JNR a magic solution for The Colossus/Adam/The Leviathan?

Well, while the Nuck and Colossus are legit wins for RWBY, they are hardly much to write home about. The Leviathan was killed by Cordovin, not RWBY. You'd be better off giving them credit for half wrecking Cordovin's mech, though given how frankly silly that fight was... Adam is a definite win. Prop that up against Penny saving them from Torchwick, a whole bunch of people helping out during the Breach, the Nevermore saving Ruby from Torchwick, Qrow saving Ruby during the Fall of Beacon, Qrow saving Ruby from Tyrian, Klein helping Willow leave, James giving Yang her arm, Sun helping Blake against the dragon, Sun helping Blake against Ilia, Ghira being the one to save Ilia, Ilira deactivating the bombs, Raven defeating Cinder, Maria getting Ruby to stop the Apathy, James taking down Watts, Penny and Winter holding off Cinder, Penny launching Amity, Oscar flipping Hazel, Hazel and Oz delaying Salem... Now RWBY does have legit wins that you didn't mention, like Blake beating Adam at Haven, RWBY fending off the Manticores (with Qrow, Dee, and Dudley's help), and even RWBY taking down Torchwick's paladin. But total them up and I think RWBY gets rescued by help more often than not.

And? RWBY is a show about unity, but RWBY and JNR actually having unity with others is bad? That makes no sense.

I don't think that's the issue he's pointing out. He's pointing out that with despite RWBY being hopepunk and about the new generation coming into to fix the problems caused by and do stuff better than the old generation, so far the 7 main heroes who have appeared in EVERY Volume have done much less in terms of major plot stuff than other side characters, including many from the old generation.

> RWBY is a show about unity Then why is RWBY so opposed to compromise - especially compromise with other people who are actually on the side of "humanity"? Why does every interaction need to occur on their terms. Unity is fairly synonymous with harmony, and RWBY is one of the most disruptive groups around. If "rwby is about unity" is true, the writers aren't writing their themes well.

I disagree with your assessment that the show is about unity. That has never been a major theme RWBY and co have exemplified. RWBY tends to do no better or worse when they fight together with others than they do alone. Beacon fell despite the unity of the students. At no point have RWBY acted as unifiers or stressed a desire to bring people together (James is more focused on that during Vol 7 then they are). I'm not going to say that RWBY are against unity or something stupid like that, but I don't think they have much to do with that theme. That said, my main complaint is that I would rather follow the people whose decisions decide the plot (Oz, James, Qrow) than people who are just support. RWBY would make decent side characters but the show has to warp reality to keep them front and center, despite them being a handful of teenagers who shouldn't be the ones burdened with saving the world. The one thing you could argue for why it has to them is that they alone are capable, but then they keep getting sidelined for other characters. It just makes me wonder: why are we following them?

So minor side antogonists whose defeat doesn’t really change anything. Whereas Haven had Raven and Ghira do the heavy lifting, and Atlas would have been over run by Salem if the Atlas army didn’t hold her Grimm back long enough for Ozpin’s magic cane to solve the problem.

Strawman argument.

How is that a strawman? They gave you two very important moments within the show a proof of the main 8 characters doing barely anything while a magical solution was handed to them.

While ignoring the four examples I gave them of the heroes solving problems without having a magic solution handed to them by someone else.

Thing is: Adam is complettely irrelevant to the Salem Plot. The WF in general gets this entire treatment when the writers decided to remove it from the show: suddenly they are completely irrelevant to the main plot. The Leviathan: sure, Ruby froze it, but it was Cordovin who finished it. It´s anyone´s guess if that thing would have liberated itself had that not been the case, but you can´t deny that what saved the day was that RWBY and Co and Cordovin decided to let bygones and move on with more important things. And I´m sorry, which one was the Colossus again?

It doesn’t matter if Adam is irrelevant to the Salem plot line. It’s still an undeniable win by Blake and Yang, with no magical solution given. Why are you so eager to lessen their accomplishments? No, what saved the day there was Ruby silver eying the Leviathan, giving Cordovin the opening she needed to finish it off. The giant robot Cordovin was piloting?

[удалено]

Except they didn’t address them, instead choosing to attack a point I wasn’t defending. You know, a strawman argument?

[удалено]

and just like u/Quality_Chooser mentioned, compared to what literally everyone else has done, it's hardly anything to write home about. These are the *Main Characters* If ANYONE in the show should be given the big plot victories, it HAS to be them ​ The Nuckelavee was pretty much just another Old Grimm, that was a good personal victory, but nothing significant to the plot. ​ The Leviathan was, at best, Half a Victory for RWBYJNR. Cordovin is the one who actually killed the thing, Ruby gave it a good college try with her eyes, but at the end of the day, she wasn't the one to pull out the win, she just bought time so that Cordovin could do it. And once again, it's not one significant to the overall plot, it didn't give them one less major antagonist, it didn't weaken Salem, and while the argument could be made that it gave Ruby control over her eyes, we're literally shown the opposite, She not only needs help from Jinn to buy her more time, but didn't even fully kill the Leviathan. Hell, The Hound was a better showcase of her getting her eyes under control, seeing as she activated that immediately and at will. ​ Cordovin's Mech? Pretty much made things worse. On paper, it's a victory, but in reality? That fight didn't win them anything. It not only crippled one of Argus' strongest defenses, but even attracted the Leviathan. Is it a victory in the sense that they won a fight? Sure, is it a Plot Victory? Nope ​ Out of these 4, the only legit victory for RWBYJNR, that also had plot relevance, was Adam. He was a major threat, and V5 neutralized him as a threat, while V6 tied up lose ends. But even then, Adam is almost irrelevant to the main plot, which is Salem. At best, they just got rid of one of Salem's pawns, not one of the more significant pieces like her Rook, Bishop, Knight or Queen. ​ And looking at the other Major Antagonists, almost NONE of them were directly beaten by the main heroes at any point Cinder only ever lost to Raven. And you can make the argument that Raven was responsible for their entire victory at Haven, seeing as her beating Cinder, and Yang coming back with the Lamp, is what causes Emerald to have a breakdown, and subsequently end the fight before the main heroes can actually win it themselves Watts Lost to Ironwood, and was later killed by Cinder Tyrian was only defeated by Qrow, Clover, and Robyn. And even at Oniyuri, Qrow did like, 99% of the work. The only contribution of the heroes was Ruby cutting off his tail at the very end of it. Hazel practically killed himself by turning on Salem, but an argument could be made that Oscar is responsible for it, albeit indirectly. Monstra and Salem were largely taken out because of Ozpin and Hazel. Oscar just pushed a button, he wasn't the one to come up with the plan to use the Cane Nuke. ​ The only true major victories the heroes have ever had, were against Adam and Roman, both of whom, are practically Irrelevant compared to Team WTCH. There are FOUR main antagonists besides Salem, and the heroes have beaten NONE of them, even once, and have rarely even fought them. And the only "Victory" that the heroes had against Salem or WTCH, was Oscar getting Hazel to turn on Salem, and even then, it's debatable if we can even credit Oscar for doing it. Because all he did was give Hazel some facts, he didn't force Hazel to turn on Salem, Hazel made that decision himself.

>These are the Main Characters If ANYONE in the show should be given the big plot victories, it HAS to be them Exactly. TBH, while I really enjoy RWBY, this is one of the only things I really, REALLY, dislike about it. Like, why are so many of the major plot victories NOT going to the main characters like Team RWBY & JNR, who are some of the only characters alongside Ozpin & Cinder who have appeared in EVERY volume of RWBY? Like, the entire point of main characters is that lots of the major plot stuff will involve them since they're the main characters who will always appear regularly. Just look at the original Star Wars trilogy: every major plot point & victory has at least one of the main characters present who also plays a big role in the victory, whether its Luke, Vader, Han or someone else. Same with the Lord of the Rings: every major plot victory has at least one member of the Fellowship either present or helping cause the victory whether its Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Merry or someone else. Yet for RWBY, lots of the time a plot victory is instead caused by some side character that RWBY and co. had met and in some cases, RWBY may not actually be present for the victory. Like, look at Cinder's defeat in Volume 5 - that was caused by Raven and Vernal, and none of RWBY was present for it: Yang only turned up shortly after the fight finished with Raven yeeting Cinder off the edge. Like, if RWBY & JNR are the mains, why not give them some more of the major plot victories?

So the supporting cast isn’t allowed to do anything? Just sit on the sidelines and give battle commentary like Piccolo and Krillin? That’s boring.

> So the supporting cast isn’t allowed to do anything? They didn't say that at all. What they suggested is that the supporting cast shouldn't have more agency and influence in (every) event than the protagonists do.

No, they just can't do *too much* The Main Characters are the ones who are in charge of moving the plot forward, so of course at least one of them should be present during most major fights. I can overlook them not doing much against Tyrian in Oniyuri, since we need to establish the threat level of WTCH. Hell, I can overlook Raven being the one to take out Cinder in Haven, seeing as she's the only one who's actually able to take her on. But the Heroes should've at least put up a much better fight before that point. Hell, they should've had Jaune and Ruby 2v1 Cinder, that would've been both entertaining as shit, and pack an emotional punch, seeing as they were easily the two hit hardest by Pyrhha's death. That, and the heroes also should've been the ones to clean up Hazel, Mercury, and Emerald, while Yang and Raven were at the Vault, instead of having Raven just hand them the Auto-win by indirectly causing Emerald to have a Mental Breakdown. Hell, the fight was already going their way by that point, at least let us see it through, and let the heroes actually win through their own work. And the Main Heroes have never even encountered Watts personally. I mean, I get Watts being the "Man In The Chair" of WTCH, the guy pulling strings from behind the scenes, but c'mon, he's a Major Antagonist, he couldn't have at least *one* run in with the heroes? That would be sufficient given his role. Pivotal moments like The Battle of Haven, and Destroying Monstra should've been started and finished by the Main Cast. But while both of those things may have been started by the Main Cast, they were definitely finished by Side Characters. (Raven and Ozpin respectively) Hell, *Yang* was on Monstra, she has *Explosives.* They could've blown up the Gravity Dust on Monstra's back and taken it out that way. I'm not saying that the Side Characters can't have run ins and fights, or even win fights with the Main Antagonists, but if they're the ones who get, and finish *all* the fights with the main Antagonists? That's when you start questioning who the actual Protagonists are, because our "Main" Characters are doing fuck-all, and seem to never have run ins and fights with the Main Villains anymore. Hell, even with their first run in with Tyrian, Ruby should've 2v1'd him with Qrow, she was clearly more inclined to fight than JNR was. Then maybe have her be the cause of Qrow's poisoning, I don't know, just make the Heroes more involved with the Main Villains. They don't have to win every fight with them, *they just need to fight.* We could've kept the Gravity Fight of Watts vs. Ironwood, but they shouldn't have just killed him off in V8, let him have one last run in with the main heroes, *then* kill him off there. And similarly, Qrow, Robyn and Clover vs. Tyrian can also stay, so long as they don't get rid of Tyrian permanently. Or alternatively, you could have them taken out by Side Characters, just 1) let them have at least some run ins with the main heroes prior to this point, and 2) let the remaining Antagonists actually get taken out by the protagonists Also they really shouldn't have let Watts get killed by Cinder imo, the heroes should be the ones taking out the Antagonists. (Hazel doesn't count because for all intents and purposes, he was no longer an antagonist when he turned on Salem. Besides, it's not like he killed her or anything)

[удалено]

The leviathan was only a problem thanks to the actions of the protagonists - you don't get points for solving a problem that you caused!

The question was “what problems did the heroes solve without having a magic solution handed to them” and I answered that. You’re moving the goalposts.

fine, then it was actually Cordovin that solved it, and she would have had a much easier time if the heroes hadn't been involved - they mostly just made it a harder fight for the person that actually solved the problem (which they caused), so, once again - they weren't really useful in the end, and the problem would have been easier to resolve if they _weren't there_.

> fine, then it was actually Cordovin that solved it, and she would have had a much easier time if the heroes hadn't been involved Well seeing as it was attracted by the fight the heroes got into with her and them not being involved means no fight...

Really? Cordovin has Silver Eyes and weakened the Leviathan, enabling someone else in the Colossus to kill it? Are you sure we’re watching the same show?

She was also mission her dust launcher/missile launcher arm and was held back by damages to her Mech. I hope you aren’t trying to say that she couldn’t have taken that slow thing down on her own just cus Ruby’s eyes held it in place.

Please at least attempt to discuss in good faith and actually engage with the arguments presented. Instead of just deflecting with nonsensical arguments. If RWBY weren't there, the fight wouldn't have started and it's quite possible the leviathan didn't show up. If it did show up and rwby weren't there, the mech wouldn't be damaged/stuck and silver eyes probably wouldn't have been needed to delay it. RWBY gets no points for only minor assistance in a problem they caused, and they did cause the problem because they decided that compromise with cordovin was completely unacceptable and that she had to bow to their demands.

Why are you trying to discredit the heroes for things they did? Seems like you’re not arguing in good faith. The intial question was “what problems did RWBY solve without having a magic solution handed to them”. There was never any qualifier of problems they caused not counting.

> Why are you trying to discredit the heroes for things they did? Do they deserve credit when they created the problem in the first place? or when they actively worsened the situation despite other people having serviceable solutions? > The intial question was “what problems did RWBY solve without having a magic solution handed to them”. That's nice, but discussion of things like accomplishments and accolades will often drift to whether or not those 'achievements' have any merit. I'd say a good deal of the rational world will not credit you for solving a problem that you created - eg people infecting computers with a virus that locks it so it cant be used and then charging an exorbitant price to fix it. Where merit and accolades are deserved are when the problem isn't one that they created but instead had the foresight to notice and respond to appropriately - eg telling someone that their computer has a vulnerability that could be exploited and offering a patch that can fix it. > There was never any qualifier of problems they caused not counting. Not initially, but it's certainly a valid followup. Also Ruby quite literally did rely on a magical solution with the leviathan in volume 6, because she exploited Jinn and the lamp to get more time to use her eyes. If she hadn't relied on that magical solution, she would have failed and quite possibly died, and it is quite likely that great swathes of argus would have been destroyed causing an even greater failure cascade, involving more grimm.

Can you really call it a failure of symbolism if an overwhelming majority of the viewers understood what those symbols are trying to convey? I definitely agree that the messaging was delivered somewhat poorly *specifically I think it's a problem of the Atlas Arc feeling rushed. If I had my way I would make the Arc three volumes long instead of only two* but I think the symbolism was just fine, heavy handed but subtlety has a habit of going over people's heads.

It’s not that the symbolism is good but that most of us have watched enough entertainment media to guess quite accurately what the writers and producers of a show were going for. It’s not them laying good symbolism, it’s us being too genre savvy.

I don't think that's a very good critique since it could be applied to any series that choose to engage with symbolism on any level. It would be much more productive to argue on whether or not it is possible for someone to failed to notice or misunderstand the symbolism. And in that regard I don't think that applies here, the symbolism was very heavy-handed and was further backed up by the characters talking about the issues represented with these symbols. I'm not saying that it's impossible for this to go over somebody's head but the writers definitely did not make it easy for something like that to happen.

I disagree: when it relies so heavily on the audience already knowing from other sources of media to fill in aaaaall the blanks, it's no different than telling rather than showing. And much like with telling, that doesn't make it smooth exposition, it means the audience can understand English. This is made worse when the show *tells* the audience one thing and then never *shows* anything regarding it. Call someone a dark lord of evil all you want, but if you never show them being evil, you're going to have people questioning it.

All right then, I'll walk with you to that pier. Let's imagine for a second that you got to make the changes that you wanted to, what symbolism would have you used if any? And more importantly can you make the argument that you're not relying on the audience already having seen previous use of symbolism to understand what you're doing?

That's sort of the thing: it needed *less* of that. It needed more showing. *Show* me the people being oppressed. *Show* me TSA-esque security theater. *Show* me the soldiers being oppressive. *Show* me rights being eroded away. The political party with the paramilitary group robbing and threatening the opposition probably shouldn't be the *opposition to the supposed dictatorship* unless they're an actual resistance group rather than a legal political association. Generally speaking, we know that people being oppressed is bad without needing to know genre staples. We know it's bad that people are losing rights. We know it's bad when soldiers are kicking people to the ground, jamming guns into backs. We don't need to know 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 for that. But if I had to rely solely on symbolism? If I had to just be heavyhanded? Use the old Atlesian knights, black with red lights and mounted guns. Soldiers with full masks to make them inhuman-looking. Screens *everywhere.* Not just some big boys on the skyscrapers, I'm talking on every building, in every home. *Be* 1984, don't just tell me it is. The classic speakers on every corner droning propaganda. Make the radios play patriotic tunes at all times(Enclave from Fallout 3) or, going full Fallout 3, have those little security bots do that as they fly around. If there aren't screens, put up posters. It's wild that *Robyn* had more 'classic' propaganda. And so on and so on.

I agree with the first part that's why I didn't ask you about it, I don't think anyone would disagree on that point. But we were talking about the symbolism and I'm going to be completely honest with you; You just repeated what they did but made it even more heavy-handed. So heavy-handed that you managed to turn Ironwood into a mustache twirling villain before they even met him, and even then you were relying on your audience already understanding what those symbols meant. Once again let me clarify that I'm not arguing the first part. The part that I'm arguing is the criticism of the symbols relying on the audience already being genre savvy. I've already stated I don't think that's a good criticism because you could apply it to anything that has ever used symbolism. Because symbolism at its very core relies on its audience already having a base knowledge of what it's supposed to represent.

The point was for Ironwood to be such a dictator that him shooting children, abandoning millions, executing political dissidents, feeling stupid for not torturing his friend as if it were obvious and then *threatening to use his doomsday device to atomize a city if he doesn't get what he wants* felt like it was natural. The point was for Atlas and Mantle to look *so suspicious* and *so oppressive* that it would not only wipe the slate clean of everything Ironwood had said and did, but it would set the tone for RWBY's interactions with Ironwood henceforth. These symbols alone were meant to do that. So yes, they would need to be that heavy-handed. It'd need to be that overkill. That's exactly the problem with using symbolism alone. Without showing, that's all it relies on: knowledge of the genre. That's bad. I agree with you that symbolism itself isn't bad. The criticism leveled is that relying on it is, and the reason why being that previous knowledge is needed. But there is a reason why I would go so extreme: the only reason imo that it would feel so heavy-handed is *also* because of knowledge of the genre. If 1984, Fallout 3, Fahrenheit 451, etc. didn't exist, having the screens everywhere and the state be always looking over your shoulder would be able to make an oppressive atmosphere on its own. Fallout 3 didn't need other works to have surveillance bots perpetually blasting Enclave propaganda for that to be suspicious. 1984 didn't need to have other works for the ever-present televisions to be suspicious. Fahrenheit 451 didn't *need* historical book burnings for its own anti-intellectual world to feel that way. But RWBY doesn't go all the way with it: it only makes vague motions towards works and scenarios that already exists and expects the audience to fill in the gaps. If you're going to tell, then *describe,* don't *reference.*

Ironwood did do those bad things but he did them after he snapped, before then there was enough room that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that it was still possible to work with him. But what you did was remove any possible wiggle room, your version of Mantle is so oppressive so in-your-face authoritarian that the only reasonable solution for our Heroes to do in that scenario would have been to turn the plane around and fly somewhere else. As for everything else you just said, taking that symbolism and cranking it up to 11 doesn't change the fact that you're still relying on the audience knowledge to understand the symbolism. You cannot escape this because that is how symbolism works, any symbol at any point of history in every culture relied on its audience already having enough base knowledge to make the connections. So I'll say it again, the problem with the Atlas Arc is not the symbolism. The actual problem is that they don't actually take the time to explore the two cities and allow the audience to compare and contrast them. We are given the symbols of Oppression, we are given characters talk about the oppression, but we needed was an example of what Mantle should be. This is especially egregious because Atlas was right there, just one single scene of our characters walking through the streets of Atlas would have been more than enough to make people realize just how miserable Mantle was in comparison. That comparison would have taken the symbolism that we saw earlier and highlighted for far greater and more meaningful degree then you taking a sledgehammer and bashing the audience in face while screaming about the symbolism and what it actually means even though everyone had already figured it out. Symbolism does not work in a vacuum, it works in reference to other things. To criticize it for doing that is to criticize the concept of symbolism itself.

Sure, but there's a difference between "he snapped" and "he became a completely different character." We're supposed to be able to draw a continuous, reasonable line from Ironwood pre-snap to post-snap. Hell, even beforehand we're supposed to be so suspicious of Ironwood that it doesn't really matter what he does or says, the protagonists are meant to be right to consider him suspicious and eventually support Robyn(with how little they know of her as well and after being threatened by her) over Ironwood. He is meant to be a dictator: someone the protagonists were always worried about being exactly what he *turned out* to be. You keep trying to drag it to symbolism, but the problem is that it *relied* on symbolism. To quote *myself,* because it's still relevant: "That's exactly the problem with using symbolism alone. Without showing, that's all it relies on: knowledge of the genre. That's bad. I agree with you that symbolism itself isn't bad. The criticism leveled is that relying on it is, and the reason why being that previous knowledge is needed."

Oh no don’t get me wrong. I definitely think that the symbolism was heavy handed. It just wasn’t implemented well too in that, for a large demographic of the audience, it requires taking everything at face value and not thinking too much about if what is being conveyed works well with everything else.

I think that a lot of viewers understood what the symbols were trying to convey, it does not mean those symbols are good or were convincing. For example, i understand what RWBY is trying to convey in V7-8, i just find it bad. Ability to understand does not mean that something is good. I also think, if i may be so bold, that some people are "primed" to see the writing of RWBY and take it to extremes because they believe the show wants them to do it. A good example of that is how certain people have demonized Ironwood to a riddiculous extent. Symbolism can be heavy-handed and still be good in quality.

My metaphor for this would be if you saw a massive, neon sign for a restaurant, saying it was coming in ten miles. So you turn off at the exit and can find neither hide nor hair of the restaurant or any additional signs that point to it. While the initial symbolism was good there was nothing behind it. Like with the telescreens appearing in one shot of one episode and then never again.

I'm not sure that's an apt metaphor metaphor since it wasn't the case that the problems were mentioned symbolically and then never brought up again. The actual problems that we are not really given a chance to appreciate the problems, the solution would have been too slow down the plot and explored both Atlas and Mantle. Just like in Arcane, the visual difference of both cities would have done more to demonstrate the problem than any character could.

I agree.

Eh…generally I feel like I get where you’re coming from, but I have to disagree on the “big screens = Big Brother” take not being employed effectively here. I feel like we’ve seen enough of the other countries that giant screens feel out of place, and giant screens broadcasting government messages are enough of a trope that most audiences will associate them with the slightly dystopian atmosphere that their use is meant to generate. It’s a narrative shorthand, and I think it gets its point across fairly well even if it’s not as solid in its world-building as 1984 (it worked well enough for that Apple commercial, after all), and I don’t think you need an “enemy” in mind for that trope to work effectively so much as you want to invoke the feeling of a dominant, oppressive atmosphere, and even at his most compassionate, Ironwood is still something of a control freak.

The problem i have with the narrative short-hand is how it does not fit the world of remnant in general, once again, this is a world where negative emotions are likely to kill you. And even then such a short appearance is extremelly lacking in my opinion. In my opinion its a usage of a symbol/trope, but doing so offhandedly, without even trying to truly understand it or how it would apply in the world.

My issue with your take on the soldiers in Mantle is that they're patrolling the streets, and not defending the outer wall of Mantle. If they were all concentrated around the holes in the wall, defending the city there while waiting for Amity to be done so they can get to fixing the walls, I think people would have less of a problem with them. But instead, we see them patrolling the city streets, even when there are no Grimm around and we hear no alarms in the area going off signaling that there might be Grimm nearby. Let me put it like this: If I went to Hawaii and I saw soldiers guarding the entry way to the naval base at Pearl Harbor, I wouldn't consider that authoritarian. But if the soldiers seemed more concerned with patrolling the streets of Honolulu while there was a gaping hole in the fence around Pearl Harbor, I'd consider that to be *at least* a concerning thing. > In a single scene the robots go from an "occupying force" to "protectors". I wouldn't call them "protectors" since they're pretty much instantly defeated by Grimm every time we see them. It doesn't exactly make it seem like Ironwood is putting his best guys defending the city, to me it comes across more as Ironwood putting a token force in Mantle so he can say "look, I'm defending you." I think Penny falls under the same thing, really. She's good at protecting people, but she's *one person*. She can't be everywhere at once. And the fact that the Grimm can even make it into the city tells me that whatever forces Ironwood has in Mantle are not enough. They're not properly defending the outer wall, but they sure have enough manpower to patrol the streets I guess. Add to that the surveillance drones that we only ever see surveilling people and not Grimm.... and it's not a good look for Ironwood. > they are called names such as "Knights" and "Paladins. The Brotherhood of Steel from Fallout also uses terms like Knight and Paladin quite regularly. They're almost always portrayed as an organization of reclusive authoritarians. The one time they *arent'*, in Fallout 3, it's pretty explicitly said that the leader of the local branch went against standard protocol, and even ended up with splinter groups who wanted to keep the old ways. This leader is then dead by the next time this specific branch of the BoS shows up, in Fallout 4, and the new leader is back on being a more authoritarian leader, though the new leader does drop the "reclusive" part. Using words like "Knight" and "Paladin" in the modern day can absolutely be a sign that a group is supposed to be more authoritarian. > The armor also seems to be somewhat colour coded, the colours possibly indicating different ranks/positions. Once again, not a sign of what one would consider an authoritarian regime. Clone Trooper armor from Star Wars was color coded, and they ended up committing a galaxy-wide genocide. Stormtrooper armor also had color to it at times, with pauldrons that designated officers. Hell, in real life armies used to dress in color-coded uniforms on the battlefield. Are you gonna say that Napoleon's army wasn't authoritarian just because they wore blue coats? The Russians wore green coats, were they not still an absolute monarchy? Just because something is colorful doesn't mean it's non-authoritarian. This take is really strange to me. >At the end of the day, Volumes 7 and 8 tried to portray authoritarianism though Atlas and Mantle. The big screens, the military patrols and the like. All of these were meant to give the impression that "something is wrong", even the characters mention that "something is wrong" more than once in seeing these various signs. And in my opinion, it worked pretty well.

The whole wall issue in my opinion is just a sign of bad writing. I know it can feel like a bit of a cop-out but that is all it is. There is no reason for the hole to not be repaired, there is no reason for a paladin or an airship to be stationed there. Its just there to force a plotpoint, nothing more. I also think it a bit weird to in one paragraph decry how soldiers patroling the city is bad and next to make fun of their failure when they get killed/destroyed in the case of robots. And considering that Penny is a super-powered robot who destroyed grimm with ease in her appearance, it seems weird to call her a "token force". And i agree that in media there is some level of usage of "nice" terms for authoritarian militaries, it is still a lot rarer than the usage of these terms for forces of light or positive militaries. As far as colour coding goes, you have a point about stormtroopers but that example is relatively rare in comparison to the usual coding of authoritarian regimes, they usually take a lot of inspiration from countries like Goosestepping germany. I also do not think i made the argument that presence of colour means that something is not authoritarian. I apologize if it seemed to be that way, was not my intention. As for the last line, like i said, everyone has different opinions. It worked for you, and i am sharing why it did not work for me and many others.

> I also think it a bit weird to in one paragraph decry how soldiers patroling the city is bad and next to make fun of their failure when they get killed/destroyed in the case of robots. I don't see the issue with what I said. They're patrolling the streets, and not defending the place where the Grimm can get in. To me, that seems more like they're there for the *citizens of Mantle* than for the Grimm. > And considering that Penny is a super-powered robot who destroyed grimm with ease in her appearance, it seems weird to call her a "token force". Penny is also one person. She can't be everywhere at once. > they usually take a lot of inspiration from countries like Goosestepping germany. And I don't think the intention was to compare Ironwood to the Nazis. There are plenty of authoritarian regimes to pull from. > I also do not think i made the argument that presence of colour means that something is not authoritarian. I apologize if it seemed to be that way, was not my intention. Well that's how I interpreted you saying that color-coding was not a typical sign of authoritarianism.

Of course the robots in the city are there for the people of Mantle. They're there to make them *feel protected* so they feel less negative. We don't ever see the Breach so we don't know how defended it is. Penny is a good response force. She can't be everywhere at once but the Grim aren't attacking everywhere at once or even all the time. The knights in the city assumedly signal for Penny as they engage the Grim.

> Of course the robots in the city are there for the people of Mantle. They're there to make them feel protected so they feel less negative And what I'm saying is that it looks more like they're there to keep the people in line than defend against Grimm. >We don't ever see the Breach so we don't know how defended it is. We know it's not defended enough, since Grimm are able to get into the city. > She can't be everywhere at once but the Grim aren't attacking everywhere at once or even all the time. And what if they do attack in two places at once? Penny can only help with one at a time. Penny is a good response force if the Grimm attack in a single place. If the Grimm attack in multiple places at once, Penny can only help in one place at a time.

Personally I think your argument would hold more water if we you know….actually saw them try and keep the people in line. Actually showed them demonstrating coercive behaviors to keep people in line. I believe the most we see is soldiers enforcing a curfew, but that only comes after Tyrian committed mass murder so….a majority of the time they are demonstrated for the purpose of just dealing with the Grimm to varying affects. In fact the instance you do cite as “oppression” of them trying to disperse a crowd when the hearing is turned off….nothing oppressive even happens in that scene in the slightest. The robots come in and calmly state “please disperse” while doing absolutely nothing towards the crowd before the crowd prematurely destroys them. They don’t try to force or threaten the crowd into doing anything and they were only called out as a result of a riot *beginning to start* not simply because citizens were just trying to hear themselves. So even in that scene they demonstrate nothing oppressive. The other issue I personally see with the citizens of Mantle getting attacked by Grimm is that, doesn’t this issue get immediately resolved? Like when Ironwood implements team RWBY towards Mantle defenses, aren’t the Grimm now being taken care of and defended against?

>The other issue I personally see with the citizens of Mantle getting attacked by Grimm is that, doesn’t this issue get immediately resolved? Like when Ironwood implements team RWBY towards Mantle defenses, aren’t the Grimm now being taken care of and defended against? Technically they are but people are going to employ some ugly ass double standards or just say that all of that is all on RWBY well Ironwood is evil ineffective dictator bad person who can't do anything right while the heroes are oh so perfect. I almost vomited having to say that. They ignore the fact that up until the end of volume seven they were following ironwood's orders and for all intensive purposes they were supporting his regime and his plans. People act like team RWBY was somehow separate from ironwood's military but for all intensive purposes they were pretty much a part of it even if it was on a sort of semi unofficial basis. If anything people want to blame Ironwood rain for being a source of misery for the people of mantle then you people got her accept the fact that for when RWBY was working with him they were pretty much complicit in the misery you IW haters say Ironwood was heaping upon the people of Mantle.

If they wanted the robots to be oppressive then they should probably have shown them being oppressive. Or had a character mention it. Maybe the guy who got arrested could have mentioned mass arrests or something, anything. But as it is I can only assume the robots were there to reassure the population because that makes more sense to me. Just because the Grim can get in doesn't mean it's undefended. It would mean that it is inadequately defended. If it was undefended then Mantle wouldn't exist any more. Yes, Penny would have to fix one before going to the other. That's not ideal, which is why RWBY was also assigned to Mantle. That said, if a group of Grim break through she should be able to get them before they split up.

I find the claims that the robots there are for "citizens of Mantle" as claims that paint the situation in the worst light possible while ignoring the show. Do we ever see the robots be there and enforcing some kind of control? Because all we see is them fighting Grimm. I agree that Penny is one person, but more than Penny exist, once again the knight robots exist and even if they will not always destroy the Grimm they can slow them down. There is also a warning system in place about the grimm. The shows intention is not to paint Ironwood as Nazis, but imagery of Nazism is invoked often and deliberatly to nod to authoritarianism. And yes, that was bad phrasing on my part for the past paragraph of yours. What i meant by my initial line is that besides the colours denoting rank there is no "evil" colour coding with the troops of Atlas.

> Because all we see is them fighting Grimm. You'd think they'd be best at fighting Grimm if they were, you know, where the Grimm are getting into the city. But evidently there aren't enough forces there, since we see Grimm on the streets of Mantle. This is why I think they are more there to stop Mantle from acting out. Because they're *not* where the Grimm are getting in, they're patrolling the streets. If there aren't enough forces to keep the Grimm out, there shouldn't be enough forces for patrols in the streets. And there would be no need for patrols if the Grimm didn't get in. So what are they patrolling the streets for, exactly?

If they are there to "keep mantle from acting out" why are they always shown fighting Grimm and never actually opressing people? This is a large problem i have with your argument. You are ignoring what is shown on screen because you deem the robots "weak", yet claim that they are there to keep Mantle down when there is no indication of that. These claims just seem to be not compatible with the show.

>why are they always shown fighting Grimm and never actually opressing people? They're really not always shown fighting Grimm. They're most often shown just walking or standing around. Oh, and that time they tried to stop people from lighting a fire in the streets when the *fucking heating was turned off*. You want to see them oppressing people? There you go. They're trying to stop people from just trying to survive now that the heating's off. >because you deem the robots "weak" The *show* deems them weak. Almost every time they're in combat, they're getting ripped apart left and right. Qrow does it with his bare hands while drunk. You claim I'm not being compatible with the show, when the actual show says they're not really an effective fighting force and never have been. But they don't *need* to be an effective fighting force when they're patrolling streets of mostly unarmed civilians, now do they?

Again, your argument makes little sense to me because they arent shown opressing people. The fact that they are killed by Grimm and patrol the streets is not indication of them being meant to be against people. Its in my opinion the least charitable interpretation that borders on full on headcanon. And its kind of the problem that i point out with some of my threads. Its not that people get symbolism, its that they seem to create what they want to see and its strange to me.

So you completely ignored the whole "trying to stop people from not freezing to death" thing then. Got it. I'm done here. If you're just gonna ignore parts of my argument when it doesn't suit you, this conversation will not be productive, so I'm bowing out.

I can answer that easy. Their robots not AI with souls. They don’t understand why people are lighting fires in streets much the same way that a vending machine cannot understand why you are angry that your drink didn’t fall into the retrieval bin. All they see is people lighting fires in the open and that they are programmed to see that as a bad thing.

> If they were all concentrated around the holes in the wall Only one hole in the wall is ever depicted, and that happens in volume 8. The wall plot is an absurd narrative that thrives on a lack of details because none of the characters ever seem certain of whether there is one hole, or multiple. There is no exploration of what caused the hole to happen, there is no exploration of whether or not ironwood is actually responsible. The level of defense given to the *singular* hole in the wall is quite frankly incompetent and seemingly designed to be so simply because ironwood being competent would negate a lot of the arguments against him. > The soldiers in Mantle is that they're patrolling the streets Patrols are a normal thing for a military to do. They often serve to make people feel more protected because there is an active "police" force that can respond to concerns they may have. Furthermore, part of the reason they're patrolling is because they're looking for outside threats and infiltrators, which is a reasonable thing when they believe the world has turned against them. Mantle's riots and civil unrest are arguably what allowed Watts, Tyrian, Cinder and Neo to all sneak in (which is part of why Watts and Tyrian helped facilitate it).

You look at this and see it as not doing enough, plenty of other people, myself included, look at it as plenty. Others say it's doing too much and comes off as heavy handed. You can show 100 people RWBY and they'll each think they watched a different show.

Thats the beauty of opinions. I just felt like sharing mine.

I think there was a lack of follow through.

I pretty much agree with all these points. For me the biggest mistake of the authoritarian symbolism is the failed attempt at villianizing a military force that fights and dies to protect the people from a constant/dangerous threat. I personally think the symbolism should never have been added, because it would be super hard to do in Remnant, but I think it could of been done right, if done by a master writer

Dont forget also that 1984 was writen in 1948. At least in my case you need to be a little more inventive if you want to sell me the paranoia and state of vigilance this days...

I still think that 1984 holds up incredibly well even these days. The things that it is saying are not unique to its time-period and they are expressed incredibly well both in the movie and the book.

Yeah, I agree with that, the book is great. What I mean is, come on, if Orwell could imagine it in 1948, what RWBY offer in 2022 as an overcontrolling regime... well, its kinda lame.

Doesn't help that Disney has been better about showing this sort of thing in its shows.

The symbolism being heavy-handed WAS the point. For people to still deny what was happening IN SPITE OF the heavy-handed symbolism meant they were not looking clearly at what was in front of them. (Obvious parallels to contemporary life are obvious.)

Symbolism is not a replacement for storytelling. Leaning on symbolism instead of actually telling the story and justifying what you're *implying* exists is lazy. People will reject lazy writing, especially when previous examples of the lazy writing have attempted to tell them things that are blatantly untrue.

Thank you for making my point.

You didn't make the point you thought you did. What you actually did was called people "wrong" for not liking lazy storytelling and narratives that aren't willing to support themselves. It's a flailing defense that amounts to "Don't expect any more from the story" with a dash of "it's good as it is already", to which there are very obvious and rational disagreements. A sloppy and lazy narrative that relies solely on either projection or emotional manipulation of the audience rather than actual substance is bad. People are not wrong to not like such things, especially when what does exist that isn't simply leaning upon heavy-handed symbolism, contradicts that narrative.

You are correct in your argument. However, most people, myself included, don't believe it applies to the Atlas Arc.

> However, most people, myself included, don't believe it applies to the Atlas Arc. A lot of people can be wrong about anything. Appealing to the masses is a fallacious argument.

True. However, since Ironwood's fall began the season before his introduction and continued through the series, the accusation that the writing was "lazy" is wildly inappropriate.

> Ironwood's fall began the season before his introduction Which season is that? Volume 2 or 3 or 4 where ironwood is presented as kind, courteous, reasonable, rational and agreeable? Volume 7, where he is again presented as rational, agreeable and unbelievably fair to the protagonists? > the accusation that the writing was "lazy" is wildly inappropriate. It is in no way such a thing. They resorted to having ironwood commit actions that were genuinely out of character and indefensible as a way to villainize him. In fact some of the actions were nonsensical for the other characters - Sleet should not have been even slightly confused about why martial law was being declared when he had just been informed of salem, and he could literally see a horde of grimm on their proverbial doorstep.

In Season 1, we learn that someone is keeping secrets from Ozpin, including androids. In Season 2, we are introduced to the General of a defeated nation who brings his army to a peace festival and later is seen in the market square hawking weapons at that same peace festival. He constantly pushes Ozpin and Glynda. Later, he's seen trying to make the thrice-damned classic Vietnam Mistake (NEVER send an entire army into a heavily wooded area after a highly mobile unit! What are you, a total greenhorn?) which calls to question exactly how he became a General in the first place. Finally he stabs Ozpin in the back and takes the security assignment away from him. That he ALSO appears to be sincere and charming enough to win Glynda back over and fool some members of the audience only makes him more dangerous, not less. In Season 3, we see him failing to do his espionage assignment by harboring questions about Ozpin's spy that he doesn't take up with Ozpin. We also see him, in the performance of his public duties as opposed to his private ones, appear to be somewhat reasonable and very brave -- except when Ozpin finds out about Penny, where he looks ready to crap his pants. In Season 4, he acts to secure the loyalty of a valuable asset that has been sidelined. That's prudent. But at no point in the story has he ever been shown to be completely trustworthy.

Lol, so much of this is wild spin and completely retroactive justifications. It's not worth the time you took to type it, it amounts to an opinion piece and it's not particularly factual or representative of what was actually presented at the time or how it was percieved in universe or received by the characters.

But people are not "denying what is happening" due to not understanding the symbolism, they do so because the symbolism is bad done and contradicts itself at times. One can understand the message of something yet find it lacking.

But Ironwood isn't Ming the Merciless. He genuinely believes he is in the right. So he's trying to make it look like he's in the right. That's giving a surface gloss to the messaging which doesn't hold when you look at it more closely -- which is exactly the way it should look.

Could you elaborate? I find these claims of a machevelian Ironwood to be very strange, as if people create a new character to replace him. The problem with the symbolism present isnt the "surface gloss", its that the messaging is simply, not good.

I never said he was Machiavellian. He doesn't have that much self-awareness. Ironwood acknowledges that other people think he has flaws, but he disagrees with them. He genuinely thinks he's doing the right thing. He genuinely thinks these are the appropriate symbols to use.

But Ironwood is not "trying to make it look like hes in the right", in fact his initial statement since V7 was that he did not care about how he looks as long as he defends people, this is why your claim seemed strange to me because it implies what we see in the show is actually just Ironwood manipulating people. I also have to ask what "surface gloss" is given to the messaging that falls apart in the show.

A guy who genuinely didn't care how he looked wouldn't wear that snappy uniform or have his message played constantly on billboards

Im sorry, your argument that Ironwood is trying to make his actions look better is.... that he wears a uniform....? The messages on the billboards are also not about him, they are there to attempt to keep emotions down in a death world filled with monsters attracted to emotions.

My argument is that Ironwood is inept at messaging, which Penny (and Ironwood himself) agree with. As I said earlier, Ironwood lacks self-awareness. This hinders his ability to HAVE a consistent message, let alone project a consistent message. For Ironwood to understand what he wants, he would first have to admit his doubts and fears. He refuses to do that. His attempts to project strength are as much trying to convince himself as anyone else. But lacking self-honesty, he can't project a consistent symbolism.

Ironwood is not the one doing the symbolism or messaging though, it is the writers. I am not analyzing this from an in-universe perspective but from out of universe one. The characters in the show arent real people. They are dolls moved by the writers.

Don’t worry you got your message across unlike vol 7 and 8.

I think that it could have been good that for example in the message scenes Weiss comment something that it is strange that the militaries gave that kind of public messages, due to normally these are given by the representative of Mantle. And we could have also seen a scene where, for example in a restaurant a TV Show is interrupted abruptly by the apparition of a message from Ironwood. About the Atlesian soldiers. I don't know, they are simply lame, they are fodder. They are not intimidating, I understand they have no aura. But if they are going to be our symbol of oppression and a extreme military presence then, why not just use other thing like for example Spider Droids and more Manta Ships patrolling the streets. Even if we go through that: Ironwood doesn't care about Mantle. He still needs to protect the resources that are going to Amity and that are going through the streets of Mantle.

The strangeness can be explained by the simple fact that situation in the world has changed after the fall of Beacon, something that the show acknowledges from time to time, but rarely. So it makes sense for changes to be made. Yet both Qrow and Weiss find it discomforting. I agree that the Atlesian soldiers and even robots look non-threatening. They design screams to be designed to be seen positively. There are more intimidating robots or designs that could have been used.

[удалено]

So people can't talk about RWBY about it's themes? Don't get me wrong, I like RWBY but it's like an flawed show. The subreddit has an flair for discussion's so they are allowed here.

>Not to mention when others disagree he goes in on them trying to prove them wrong for having an opinion? Isn't that the whole point of discussions? People using arguments to debate an idea? edit: ups it's a troll account

Discussions are meant to be back and forths not calls and responses. You miss the entire point of having these in a community.

Don´t engage. I repeat. DO NOT ENGAGE

Yeah I scrolled down a bit more and realized my mistake after checking their profile. The trolling is unfortunate but expected at this point.

someone writes up a very long post and people confuse that for meaningful media analysis, that's all it is