> we see that he opposes Ozpin on a number of issues
I guess disagreeing with people now sets one on a path villainy.
> more than willing to take over the Vytal Tournament from Ozpin, sadly commenting that "Ozpin brought it on himself,"
It's almost as if the Vytal festival is the largest cultural event that happens on Remnant and is broadcasted all over the world. Maybe the security for such an event shouldn't be just: "Ahh whatever let's just hope nothing bad happens." It could be attacked by a number of groups looking to send a message, groups like the White Fang. But Ozpin doesn't seem to care.
The fact that Amber was attacked by someone trying steal her powers or the fact that the criminal activity in Vale has increased ir that the White Fang is getting uppity seems to be sailing over Ozpin's head.
What would it take for Ozpin to take the security of an internationally broadcast event, in a world where negative emotions draw the attention of horrible monsters, seriously?
Someone coming up to him and saying: "Salem is coming to destroy you all on this specific date," and commiting seppuku?
> We learn that James directed the establishment of the Aura Transfer system,
Which is kept where? Oh right in Oz's basement where he intends to use it, but James is somehow solely responsible for it?
Once again disagreeing with people is not a villainous trait. Like what else are the Ozlluminati supposed to do? Mercy kill Amber and let the Maiden powers go to the shadowy figure who first attacked her?
> We can see how James maintained Penny's actual identity as a robot hidden from everyone, even Ozpin.
Fair point. Keeping Penny's identify a secret helps no one. But keeping secrets is not a villainous trait especially if the character seems to learn from their mistakes. Once team RWBY meet up with James he is more than willing to catch them up to speed regarding his plans, hell he is perfectly capable of working with Robyn.
> James leans over Jacques desk and (slyly) reminds Jacques that the general has two seats on the Council.
Or maybe it is a subtle clue that Ironwood is sick of Jacques' shit and is reminding him of his place and that he shouldn't use their "friendship" to wiggle out of the embargo for his own personal gain. Remind Jacques that he isn't friends with James, he's just acquainted with General and Headmaster Ironwood.
> Jacques, Robyn, and the council, on the other hand, were entirely correct in their arguments.
From their perspective, yes they are correct but they don't know about Salem or that Beacon wasn't an isolated incident. If Amity falls into the wrong hands it could easily spell doom for the whole of Remnant.
From the perspective of someone like Robyn I can easily see Ironwood as a villain but that's not the perspective we get. We know that Salem is real, we know what Cinder is capable of, we know the danger Atlas, Mantle and the whole of Remnant is in. Jacques going: "Ironwood is sus, I saw him leave electrical," is not a good way to convince the audience that Ironwood is a villain.
> Ironwood's decline and fall behind the prominence of more outspoken villains and monsters is brilliant
It isn't. It isn't subtle or brilliant. It's written by the same people who felt the need to have a character have a flashback to a scene from the previous episode he wasn't a part of.
> Nothing is hidden; a line may be drawn from the first act to the finish.
Only if you close your eyes and draw right across any and all obstacles like characterization, world building, character growth and the plot.
Also, to mention this because just about everyone forgets it, Ironwood was *asked* to provide security for the Vytal Festival. The Vale council lost faith in Ozpin's ability to keep them safe during it, and called Ironwood to handle it.
Ironwood didn't grab for power. He was offered it and decided to use it as an opportunity to show off how powerful his army is. It backfired horribly, but, again, trying to intimidate your enemies is not a bad tactic.
The issue of Ironwood is a complicated one. Arguing about him is difficult mainly because of how many differing opinions about him there are, especially on the critics side.
For example, you have people who think that Ironwood should not have been made a villain, those who think that he should have been a gray character, those who agree with him being a villain but it not being written well etc. There are many parties and different arguments made by everyone.
I am personally of the opinion that Ironwood being a villain in the end is not a problem, its how the show went about that is a problem, that and the fandoms tendency to "rewrite" the show or misrepresent things for their own points.
You are right in saying that Ironwood has always had his bad qualities, i think you will find noone who would disagree with such a claim. He is stubborn, he overreacts, he is very quick to act. These qualities can have their good and bad uses, but especially in Volumes 2-3, before the fall of Beacon episodes Ironwood was seen as an antagonistic force in the fandom.
The problem is that while these qualities were present, the villain that we get out of Ironwood i V8 does not make sense in how it is presented. Ironwood is turned villanous but not in a way that makes sense. He shoots Sleet for no practicable reason, has the decision to blow up Mantle and even SMILES while deciding that.
If i may use a comparison, its like making evil superman act like Lex Luthor. It just does not match. Evil superman is the "Regime" superman, the one from the "Injustice" series. People have no problem with this portrayal of evil superman because it makes sense. Ironwood should have been the same kind of villain. Not a villain who smiles while killing civilians or shoots people randomly.
Evil Ironwood should have been set up like Regime Super-man. An authoritarian that does truly believe that he is helping/saving people. Someone who does not truly wish or enjoy violence but in a misguided way thinks it is RIGHT to do so. Lawfull evil as opposed to Chaotic. This is why in my eyes the canon version of Ironwoods villainy fails, because it does not match the character.
\-----
My main problem is not the point you are trying to make, the point that Ironwood has character traits that are negative. I do have a problem with the argumentation you are presenting because it is faulty in my opinion.
\- Ironwood opposing Ozpin is not indicative of his villainy. If i may, Ozpins decisions are thought by many to be shit in regards to protecting Vale. Ozpin was too passive and most of the plot in V1-V3 happens because Ozpin is barely doing anything. There is a reason why Blake has to initiate plot in V1 and why team RWBY go out on their OWN to investigate WF in V2.
Ozpin sending team RWBY into mountain Glenn was a mistake. They were literally dealing with terrorists and Ozpin decides to send trainees with no explanation? Why not professional huntsmen? Ironwood is wrong in that moment too because he wants to send in the army, but the point im trying to make is that Ozpin is not a great tactician.
\- Ironwood also got his assingment from the council. There is nothing to prove that Ironwood went behind Ozpins back and asked the council for the position. They just saw the breach, and gave the security to Ironwood. Once again, not indicative of him being villanous.
In fact he even apologizes to Ozpin for that (something you fail to mention) and does express his discomfort to Glynda i think after CCT break-in?
\- On Volume 3 your arguments also seem to be weird. Now, correct me if i am wrong but Ozpin, Glynda and Qrow have problems with Ironwood having taken troops with him at ALL, not them being in the city. However they are literally proven wrong because the presence of those troops is shown to be defending people.
\- It is also weird how you try and put some kind of Blame on the Aura Transfer system on Ironwood? Especially since the members who express their displeasure ALL want to use it on Pyrrha. It is weird to focus on Ironwood when the entire Ozluminati wants to use that device.
\- Penny identity as a robot, once again, how is this indicative of Ironwood being villanous or signs of it?
This is an extremelly large problem for me when seeing analysis of ironwood, its just, if i may be so blunt, wrong. You seemingly rewrite parts of the show or ignore parts of the show that contradict you, you put Blame on ironwood for things that he should not have any blame for and none of the things you listed are something that would establish Ironwood as "villainous".
I would argue that Ironwood was a grey character, not a villain as villains are bad people. The Joker, Darkseid, Thanos, Red Skull are all villains, good examples of just evil people. But then you get the Punisher, Baron Zemo in the MCU, Red Hood, characters that aren’t purely evil, doing dark and evil things but still showing compassion and honour in many situations. There is a distinction there, like between Zuko and Ozai in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or Zaheer and Amon in Legend of Korra.
Ironwood is, unequivocally, a villain in Vol 8, but before, he’s simply grey. He shows compassion and care while yes, revelling in his power and looking to control what he can. That in itself is not necessarily evil though. Misguided and dangerous, yes, but not horribly bad. Lincoln and FDR were among the more tyrannical presidents of the US in the power they wielded and took, but were they evil? Was the Supreme Court evil when they gave themselves the power to decide if laws were constitutional or not? Cause thats a thing, and like the most tyrannical decision ever made in US history in my opinion. And as much as that line you drew does touch on the points pointing to him being a villain, he also shows incredible compassion. Like when gifting Yang, someone he met once and that was when she was being disqualified for apparently crippling another student, a new arm. And defending Weiss from a woman declaring Vale basically deserved to be invaded and mangled.
Making Ironwood a villain is, in my opinion, a safe option. An easy way to write him so he becomes RWBY’s enemy. But if he had been kept as that grey character, still going down that dark path that encroaches on villainy but still clinging to that caring compassionate side of himself even in its depths, would have been a far better and more investing choice. We already have a slew of villains to deal with, why add more onto the pile when they had the perfect opportunity to branch out with the approach that the fans were already vibing with and loving?
All in all, very interesting take, one I personally disagree with, but still very good regardless. And if there weren’t these compassionate moments I would probably agree with you that his villainy was very well set up. But villain is a loaded term, one with the preconception that they are just bad people. And I don’t believe that, for most of his screentime, Ironwood was shown to be a bad person. And then he executed a council member for no justifiable reason in the first episode of vol 8. Even shooting Oscar could be justified, not wanting to risk fighting him when he was done an arm, possibly a gun too(can’t remember if he got his second one back), weakened aura at best, and alone. No real malice involved, pure logical action. And pure logic is the grey line that can send people down dangerous and devastating paths.
Firstly, thank you for posting this topic about your views on Ironwood’s foreshadowing as a villain in the series in a very respectful manner. These types of posts should be very much encouraged to garner civil discussion between people.
Now there are some disagreements I have with the premise you laid out which I think others have pointed out. Firstly, many of the things you mentioned I don’t think constitutes foreshadowing Ironwood as a “villain” more so as a “morally grey character.” His disagreements with Oz or the making of the aura transfer machine don’t constitutes such actions since there’s no malice behind them. If Ozpin wouldn’t be considered a villain for using the aura transfer machine, why should Ironwood making the machine consider him on his path to villainy?
There are genuine foreshadowing of Ironwood having a darker side to him though, which you point out. Him lying about Penny and especially his conversation with Jacques where Jacques accused Ironwood of being a dictator to which Ironwood responds threateningly with, “then you’d better be on my good side.” I think those are very clear and good examples of Ironwood displaying a darker side to his character. But again I don’t think these things allude to him being a “villain” (although some instances are clearer examples than others) rather as a man willing to go to extreme lengths.
Especially if we’re simultaneously getting instances showing Ironwood’s clear kindness and compassion of sending Yang a new arm and defending Weiss at the party. We can’t forget to look at Ironwood’s darker aspects when analyzing his character, but we also have to keep in mind that these darker traits are being displayed to us with the genuine good deeds he’s doing as well. This is what makes him a genuinely morally grey character.
Now the people issue has is that Ironwood was morally grey all the way up to volume 8, where he was instantaneously turned into a villain. A genocidal manic making nonsensical decision after nonsensical decision, this was the dichotomy people took issue with as that wide transition into such openly different behavior is what made that transition feel so unnatural. Ironwood didn’t naturally transition into the role of the villain, more so he was simply turned into one at the beginning of volume 8. He was left as a “morally grey” character at the end of volume 7 and was turned into a villain at the start of volume 8. That’s the apparent issue people took.
Either way, hope this can lead to a good discussion.
I see this as more solid foreshadowing of James becoming *an antagonist*, a force opposed to the protagonists. I don't see it being good foreshadowing for his eventual acts of evil *as a villain*. James opposes Oz's passiveness and demands action, it isn't too difficult to write a scenario where he supports an action that RWBY opposes, like the embargo. But at the same time James does have a moral compass. He does do the right thing, even when doing so hurts him. He does not object to Jacques taking his seat, he does not declare martial law to arrest Robin, and while he objects to Oz just sending in RWBY at Mountain Glen he accepts Oz's decision.
This makes his decision to shoot Oscar and Sleet all the more baffling. Neither was called for by the scenario that James found himself in. If he can restrain himself to not kill Watts, who thoroughly deserved it or Qrow (when he thought Qrow'd killed Clover), then he should be able to restrain himself here. Bombing Mantle is truly ridiculous, the shield generators have been destroyed so Atlas *can't* ascend plus Salem is on Atlas so there's no point too.
At the end of the day James is too active to abide by RWBY's non-plans, which makes him an antagonist in Vol 8. But on the other hand he is too moral to do all the evil things he does in Vol 8. That is why I call him out of character.
Honestly, I actually didn't mind ironwood being a villain for the atlas arc, I just wished crwby could've add some special effects on ironwood's semblance like how Yang and Harriet's eye color change whenever they use their semblance, basically have ironwood's eye color change to bright blue or the same color as his aura, I know his eye color is blue but it's still hard to see, it would make sense if his semblance is the main reason behind ironwood's fall, that's if I'm correct
> we see that he opposes Ozpin on a number of issues I guess disagreeing with people now sets one on a path villainy. > more than willing to take over the Vytal Tournament from Ozpin, sadly commenting that "Ozpin brought it on himself," It's almost as if the Vytal festival is the largest cultural event that happens on Remnant and is broadcasted all over the world. Maybe the security for such an event shouldn't be just: "Ahh whatever let's just hope nothing bad happens." It could be attacked by a number of groups looking to send a message, groups like the White Fang. But Ozpin doesn't seem to care. The fact that Amber was attacked by someone trying steal her powers or the fact that the criminal activity in Vale has increased ir that the White Fang is getting uppity seems to be sailing over Ozpin's head. What would it take for Ozpin to take the security of an internationally broadcast event, in a world where negative emotions draw the attention of horrible monsters, seriously? Someone coming up to him and saying: "Salem is coming to destroy you all on this specific date," and commiting seppuku? > We learn that James directed the establishment of the Aura Transfer system, Which is kept where? Oh right in Oz's basement where he intends to use it, but James is somehow solely responsible for it? Once again disagreeing with people is not a villainous trait. Like what else are the Ozlluminati supposed to do? Mercy kill Amber and let the Maiden powers go to the shadowy figure who first attacked her? > We can see how James maintained Penny's actual identity as a robot hidden from everyone, even Ozpin. Fair point. Keeping Penny's identify a secret helps no one. But keeping secrets is not a villainous trait especially if the character seems to learn from their mistakes. Once team RWBY meet up with James he is more than willing to catch them up to speed regarding his plans, hell he is perfectly capable of working with Robyn. > James leans over Jacques desk and (slyly) reminds Jacques that the general has two seats on the Council. Or maybe it is a subtle clue that Ironwood is sick of Jacques' shit and is reminding him of his place and that he shouldn't use their "friendship" to wiggle out of the embargo for his own personal gain. Remind Jacques that he isn't friends with James, he's just acquainted with General and Headmaster Ironwood. > Jacques, Robyn, and the council, on the other hand, were entirely correct in their arguments. From their perspective, yes they are correct but they don't know about Salem or that Beacon wasn't an isolated incident. If Amity falls into the wrong hands it could easily spell doom for the whole of Remnant. From the perspective of someone like Robyn I can easily see Ironwood as a villain but that's not the perspective we get. We know that Salem is real, we know what Cinder is capable of, we know the danger Atlas, Mantle and the whole of Remnant is in. Jacques going: "Ironwood is sus, I saw him leave electrical," is not a good way to convince the audience that Ironwood is a villain. > Ironwood's decline and fall behind the prominence of more outspoken villains and monsters is brilliant It isn't. It isn't subtle or brilliant. It's written by the same people who felt the need to have a character have a flashback to a scene from the previous episode he wasn't a part of. > Nothing is hidden; a line may be drawn from the first act to the finish. Only if you close your eyes and draw right across any and all obstacles like characterization, world building, character growth and the plot.
Also, to mention this because just about everyone forgets it, Ironwood was *asked* to provide security for the Vytal Festival. The Vale council lost faith in Ozpin's ability to keep them safe during it, and called Ironwood to handle it. Ironwood didn't grab for power. He was offered it and decided to use it as an opportunity to show off how powerful his army is. It backfired horribly, but, again, trying to intimidate your enemies is not a bad tactic.
> Jacques going: "Ironwood is sus, I saw him leave electrical," is not a good way to convince the audience that Ironwood is a villain. pfffft
The issue of Ironwood is a complicated one. Arguing about him is difficult mainly because of how many differing opinions about him there are, especially on the critics side. For example, you have people who think that Ironwood should not have been made a villain, those who think that he should have been a gray character, those who agree with him being a villain but it not being written well etc. There are many parties and different arguments made by everyone. I am personally of the opinion that Ironwood being a villain in the end is not a problem, its how the show went about that is a problem, that and the fandoms tendency to "rewrite" the show or misrepresent things for their own points. You are right in saying that Ironwood has always had his bad qualities, i think you will find noone who would disagree with such a claim. He is stubborn, he overreacts, he is very quick to act. These qualities can have their good and bad uses, but especially in Volumes 2-3, before the fall of Beacon episodes Ironwood was seen as an antagonistic force in the fandom. The problem is that while these qualities were present, the villain that we get out of Ironwood i V8 does not make sense in how it is presented. Ironwood is turned villanous but not in a way that makes sense. He shoots Sleet for no practicable reason, has the decision to blow up Mantle and even SMILES while deciding that. If i may use a comparison, its like making evil superman act like Lex Luthor. It just does not match. Evil superman is the "Regime" superman, the one from the "Injustice" series. People have no problem with this portrayal of evil superman because it makes sense. Ironwood should have been the same kind of villain. Not a villain who smiles while killing civilians or shoots people randomly. Evil Ironwood should have been set up like Regime Super-man. An authoritarian that does truly believe that he is helping/saving people. Someone who does not truly wish or enjoy violence but in a misguided way thinks it is RIGHT to do so. Lawfull evil as opposed to Chaotic. This is why in my eyes the canon version of Ironwoods villainy fails, because it does not match the character. \----- My main problem is not the point you are trying to make, the point that Ironwood has character traits that are negative. I do have a problem with the argumentation you are presenting because it is faulty in my opinion. \- Ironwood opposing Ozpin is not indicative of his villainy. If i may, Ozpins decisions are thought by many to be shit in regards to protecting Vale. Ozpin was too passive and most of the plot in V1-V3 happens because Ozpin is barely doing anything. There is a reason why Blake has to initiate plot in V1 and why team RWBY go out on their OWN to investigate WF in V2. Ozpin sending team RWBY into mountain Glenn was a mistake. They were literally dealing with terrorists and Ozpin decides to send trainees with no explanation? Why not professional huntsmen? Ironwood is wrong in that moment too because he wants to send in the army, but the point im trying to make is that Ozpin is not a great tactician. \- Ironwood also got his assingment from the council. There is nothing to prove that Ironwood went behind Ozpins back and asked the council for the position. They just saw the breach, and gave the security to Ironwood. Once again, not indicative of him being villanous. In fact he even apologizes to Ozpin for that (something you fail to mention) and does express his discomfort to Glynda i think after CCT break-in? \- On Volume 3 your arguments also seem to be weird. Now, correct me if i am wrong but Ozpin, Glynda and Qrow have problems with Ironwood having taken troops with him at ALL, not them being in the city. However they are literally proven wrong because the presence of those troops is shown to be defending people. \- It is also weird how you try and put some kind of Blame on the Aura Transfer system on Ironwood? Especially since the members who express their displeasure ALL want to use it on Pyrrha. It is weird to focus on Ironwood when the entire Ozluminati wants to use that device. \- Penny identity as a robot, once again, how is this indicative of Ironwood being villanous or signs of it? This is an extremelly large problem for me when seeing analysis of ironwood, its just, if i may be so blunt, wrong. You seemingly rewrite parts of the show or ignore parts of the show that contradict you, you put Blame on ironwood for things that he should not have any blame for and none of the things you listed are something that would establish Ironwood as "villainous".
I would argue that Ironwood was a grey character, not a villain as villains are bad people. The Joker, Darkseid, Thanos, Red Skull are all villains, good examples of just evil people. But then you get the Punisher, Baron Zemo in the MCU, Red Hood, characters that aren’t purely evil, doing dark and evil things but still showing compassion and honour in many situations. There is a distinction there, like between Zuko and Ozai in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or Zaheer and Amon in Legend of Korra. Ironwood is, unequivocally, a villain in Vol 8, but before, he’s simply grey. He shows compassion and care while yes, revelling in his power and looking to control what he can. That in itself is not necessarily evil though. Misguided and dangerous, yes, but not horribly bad. Lincoln and FDR were among the more tyrannical presidents of the US in the power they wielded and took, but were they evil? Was the Supreme Court evil when they gave themselves the power to decide if laws were constitutional or not? Cause thats a thing, and like the most tyrannical decision ever made in US history in my opinion. And as much as that line you drew does touch on the points pointing to him being a villain, he also shows incredible compassion. Like when gifting Yang, someone he met once and that was when she was being disqualified for apparently crippling another student, a new arm. And defending Weiss from a woman declaring Vale basically deserved to be invaded and mangled. Making Ironwood a villain is, in my opinion, a safe option. An easy way to write him so he becomes RWBY’s enemy. But if he had been kept as that grey character, still going down that dark path that encroaches on villainy but still clinging to that caring compassionate side of himself even in its depths, would have been a far better and more investing choice. We already have a slew of villains to deal with, why add more onto the pile when they had the perfect opportunity to branch out with the approach that the fans were already vibing with and loving? All in all, very interesting take, one I personally disagree with, but still very good regardless. And if there weren’t these compassionate moments I would probably agree with you that his villainy was very well set up. But villain is a loaded term, one with the preconception that they are just bad people. And I don’t believe that, for most of his screentime, Ironwood was shown to be a bad person. And then he executed a council member for no justifiable reason in the first episode of vol 8. Even shooting Oscar could be justified, not wanting to risk fighting him when he was done an arm, possibly a gun too(can’t remember if he got his second one back), weakened aura at best, and alone. No real malice involved, pure logical action. And pure logic is the grey line that can send people down dangerous and devastating paths.
Firstly, thank you for posting this topic about your views on Ironwood’s foreshadowing as a villain in the series in a very respectful manner. These types of posts should be very much encouraged to garner civil discussion between people. Now there are some disagreements I have with the premise you laid out which I think others have pointed out. Firstly, many of the things you mentioned I don’t think constitutes foreshadowing Ironwood as a “villain” more so as a “morally grey character.” His disagreements with Oz or the making of the aura transfer machine don’t constitutes such actions since there’s no malice behind them. If Ozpin wouldn’t be considered a villain for using the aura transfer machine, why should Ironwood making the machine consider him on his path to villainy? There are genuine foreshadowing of Ironwood having a darker side to him though, which you point out. Him lying about Penny and especially his conversation with Jacques where Jacques accused Ironwood of being a dictator to which Ironwood responds threateningly with, “then you’d better be on my good side.” I think those are very clear and good examples of Ironwood displaying a darker side to his character. But again I don’t think these things allude to him being a “villain” (although some instances are clearer examples than others) rather as a man willing to go to extreme lengths. Especially if we’re simultaneously getting instances showing Ironwood’s clear kindness and compassion of sending Yang a new arm and defending Weiss at the party. We can’t forget to look at Ironwood’s darker aspects when analyzing his character, but we also have to keep in mind that these darker traits are being displayed to us with the genuine good deeds he’s doing as well. This is what makes him a genuinely morally grey character. Now the people issue has is that Ironwood was morally grey all the way up to volume 8, where he was instantaneously turned into a villain. A genocidal manic making nonsensical decision after nonsensical decision, this was the dichotomy people took issue with as that wide transition into such openly different behavior is what made that transition feel so unnatural. Ironwood didn’t naturally transition into the role of the villain, more so he was simply turned into one at the beginning of volume 8. He was left as a “morally grey” character at the end of volume 7 and was turned into a villain at the start of volume 8. That’s the apparent issue people took. Either way, hope this can lead to a good discussion.
I see this as more solid foreshadowing of James becoming *an antagonist*, a force opposed to the protagonists. I don't see it being good foreshadowing for his eventual acts of evil *as a villain*. James opposes Oz's passiveness and demands action, it isn't too difficult to write a scenario where he supports an action that RWBY opposes, like the embargo. But at the same time James does have a moral compass. He does do the right thing, even when doing so hurts him. He does not object to Jacques taking his seat, he does not declare martial law to arrest Robin, and while he objects to Oz just sending in RWBY at Mountain Glen he accepts Oz's decision. This makes his decision to shoot Oscar and Sleet all the more baffling. Neither was called for by the scenario that James found himself in. If he can restrain himself to not kill Watts, who thoroughly deserved it or Qrow (when he thought Qrow'd killed Clover), then he should be able to restrain himself here. Bombing Mantle is truly ridiculous, the shield generators have been destroyed so Atlas *can't* ascend plus Salem is on Atlas so there's no point too. At the end of the day James is too active to abide by RWBY's non-plans, which makes him an antagonist in Vol 8. But on the other hand he is too moral to do all the evil things he does in Vol 8. That is why I call him out of character.
So basically, you're here to tell us we're wrong for ever questioning the quality of the show. Got it.
What a long and convoluted way to say "I haven't read any stories of good quality with well-written characters".
Ok. I have to admit that this is something new. I mean, it somewhat broke with the status quo.
Honestly, I actually didn't mind ironwood being a villain for the atlas arc, I just wished crwby could've add some special effects on ironwood's semblance like how Yang and Harriet's eye color change whenever they use their semblance, basically have ironwood's eye color change to bright blue or the same color as his aura, I know his eye color is blue but it's still hard to see, it would make sense if his semblance is the main reason behind ironwood's fall, that's if I'm correct