Rwby

[MeoTwister5]

That farm boy appeared on scene just after Salem mentions the Spring Maiden so... assume as you will. Heck that could very well be a girl.

As for Pyrrha, well, at least with the sash, breastplate and weapon mods she's now close to his heart.

...... I need to stop lurking reddit.

[Harry Dresden]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Ok, who was that Farm boy? Is he going to be relevant in the plot?

I wonder where Neo is?

I hope so because that is utterly random. I would not be surprised if that is Ozpin or something. One of my theories is that Ozpin is something that takes over or reincarnates into hosts existing in the world. So if Ozpind id get killed, this boy is slowly becoming him.
He also could be the Wizard(reclusive farmer, doing things that maidens taught in the tale) or he could be a she and spring maiden.

Neo most likely is busy sulking for Roman and wanting to kill Ruby or something.

[Tormenk]

I paid for membership for 6 months before I found out registered members can watch with just a day's delay but it's fine. Haven't bought any RWBY merch off RT before so I see this as supporting the show in another way.

Spoiler for Thoughts for chapter 1:

So Cinder isn't only Salem's only crony but makes you think how the other three are invested behind her. Hazel definitely can't just be a regular human with a voice like that.

The fight with the possession Grimm was just okay. Hoping the pace for the future fights goes up to the fight with the Gorilla in the trailer at least. Jaune's upgrades was definitely the quiet highlight for chapter 1. Pyrrha is gone but not forgotten.

Opening animation and song was meh.

[Harry Dresden]

Spoiler for Some more Vol4CH1 thoughts:

I don't like other villains so far tbh. Also disappointed by how many male characters were dumped into the show this episode.

Jaune's armor stuff scene also lasted way too long. Just focusing on Pyrrha memento parts would have been enough instead of making the whole armor giving look like some big heroic thing. I hope Jaune does not overshadow Ruby's development and characterization. I am here for Ruby dealing with her problems(which she is clearly shown having), not for Jaune gaining upgrades of heroic chivalrious knight-ishness.

The more I look at the OP the more Blake looks uncomfortable with Sun in that scene. I so hope writers are not tone deaf and do not try to pretend that scene is "cute" or "romantic". Because no.
I also hope Blake does not get to fight Adam without Yang, because that would be unfair for Yang. Certainly hope Sun is not involved with that because why the hell would Sun be involved in that.

[MeoTwister5]

I like the OP. Helps stress the fact that the team are really on different parts of the planet and have their own personal battles to wage.

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by Harry Dresden

Spoiler for Some more Vol4CH1 thoughts:

I don't like other villains so far tbh. Also disappointed by how many male characters were dumped into the show this episode.

Jaune's armor stuff scene also lasted way too long. Just focusing on Pyrrha memento parts would have been enough instead of making the whole armor giving look like some big heroic thing. I hope Jaune does not overshadow Ruby's development and characterization. I am here for Ruby dealing with her problems(which she is clearly shown having), not for Jaune gaining upgrades of heroic chivalrious knight-ishness.

The more I look at the OP the more Blake looks uncomfortable with Sun in that scene. I so hope writers are not tone deaf and do not try to pretend that scene is "cute" or "romantic". Because no.
I also hope Blake does not get to fight Adam without Yang, because that would be unfair for Yang. Certainly hope Sun is not involved with that because why the hell would Sun be involved in that.

Spoiler for response:

You do realize that the OP didn't spring forth out of thin air, requiring the writers and animators to adjust the show to fit it, because the way you phrased your "hope" for the writers makes you sound like you think that. If they do put forward Sun and Blake's current relationship as "cute and romantic", then either you misread that part of the OP, or they mis-animated it. Frankly, to me it just looks like he surprised her, and the distasteful expression on her face is due to the third guy. But we'll see. It's not like anything in the OP is actual episode footage, after all, but it usually represents something. And sure, Sun is a little clingy there, but he's never exactly been "Mr. Reticent". With a name like his, you shouldn't expect subtlety...

[Harry Dresden]

There's nothing to misread in a "relationship" who has not existed in the franchise since a 1 second scene a whole realtime year ago(even longer if you ignore that random blush scene, because then the last par that relationship had was TWO realtime years ago), while Blake/Yang got a LOT of build up and focus(Albeit subtextual, even though Narrative pretended it is equal to Arkos)

There's no relationship. Even when writers tried to force it in, it was not there. There were just random scenes where SUn was either a prop for Blake to tell her backstory to(which he then proceeded to be reductive about) or there as an object to imply some sort of romance which did not go anywhere(and mostly ended up with him insulting Blake's issues and her frowning at him).

Trying to push them together NOW would not only confirm queerbaiting issues but would also be literally out of nowhere. Then again him being there in the OP when Blake very clearly got away from everyone she cares to deal with stuff alone is already out of place.

The only sensible logical role Sun can have there that would fit the narrative is the third wheel with exploration of the sexist idea of "chivalry". Essentially making him the opposite of Adam, but no less problematic, but in different way.

As for tone-deaf - well Writers wrote Sun as arrogant law-breaking dude who has no comprehension of personal space, who creeps outside people's windows, who butts in into other people's problems, who downplays Blake's problems and panic attacks as "being Blake-y"(and tries to push solving it onto her friends because obviously it has nothing to do with him, he just wants the good stuff) and who treats everything and everyone as a plaything for his amusement. It makes sense too as Vacuo his birthplace is literally an anarchistic hellhole and Mistral where he lives is a mess filled with criminals and pampered nobles. The question is if the writers are aware of that or not. Hence whether they are tone deaf or not.

If they ARE NOT tone deaf, Sun could have a very interesting character arc of overcoming his flaws moving away from being a prop for romance, dealing with the overtly-masculine behavior and developing into a better person by actually not trying to tie Blake up into a romance or controlling her

If they ARE, then Sun can devolve even more becoming definition of a creator's pet trope. , essentially denying the main point of Blake's story of becoming independent of male figure controlling her life.

It remains to be seen whether they actually use the character potential or go down the route other shows have gone before by just using him as hetero-romance to have a plausible deniability for queerbaiting.

[MeoTwister5]

Good God can we all just drop this absurd queer baiting witch hunt nonsense already? Thread's been policed enough as it is.

[RDNexus]

Like I said before... How about we wait and see?
Then everyone could take their own conclusions.

[Harry Dresden]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Good God can we all just drop this absurd queer baiting witch hunt nonsense already? Thread's been policed enough as it is.

Its not a witch hunt to discuss about narrative problems.
When talking about show you can't just pretend the parts you don't like don't exist.
To have a proper debate one also can't just pretend the problems are not there by default.

It might be queerbaiting or it might be purely subtextual build up to actual text(which would raise it's own questions on why an lgbt romance and queer characters are purely subtextual till romance confirmation), that is unknown, but both possibilities are there. "Just wait for confirmation before discussing" also does not work as queerbaiting is all about one side "waiting" for something for a whole show. IF writers are queerbaiting with no intent of following through then by the time they openly admit that, it will be too late.

Discussing Sun's character is tied directly into his purpose in the story, the way he was handled so far and the problems with that.

[MeoTwister5]

And again, a witch hunt is a witch hunt without solid evidence lest everyone just grasp at straws, especially when everything comes from large and wide narrative assumptions of incomplete material and circumstantial evidence. A debate likewise cannot be be initiated on such flimsy foundations, or else everyone will just pull out stuff from thin air.

And that will be my last reply on the matter until we actually have something worth debating about, something that's actual grounded on established undeniable evidence and not preconceived notions and biases on things that may or may not be there.

[Marcus H.]

I'm surprised that Sun, of all people, was accused of being a creator's pet.

[quigonkenny]

Now that I've finally got an impression exactly what "queerbating" is, it sounds to me to more of a problem with the viewer than the writers, just like any other time a viewer makes an assumption about a work that ends up not being true or not being addressed. Speculating about plot or interpersonal developments is certainly fine, but you can't get bent out of shape if things don't fall the way you want or expect them to. The writers have suggested that there are LGBT characters in the series, and that their relationships will be delved into. I have my own ideas where that will go, but frankly I don't put too much thought into it, because I'm not a shipper in the first place, and I'm much more interested in the world-building.

You're just going to have to continue to wait and speculate until the writers get to it, just like every other development, character or otherwise. In the meantime, demonizing any character who "gets in the way" of your speculation and exaggerating their flaws isn't helpful and only ever leads to disappointment. Just look at the shipper blowback with Bleach and Naruto. Nobody really "won" those battles...

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by quigonkenny

Now that I've finally got an impression exactly what "queerbating" is, it sounds to me to more of a problem with the viewer than the writers, just like any other time a viewer makes an assumption about a work that ends up not being true or not being addressed. Speculating about plot or interpersonal developments is certainly fine, but you can't get bent out of shape if things don't fall the way you want or expect them to. The writers have suggested that there are LGBT characters in the series, and that their relationships will be delved into. I have my own ideas where that will go, but frankly I don't put too much thought into it, because I'm not a shipper in the first place, and I'm much more interested in the world-building.

You're just going to have to continue to wait and speculate until the writers get to it, just like every other development, character or otherwise. In the meantime, demonizing any character who "gets in the way" of your speculation and exaggerating their flaws isn't helpful and only ever leads to disappointment. Just look at the shipper blowback with Bleach and Naruto. Nobody really "won" those battles...

Might as well add to this.

I consider it as an unfortunate side effect of the increased visibility of legitimate LGBT problems and issues. While the rising profile of LGBT movements in the social eye made the ability to spot real problems easier, it also had the unintended consequence of making us more biased and inclined to find said issues where there are none, or proof of their presence is flimsy at best.

[Harry Dresden]

Originally Posted by quigonkenny

Now that I've finally got an impression exactly what "queerbating" is, it sounds to me to more of a problem with the viewer than the writers, just like any other time a viewer makes an assumption about a work that ends up not being true or not being addressed. Speculating about plot or interpersonal developments is certainly fine, but you can't get bent out of shape if things don't fall the way you want or expect them to. The writers have suggested that there are LGBT characters in the series, and that their relationships will be delved into. I have my own ideas where that will go, but frankly I don't put too much thought into it, because I'm not a shipper in the first place, and I'm much more interested in the world-building.

Incorrect.
Again, linking videos that present itmore clearly than I could:
The Problem with Queerbaiting
Queerbaiting 101

Adding subtextual queer-coding is a real thing. That is how Queer characters existed few decades ago when portraying them textually was BANNED.

RWBY writers are adding intentional subtext beyond Blake/Yang.
They are VERY MUCH AWARE of the ships, enough to namedrop them in the show.
They have no problems making parallels between Arkos scenes and Blake/Yang scenes.
They have no problems throwing a vague hints and queerbaiting during interviews about them (ex: talking how much they look forward to "blake and yang's story" and stuff).

They have no problems adding scenes that are intentionally shot to bait the same sex ships(ex: Volume 2 first episode had Ruby holding Weiss during food fight and second episode had the infamous card battle hug, both of which Miles Luna admitted intentionally adding to bait white rose shippers).


It does not have anything to do with "ships". A character does not stop being queer without a romance. And a character is not queer solely for romance.

It is easy to downplay the importance for that because straight pairings are assumed norm that is never questioned. Arkos can hold hands and nobody will doubt that's romance. So with majority of textual relationships being straight, things like sexuality might seem "normal" to people and as something that is not a problem, because they can't see the problem. Yet Adam can literally imply Blake loves Yang and people will still try to argue it is galpals stuff, while Arkos can get away being 100% romance without them ever saying the I Love You.

"There are lgbt characters but they are hidden" is a common problem with both queerbaiting and tokenism. Somehow Writers don't have problems throwing in characters displaying how straight they are(I mean 99% of Neptune's screentime is him hitting on girls and him and Sun are literally the definition of "Straight dudes"), so why is it a problem to handle queer characters that way? Why is it suddenly kid gloves and "taking care". When in reality all that does is create dozens of straight characters with only a vague promise of lgbt characters and relationships.

Also that leads to tokenism - it is so easy to justify what you said by just adding random new background character who is queer and claim your job is done, while ignoring the subtextual queer-coding you added, the out-of-show teases you provided, etc. It is a very common tactic and believe me nobody wants to exist as a token. Because being a "token" by nature makes you "special" and thus makes you be treated as "unnatural".

You're just going to have to continue to wait and speculate until the writers get to it, just like every other development, character or otherwise.

Which is the purpose of queerbaiting as marketing technique?

To create subtext in narrative and sensible meta to cause LGBT community to HOPE they have characters to identity with and keep watching with those hopes.

Unless the actual textual interactions are added It IS queerbaiting. And it usually leads to absolutely zero pay off. Because the time when Writers are ready to openly say that such and such person can't possibly be queer, is the time when they either are doing so well they don't need that audience anymore(Ex: Sherlock) or they are treating the current time as final years of the show(Ex: Once Upon A Time).

In the meantime, demonizing any character who "gets in the way" of your speculation and exaggerating their flaws isn't helpful and only ever leads to disappointment. Just look at the shipper blowback with Bleach and Naruto. Nobody really "won" those battles...

Again, implying this is about ships is being incredibly reductive about the problem at hand.

Likewise I really suggest reading this tumblr slideshow which is puts it into images and words REAL WELL

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I consider it as an unfortunate side effect of the increased visibility of legitimate LGBT problems and issues. While the rising profile of LGBT movements in the social eye made the ability to spot real problems easier, it also had the unintended consequence of making us more biased and inclined to find said issues where there are none, or proof of their presence is flimsy at best.

This is similar to the "argument" S.Moffat used and it makes absolutely no sense.

You can't reduce representation as "not a real problem" just because there are bigger problems. That's false equivalence.

That's like claiming wanting women to have equal rights and treatment in workspace is "trivializing the issue" because some women in some regions of the world are treated like slaves.

People are not just "seeing things". The queerbaiting tactic relis on such a plausible deniability. On an ableist idea that being gay makes you "see things" that are not there.

There's no "gay interactions" that somehow only queer people can see.
There are only interactions that are universal be it same gender of different gender relationship. The difference is the double standards applied to them as I already made an example above.

The only arguable difference is that due to the censorship like Motion Picture Production code, there was a time when queer-coded subtext was the only way to present queer characters in movies without breaking the law, so LGBT community developed a better ability at noticing those methods. This is a good video history on subtextual-existence of lgbt within entertainment media

Alas now those methods and subtext are used against us by providing subtext and not following through with text. As a marketing technique. Because it allows the rise of the argument you presented now.

It is so prevalent that when even something like Korra happens, due to majority of development being subtextual, some "fans" refuse to acknowledge it existing even after the writers outright confirmed it.

It is not 30's anymore. We are living in an era where Orange is the New Black, Orphan Black, L Word, etc, exist. Where netflix shows and even some tv shows are not afraid of just taking queer people existing as a natural fact.
We are living in an era where web-based tv shows and stories like RWBY can exist, without meddling of conservative corporate executives.
We are living in an era where Legend of Kora happened and the relationship there happened(albeig with its own problems of only being confirmed in the end and existing through subtext)

It does not have to be limited to subtext. It must not be just subtext due to the business practices outlined above.

Terms like queer-baiting and queer-coding exist in social theory for decades.

And discussing the issues when a narrative is trying to bait viewers for marketing is fair and square.

People are discussing problematic aspects of media like fanservice without others shaming them into doubting whether camera gazing onto a character's ass or boobs was intentional after all.

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Might as well add to this.

I consider it as an unfortunate side effect of the increased visibility of legitimate LGBT problems and issues. While the rising profile of LGBT movements in the social eye made the ability to spot real problems easier, it also had the unintended consequence of making us more biased and inclined to find said issues where there are none, or proof of their presence is flimsy at best.

Well, it's hardly limited to LGBT issues. When people have an issue they think strongly on, they tend to see most things through that prism. It's similar to the saying "When you have a hammer, every problem becomes a nail".

[Harry Dresden]

Again, this post explains the problem perfectly and debunks most of your arguments you presented.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Harry Dresden

This is similar to the "argument" S.Moffat used and it makes absolutely no sense.

You can't reduce representation as "not a real problem" just because there are bigger problems. That's false equivalence.

That's like claiming wanting women to have equal rights and treatment in workspace is "trivializing the issue" because some women in some regions of the world are treated like slaves.

People are not just "seeing things". The queerbaiting tactic relis on such a plausible deniability. On an ableist idea that being gay makes you "see things" that are not there.

There's no "gay interactions" that somehow only queer people can see.
There are only interactions that are universal be it same gender of different gender relationship. The difference is the double standards applied to them as I already made an example above.

The only arguable difference is that due to the censorship like Motion Picture Production code, there was a time when queer-coded subtext was the only way to present queer characters in movies without breaking the law, so LGBT community developed a better ability at noticing those methods. This is a good video history on subtextual-existence of lgbt within entertainment media

Alas now those methods and subtext are used against us by providing subtext and not following through with text. As a marketing technique. Because it allows the rise of the argument you presented now.

It is so prevalent that when even something like Korra happens, due to majority of development being subtextual, some "fans" refuse to acknowledge it existing even after the writers outright confirmed it.

It is not 30's anymore. We are living in an era where Orange is the New Black, Orphan Black, L Word, etc, exist. Where netflix shows and even some tv shows are not afraid of just taking queer people existing as a natural fact.
We are living in an era where web-based tv shows and stories like RWBY can exist, without meddling of conservative corporate executives.
We are living in an era where Legend of Kora happened and the relationship there happened(albeig with its own problems of only being confirmed in the end and existing through subtext)

It does not have to be limited to subtext. It must not be just subtext due to the business practices outlined above.

Terms like queer-baiting and queer-coding exist in social theory for decades.

And discussing the issues when a narrative is trying to bait viewers for marketing is fair and square.

People are discussing problematic aspects of media like fanservice without others shaming them into doubting whether camera gazing onto a character's ass or boobs was intentional after all.

And this is where you grossly misunderstand what I'm talking about and precisely what EVERYBODY else is trying to tell you. This isn't about a false equivalency or denigrating real social issues.

It's about trying to force find a problem in a situation where there isn't enough evidence to suggest YET that a problem exists in the first place.

Hence the witch hunt analogy. We're all trying to express the sentiment that all this queerbaiting hunting is being concluded by you is from circumstantial evidence at best, yet you still intend to bring it up at every alleged sign of queerbaiting, signs that are AGAIN circumstantial at best.

As I and everyone else here have stated, we are more than willing to discuss the possibility of queerbaiting in this show once REAL solid evidence of it's possible existence can be found. Everything you're trying to force feed down our throats are still outliers at best. You cannot force a discussion with people who cannot engage at you because they have no solid evidence to base on.

Not to mention how your insistence that we engage you with these as of yet alleged problems has done more than enough of derailing this thread. If you really REALLY want to discuss "queerbaiting", there are more appropriate places in this forum than here.

Now can we all get back on track?

[Fenrir_valindri]

No offense Harry, but half your comments are borderline hateful about anything involving Sun even in the slightest. You mentioned Stalker vibes from a 2-3 second clip from the opening in which Sun is getting shoved aside by Blake's (supposed) father who gives a disapproving look, and outright stated you dislike multiple male cast members being introduced to a show that has a very prominent female cast.

It all smells like heavy shipping bias and looking for trouble where there is little to none.

I even like the Bumblebee ship, but the whole "Queer-baiting" issue sounds like nonsense to me.

[XFire]

There's also the fact that you're boxing Blake's character arc into merely escaping the oppression of a male power figure as opposed to the much more blatant and visible struggle with racism and the Faunus issue in general.