#Thomas vaccuo

[knightofbalance-13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFTBHoLGco

Unicorn of War, I’ve gone on record to say you’re probably the second best RWBY critic on YouTube.

Unforunately, videos like these show that’s more a reflection on how low the bar is in that community than any real indicator of quality. No offense to you but, I think you need to consider certain factors before making videos like these.

Okay so his number five pick is...Raven Branwen. The reason why he choose Raven is because the writing makes Raven out to be a petulant child whose a bad guy when she’s suppose to be a morally complex grey character.

... Issue here is that what she just said is only half right and even then, it’s intended. Raven is suppose to come across as a petulant child to contrast Yang’s maturity as a person as well as the reasoning behind why someone like Raven would do the things she does. As for being morally grey: the issue here is that Raven is morally grey in that she acts for her own selfish goals that contribute to either side. If you were expecting Raven to be this super complex character morals wise from Volume 4: She willingly left her family to join a tribe of bandits that is so horrible that Qrow (her twin) hates them. Not to mention the mass murder. It was clear she was never gonna be on the lighter side of the moral spectrum.

Also he says part of this is due to how Ozpin isn’t called out for being nefarious (I personally doubt that but moving on). Bit thing is: that should contribute to OZPIN’S character, not RAVEN’S. This just comes across as kind of narrow minded in how he views characters and that just leaves a bad feeling in my stomach.

His fourth pick is Leonard Lionheart. He says this is because...um...

Okay first he gives the opinion that Leo’s defection to Salem wasn’t explored enough and wasn’t given enough details. But ironically, he doesn’t really give any details here to really sell that as a reason.

Another is that he’s a headmaster of an Academy in a racist kingdom and says they could have explored his implications but that’s only speculation and if we judge things based on how many opportunities are missed, we’d never have a good character or show.

The third is that he’s a poor representation of the theme of choice in Volume 5...which doesn’t make sense since this is never directly commented on, it isn’t really prevelant and, considering how greenhorn Miles and Kerry are, I doubt they would have a theme of choice and NOT have the target relic be the relic of choice (Haven’s is the relic of knowledge). He also cites another reviewer as a source which...yeah, even if I like the reviewer, you use your OWN words.

So we have three reasons that don't really contribute to anything let alone each other so I have no idea what the central reason why Unicorn choose Leo for this part other than “I don’t like him.” There’s nothing to really judge or discuss here, not even any suggestions on a better way to do this or improvements. I feel even more numb than he does towards Leo.

Third is Blake Belladonna and he admits that Blake was great in Volume 5....which is it’s own bag of worms. Look, there can be different incarnations of the same character but this is from things like spin offs, reboots and non canon material: NOT between seasons of a show. If this ws Blake from a spin off then this statement was fine...but the fact that he uses original Blake despite complimenting her most recent incarnation is like hating Jaune for his actions in Volume 1 but praising him in Volume 5: it’s really conflicted and weird.

Not that his reasonings are the best. He says that Blake is switching between wanting to be left alone to participating in Team RWBY;s antics...while using footage from Volume 1. Not even really Black and White, like Emerald Forest and Badge And Burden. Issue here is that these are two very different situations. Before, Blake didn’t know people like Ruby and Yang and had no reason to try and get along. Now, she’s a member of their team for four years and has gotten to know them a bit better: it makes sense that she’d get along with them better here. The other reason why he puts her here is because since the Volume doesn’t focus on her self hatred, her leaving her team left a bad taste in people’s mouths. This only works if you don’t consider Blake’s martyr complex and her previous actions. This is like expecting to know why Goku fights every single person he does when the reasoning is obvious.

The only thing I liked here was him addressing her relationship with Adam and how it wasn’t explored. But I only liked it because I understood where he was coming from, not because I even agreed with him on an objective level. The relationship doesn’t look explored because you have to view Blake’s character through the lens of an abuse victim AFTER Volume 3 and RWBY...isn’t the most rewatchable show. Oh and he ends by saying she has gotten much better in Volume 5, which is just confusing me on this list even further since he could put someone else (like Ozpin since he has issues with the writing surrounding Ozpin) here and made it more relevant.

Second to last is Adam Taurus. He’s here because...Raven. He’s here for one of the same reasons as Raven: he was something in Volume 3 but now he’s a petulant child. And again, this fails because that’s the point of Adam: he’s a psychopathic manchild. He’s Raven ramped up to 25. He says that Adam is a joke now because he tries to be an edgelord but in one episode he has one of the cringest lines possible (”Hello my Darling) but in the next he singlehandedly cuts off Yang’s arm without so much as a blink. Unicorn tries to justify this by saying his forces were defeated, he tried blowing up everyone in a fit and was defeated by a backhand. But again, this is AFTER he was shown to be fully willing to destroy YET another Hunstmen academy and do god knows what to Blake. This doesn’t work as a good reasoning. 

His last reasoning is that his character keeps bouncing back and forth between wanting justice for his people (which is incorrect, he wants supremacy) and wanting to get back at Blake...ignoring how there is an underlying connection here of “I was wrong ergo I’m going to do terrible things to get back at people” AKA SPITE. The show literally handed this to the viewer on a silver platter, I can’t excuse this mistake. It’s isn’t being torn apart or attacked: they’re the same goal, just targeted at different people.

Dishonorable mentions:

Corsec And Fennec: makes some sense but the compliant of ‘their manipulative side isn’t shown’ doesn’t hold up, rather it should be ;their manipulative side isn’t shown enough.’ Also they should have replaced Blake since, you know, they are disliked throughout their ENTIRE incarnation.

Vernal: Is said to be on here because nothing is really done with her aside from being a red herring. Again, not really enough to justify being on this list over another choice like Ozpin.

Ruby Rose: “She’s the exact same character as she was in Volume 1 and the attempts at character development are just...so shallow.”

... I have discussed this so much that at this point, I’m not even gonna dignify this with a response.

And Number 1 is Cinder Fall. And it’s all the same arguments so I’ll just give the bullet points version:

1. She has no backstory: I’ve pointed to villians like the Joker as a counterpoint to this. You don’t need a backstory for a good villain.

2. She fought Jaune instead of Ruby: ironic considering the clip he used to illustrate his point is PRECISELY why this doesn’t work. Jaune attacked first.

3. She was stupid in her volume 5 plan: Look, I could explain why this makes sense since she’s a sadist and wants to kill people. But you can’t have this reason and Number 2 together. The second is all about how she didn’t kill Ruby when doing so would be stupid but then you decry her for NOT being stupid. Choose one, these reasons are knife fighting to the death here, that’s how badly they work together.

4. She doesn’t interact directly with the characters directly to have a real presence against them: ... Fire Lord Ozai. Same supposed issue, didn’t stop him.

He brings up the idea of ‘good idea, flawed execution’ at the end and while I would normally agree with this:

This is like someone calling a guy ‘flithy’ when they themselves look like they just swam through a river of sewage. AKA I can’t focus on the second party because the actions of the first has drawn attention to their own issues.

Unicorn of War: I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish here. Was this suppose to be a list about characters you personally don’t like? Then why did you keep bring up the public perception of characters? If this si suppose to be an attempt at an objective look at the characters: then why do you keep bring up personal issues and personal points? 

I have no idea what I’m suppose to take away from this. You make some good points here and there and unlike people like Muffin Man Dan or FMF: I didn’t have to wade through absolute bile to get to them. But your execution and your reasoning is so all over the place that I can’t take anything away from this. I’m just left a confused mess by the end of this because I don’t even know how I’m suppose to judge this. Like-Dude, sit down, take a breath and decide whether you want to look at things from your own personal experience and feelings like MurderOfBirds or try to look at things objectively, trying to distance yourself from personal bias like...okay, there’s no RWBY Youtuber equivalent there. But you get my point.

As I have said in the past: You can make good points. It’s just when you delve into the points is when things get confusing. If not for common mistakes (like saying that the Volumes of RWBY post 3 are rushed when they take about as much time to make as Volume 2 did), then for confused execution like what you did here.

#rwby #unicorn of war #Thomas vaccuo