With this great documentary series done by Hypeathon aka team_SKGA on Reddit.
That’s how you do research, my guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5JKAQ_2TUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XYzqrYbcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKaemvHUKo
Personally I would have said Voluymes 1 and 2 since they’re the most painful to get through to actually get into the series. But that’s actually the least of this video’s issues.
1. His points about Volume 4+’s character focuses...don’t make sense.
No seriously, this isn’t me being fallicious and hyperbolic aside from the point about Ren and Nora (And even that has issues.)
He complains that we already know everything about Weiss and her family...but all we really know is Jacques is greedy, is abusive and Winter escaped. We don’t actually see what Jacques is like and what kind of personality she has nor what Weiss is like around her father. Things like Jacques using specific words to get what he wants (subtly pressuring Weiss to get him good PR ad dance around his shitty business practices) and Weiss’ attitude around her father being so meek and emotional helps flesh out her character and creates a stronger bond with the audience. So yeah, we didn’t actually know everything.
...Which is confusing because a latter point about him trying to justify saying Weiss wasn’t set up to have an arc in this Volume by saying, and I quote, “Weiss was taken home by her father but we didn’t know what that means” despite any knowledge of her family would indicate she’d have to deal with her father’s oppression. So in the same video, we’re suppose to simultaneously know everything about Weiss and her family...and know nothing about her family because that would indicate what was gonna happen with Weiss post Volume 3.
... Do I even need to point out how contradictory this is?
This isn’t an isolated incident in the video either. His point about Blake boils down to “The fandom assumed she was going after the WF but she instead ran to her family for no reason, a family we never thought she had.” Issue here is that: he’s judging this not by what the show does but what the FANDOM does. And the fandom is notorious for having crackpot theories (see: any Jaune theory) and he never mentions anything about what the show was doing.
Or what about what he said in regards to Yang ‘effectively getting over her PTSD in Episode 4...because she put on her replacement arm, despite the fact that the show indicated that was only a ‘first step’ deal (with how Taiyang said ‘Now let’s begin’, or how Yang was previously portrayed as avoiding her issues nut dealing with them.) So...why would he think that?
Then we have how he says that Nora and Ren got character development ‘just because’, ignoring how the Volume was dealing with loss and coping from loss so having a small representation of that conflict (like say, a tramuatic past?) would be perfectly fitting, especially since they got focus early into Volume 4.
All of this...somehow fits into the overall idea that Volume 4 isn’t a continuation of Volume 3...even though it relies on a very specific mindset, interpretation and acknowledgement of events. This isn’t even talking about how he glosses over Jaune’s angst over Pyrrha, Ruby’s subtle sadness and the culmination of that in the Kuroyuri episode.
... Yeah I don’t get it either. This is either immensely lazy on his part to not do any research or immensely dishonest by just pandering to what his established audience wants to hear. Because this is a giant mistake beyond simple incompetence.
2. He says Volume 4 is considered a soft reboot. ... I dunno why.
A soft reboot effectively means a continuation of the original continuity but with alterations to established formula that makes it effectively a different entity.
Now some of what I said does fit here with the traveling aspect, the new animation and so on as Adel says...but the thing is, when you compare this to other soft reboots it...doesn’t feel right.
Unlike stuff like Pokemon Black and White, X-Men First Class and JoJo part 4+ (depends on your view of a soft reboot): Volumes 4+ have a heavy connection to Volumes 1-3 while the other examples only have tangential connections. You don’t need to know much beyond basics for soft reboots. With RWBY Volume4+, you NEED to know the specifics of Volume 1-3. And that one aspect of having a tangential connection instead of a very solid one is what defines a soft reboot as a reboot. WIthout that it’s just...changes in a show.
I don’t know why he would characterize Volumes 4+ as a soft reboot with such aspects when you still need to know everything about Volumes 1-3. Aside from massive incomptence or banking on the stigma soft reboots have.
3. Volume 4 is not rebooted nor is it filler.
I’m not even gonna bother being in depth here.
You wouldn’t care about Ruby and co. making it to Mistral if you didn’t know the specifics of Volume 4.
You wouldn’t care about Weiss being captured or reuniting with the rest of her team without Volume 4.
You wouldn’t know a damn thing about why Yang gives a shit about Raven or why she’s acting so differently without Volumes 1-4
You wouldn’t care about Cinder or understand how she got here if not for Volume 4.
Oscar....makes no sense without Volume 4.
This is just a stupid point through and through. This can’t even be covered by incomptence or laziness because the average RWBY fan could tell you this. I can only assume Adel is playing to his audience’s biases at this point, the same way CNN and Fox News do for their audiences: fend them what they want to hear, reality be damned.
4. God damn it, it’s the same point as before!
Yeah, he claims Volume 6 is SOMEHOW still a continuation/soft reboot of Volume 3. Ignoring how you need to know about the Relic, Illa, Sun, Raven and Yang, Ruby’s Silver eyes and Weiss’ past to understand this series which requires literally every other Volume made.
The Salem and Ozpin thing alongside a giant Grimm and Silver eyes are not enough to constitute being a ripoff/continuation/soft reboot of Volume 3. They’re just questions being answered or fleshing out aspects of what was introduced before (which doesn’t HAPPEN in soft reboots). Having somewhat similar ideas,
This gets even dumber when you consider what he says about the Ozpin and Salem thing. He says it’s a rehash of the Maidens that was rehashed with the Brother’s Myth. Here’s the thing:
Ozpin and Salem’s backstory is DIRECTLY related to those two stories. You can’t rehash something when it is a CONTINUATION. To rehash something it needs to be treated as completely new BY DEFINITION ( put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement. ) Same goes for the Maiden story and the Brothers: the Maidens were a fable about four women helping an old man who gave them powers and the Brothers is about two gods and how they created Remnant. They’re too different to be a rehash of the other. None of thus fits the requirements for a rehash because it’s either not a new form but rather an old form given more context (Ozpin and Salem) or barely connect because ‘magic’ (The Brothers).
He just keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper, leaving me less room to give any benefit of the doubt. I am a guy who knows what reusing an idea is, my favorite anime studio (Trigger) has been reusing the same central idea (story of defiance and determination being defied usually using transformations and coming of age stories) since 1988 as Gainax. But this? This is not a rehash. Just a simple expansion with the occasional reuse of an idea (the giant Grimm)
5. If it is a soft reboot/rip off/rehash... Then Volume 3 did not start this.
His main points about Volumes 4-6 being rehashes are finally focused on the climax with it effectively being ‘giant climatic confrontation between bad guys and good guys, usually involving Adam/the WF and Grimm.”
Sound familiar?
It should, I JUST described the climaxes of Volume 1 and 2 combined. More so Volume 2 but elements of the big climatic showdown between bad guys and the WF being used as set up started with Torchwick and the WF in Black and White. Yeah, there are differences in the climaxes (with Torchwick and the WF not having Adam and the Breach not having the bad guys work directly against the good guys in the finale) but the same can be said of Volumes 4+ so it clearly doesn’t matter to Adel.
Which begs the question: why wouldn’t he see this? Either he never thought of it (unlikely)...or he’d need to shit on Volumes 1 and 2 and that wouldn’t go over as well.
Overall, this whole thing reeks of dishonesty. Elements are either misinterpreted or removed altogether, vague paralells are drawn and called deliberate, basic mistakes in understanding storytelling are made, things are inconsistent as hell ect. It just feels like I’m watching CNN or Fox News tell me all about how the other is shit because they say so: no substance, no evidence, not even effort. Just dishonesty.
Name some RWBY youtubers that are good, and ones I should stay away from
Bad: Adel Aka, MuffinManDan, RegularDude, EruptionFang if he keeps his Adam boner in Volume 7.
The meh: FatManFalling (he could be great if he learned to condense his arguments and edit them into a proper order, and the sheer potential of being a good critic and having decent mic quality puts him above a lot of the bad reviewers).
Good: CelticPhoenix (most often talks about RWBY as part of FMF’s reaction/podcast thing which means you do have to deal with him but I think Celtic’s worth it), Twiins Ink, Judgemental Critter, Blizzic, RemnantDudeHD, Unicorn of War.
I already made a post on my Thoguts on Adam earlier but I felt this was important, Especially seeing videos like Adel Akas or Eruption Fang. Many may disagree but I think it's fine that people were disappointed with How Adam turned out. I personally Agree that the Abuser thing kinda came out of nowhere in Volume 3.
But with that said? While it's fine to have wanted a charachter to turn out Differant. DO NOT defend Adam himself as he turned out. Blake and Yang killed him in self defense, after giving him MULTIPLE chances to go back. Don't claim that this is a Broken Aesop because "They killed him, wasn't the whole Aesop that Adam killing was bad". Adams killing was because he Enjoyed it. Becuase he hated humans. Blake and Yang took no pleasure in what they did. Even feeling bad for him in Nevermore. The only time you could Eqaute This to one of Adams actions was his first kill in His charachter short Wich was done in self defense. And Adam wasn't portrayed as a bad guy for that, it was what happned the later that made him evil
Oh and too all Adel Akas BS about how Adams abuse of Blake was informed and not told? He claims repeatedly that it isn't the same as an Abuser lying or manipulating there victim because Adam believed in everything he told Blake. That is the Whole point of Adam, he dosent just lie to others. He lies to HIMSELF. He thinks he's the hero of the story, he thinks Blake only ran Away cause she's an ungrateful Coward. The most dangerous lies are the ones you believe in.
And dear God will people please shut up about how "Forced" Bumblby was? Harry and Ginny from Harry potter, THAT was forced Because the charachters weren't really connected and then suddenly were in love. With RWBY Blake and Yang were clear friends sense volume 1, and in Volume 3 Blake directly compares her relationship with Yang to her relationship with Adam before Adam was consumed by his Rage.
If you think more Could have been done with Adam? Fine. But don't shame his victims or Claim that a ship you don't like is becoming canon is "Bad Writing".
