If you think that's a sexualized picture you have a few screws loose.Not sexualized
Ok, fam.
And ok, seems I heard wrong. Most of the characters are 17, which isn't a whole lot better in the context of a bunch of (nearly) ~30 year olds commenting on them like that. Still gross, especially in light of them adding self-insert romantic interest male characters into it that they voice acted
He was complaining largely about how the characters were underage, sexualized, and made into love interests for the characters he argues are self-inserts (which there's an argument for at least one, given Neptune's inversely proportional screentime and importance to the plot). Let's be real: those comments from Miles and Kerry regarding the character designs were weird, and more than a little creepy.
If they're "obvious inspirations", why are the connections he makes between the inspirational material and the show "weak"? He makes a great point with out of place elements like the interrogation scene and the opening spiel for dust almost directly aping early moments in TLA and TLoK.
Easy mistake to make. That's not her skin tone. Those are pants.
That's not her skin if that's what you're thinking. Besides Yang's hot pants, idr any sexualization in the show.
I think the argument that RWBY sexualizes underage characters has a bit of credence... But it's also something present (often in far worse ways) in the same anime Hbomberguy uncritically recommends in the next breath.
It's worth noting that it's not that he's recommending it in the sense of "Check these out, they are so good and unlike what I'm complaining about with RWBY."
The problem is he never connects "This show is sexualizing teenage girls" and "this show is incredibly generic and derivative" that the two might be related. And this applies not just to the fetishization of children, it applies to a lot of the problems with RWBY he pointed out.
I'm not sure I follow. Those could be related in some ways, but they aren't inherently. A show can be generic and derivative while not sexualizing teenage girls or it can sexualize teenagers while being unique and innovative. And the specific issue with sexualizing teenagers is catergorically different from the problems of being generic and derivative.
Why? The fetishization of teenagers is one of the things that makes RWBY cliche. So does the addition of tons of unnecessary characters who exist just for cool designs. So does giving the hero a special destiny to give them more stuff to do. So does the lack of dark-skinned characters. So does the awkward writing of women by men. So does the failure to balance mature subject matter with a child-friendly tone.
Because they are categorically different problems.
The fuck is this response?
?????????????????
I'm sorry, how was I supposed to take this?
They are different problems in seriousness, but I feel the root cause for both is RWBY being slavishly devoted to genre tropes. I thought HBomberGuy neglecting that issue was a major miss.
Take it like the way it was written. If the problem is my inclusiveness of "teens" there, then remove that, but the point I was making is that sexualization itself can be made innovative with the right creative mind, so it makes little sense to tie it directly to genericness. I mostly just said teenagers because that's the characters we're talking about
Then don't.
Monty was literally the only reason Jaune got such focus in the first couple seasons/why the dance arc even happened. He really wanted to animate JNPR's dance sequence. That's the only reason the arc exists. "Nothing to critique" my ass. A tong of the shows writing issues came directly from him because he would explicitly write things just to justify animations he wanted to do. Or he would come up with major plot points in between seasons then tell others to make it work. Like the Maidens
