Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-35941743-20190724191227/@comment-39854843-20190725043639

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: No. He. Was. Not. He was absolutely the Beast. Some have suggested he takes on the role of Gaston (who is literally just a Disney creation) to Blake's Belle, but his inspiration is the Beast. Yes. He. Was. He has far more (FAR MORE) in common with Gaston than he has with The Beast, and you know it.

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: Her inspiration had literally the opposite kind of life. That isn't subversion or inspiration at that point. Characters don't have one-to-one matches with their inspiration, but none of them have deviated to that extent. I've already refuted this multiple times. I don't know why you keep coming back to this, if I'm being honest. There's no reason to expect her Cinderella backstory to be adapted into her canon backstory. Most of the characters on this show don't have their inspiration's backstory. And Cinder already has multiple ties to Cinderella, so there's really no need for it anyway. And I already gave you an example (Salem) of a character with a completely inverted backstory that happens to come from exactly the same source material as Cinder. So, yes, some of them have deviated to that extent.

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: While I mentioned it before, I also don't think a "redemption through death" outcome is good for Cinder. Definitely seeing that as something more likely to happen with Hazel. Whether she ends up in prison or exiled to some secluded area, perhaps wheelchair-bound on account of some complications from the whole Grimm implantation thing, I kind of like the idea of her being alive at the end. Matter of opinion, and I disagree. I like the idea of her being dead at the end, and I would prefer her death to come long before the final volume. She's a broken, terrible villain and no amount of writing is going to fix her. Replacing her with someone better is the only way, in my opinion.

The Devil&#039;s Advocate WP wrote: Game of Thrones isn't really a "good vs. evil" story. RWBY is very much framed as a "good vs. evil" story. We already have Tyrian for the "probably was never particularly good and probably not gonna stop being evil" role. 1 - Since when do 'good v evil' stories forbid the use of 'always evil' characters?

2 - Since when is there a limit of 1 'always evil' character per series?

I'm baffled, numb, and frankly, I find talking to you exhausting. I don't like it, and so I'm not going to do it anymore. It's nothing personal, I just don't want to argue about exactly the same crap over and over and over again. So don't bother trying to irk me into a debate, because I'm not going to respond to anything you have to say from here on out. This will stand as my final refutation of you, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would be so kind as to not respond to anything in particular that I say on these threads (mainly because I'm not going to bother responding anyway, so it's a waste of your time). Sorry it had to come to this, but I don't debate with those for whom debate is meaningless. There's nothing I could say to change your mind on any earthly issue, and so there's no reason to try. Goodbye.