Film Theory Falsely Accuses Iroh (A Response Video)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Film Theory is back. This time it's not the whole video that I take issue with, it's the final portion where they make their conclusion. I actually was okay with the video up until this point but here? Nah...I gotta come to the defense of my boi Iroh. You don't get to do him dirty like that.
Gonna guess even though i haven't watched it....they are going to go into his past as a general and warlord while ignoring everything he did to redeem himself after the loss of his son.
Suprisingly no.
But they labed him as a guilty of war of aggresion.
@@nicolausg7058 which is funny it's a war that his side did start yes but the war started before he was born
In the land of Film Theory, no one is redeemable if they do even 1 thing bad.
Film theory: "WAR CRIMES!"
Raven Knight: "OBJECTION!"
Film theory didn't just jump the shark, they installed a circular track and made a "Jump the shark" rollercoaster than runs daily.
I think the rollercoaster was installed the moment MatPat got married 11 years ago.
even if it is true and he is a war criminal, it only serves to enrich Iroh's off screen redemption from a general who had little regard for other people's lives, to the kind and wise uncle we know and love
True.
After watching: Dear god! They really were so desperate to at least throw some shade onto Iroh, that they forgot common sense. XD
Film Theory decided to hit at good old Unlce Iroh....
And the response vid in less than 24 hours.
Called it.
Film Theory: makes a video lying
Raven: you don't learn, right?
We call it slander.
Another thing that must be noted is that guilt for crimes is not inherited. Sozin committed an Act of Aggression by declaring war without justification, but the war dragged on past his lifetime and was inherited by his son and later his grandson. Neither would be considered guilty of this Crime of Aggression since they were not the initiators of the war, merely it inheritors. This doesn't absolve Azulon or Ozai for the crimes they committed during their tenures as Firelord or during any participation that they had in the war itself, but they are not guilty for their father and grandfather's Act of Aggression.
But, didn‘t they also release him on all charges? They went with a theory, went through his past, but basically determined Uncle Iroh was peachy clean
Iroh was one of my favorite characters. I never really saw him as a war criminal. He obviously saw what war could do and was more peaceful. He was also more a father figure to Zuko than Ozai. Good vid raven
Preach tech
Iroh…. Really they’re going after Iroh now what’s next Jesus
Reaching for content
I'm pretty sure any "crime" he did commit would've been forgiven as he did save Ba Sing Se, stood against the Fire Lord, and aided the Avatar. Even our politicians aren't dumb enough to try throwing him in court.
Film Theory: Uploaded 21 hours ago.
Wow, you work fast! It hasn’t even been a full day!
*Edit:* Okay, at least it was only one bad point. Less to work with, but I think that’s much better than I had feared.
There is this running gag in the Star Wars community about Anakin and Obi Wan committing a bunch of war crimes in the clone wars and it always bothered me even though it is a big joke, because we have no ideas about the laws in the Star Wars universe
99% of their opposition was also droids. Things that aren't alive, no matter how amusing they are or how much personality they're given.
Raven Knight: Attorney-at-Law
Your responses to film theory are what made me see how they can lie and has made me turn away from them
People can make mistakes, but if you don't want to watch them, that's alright.
@@ivansleepy4722 ok my bad about them lying
I never could get into the "Theroists" as I feel like they're the kind of people who will make horrible takes and never acknowledge any kind of criticism. Having this kind of echo chamber community is not how you discuss topics such as these. They just come off as people who say "We're right because we said so: and you can't disagree with us."
@@ivansleepy4722 it’s not really a mistake when it’s something that the theory channels have done over and over and over.
People that are buffs in the fandoms of media that game theory has made theories on have time and again pointed out the flaws in those theories and it’s happening here right now in this video as well.
Once is an accident twice is a pattern and continuously repeating the same thing is a behaviour.
I hate how it seems people nowadays have this mentality that a person’s bad past defines them who they are now, regardless if they’ve changed for the better. It’s this type of arrogance I can’t stand because it makes me feel like these people don’t support or believe in redemption: it’s only simple black and white, never the complicated grey area.
The hell with Film theory and Mattpat cause even he's done videos like this before.
Raven i saw this and immediately had to take a look
1:46 any other time I would agree with this sentiment and hell, this was honestly the first reaction I had towards the video when I saw it myself.
However, as mentioned in that video if my memory is correct, they're not exactly going into the lore of war crimes within the Avatar universe because for a Nickelodeon's kids show and for as dark as it was, it didn't go that far. It didn't go that far that deep into the Lord where they literally wrote their own war crimes.
The universe does have crimes against war aggression. However since it is a fictional universe assuming they do have war crimes, they can very much be different from our own in real life.
But we don't have any of that information to go off of. Today didn't have any of that information to go off of. And as usual these videos are just done for fun. Now this is not a critique against your criticisms. If anything I don't have a problem with your critiques against the concept of yourself because as you said, no one is above criticism.
But let's be honest, this is a Nickelodeon's kids show. Do you think the show creators would have taken their time out of their day to actually write down actual war crimes for this universe? Meaning the only comparison we have is to our own real life war crime laws. The weather going into this video knowing the fact that they're not going to have war crime laws equivalent to hours, or just knowing the fact that the Lord probably doesn't even go that deep at all, there's that suspension of disbelief just for the sake of the theory. That same suspension of disbelief you may have for the show when watching it. When accepting the fact that these people called benders can bend the elements against their will of their own needs within this universe.
Okay, this is nothing against the critiques. I don't have a problem with any of the critiques. Just for your fact that you're saying it's silly to even see if Uncle iroh compares to being a work criminal to our own real life laws it's like complaining that people want to know how dangerous a fictional weapons from a fictional video game or how dangerous a superhero or super villain would be in real life is silly.
And in all fairness, you're right. It is. But that's literally all it is. Just being silly. All silly fun. Just for the hell of it.I mean that's literally the furious channels in a nutshell. Just theorizing for fun even if the theories may just be outright completely wrong or straight up bonkers.
Edit: After completing the full video I got to say these are actually some well thought out and well-researched points. Does anybody else reading just keep in mind that I still stand by my original point up above. And again that this was nothing against the creators criticism. But nonetheless, these are actually some very well thought-out points.
I would also like to add as it seems that the creators recognizing by the way she addressed film theory, the primary as a reminder to others out there that film theory is an entire team. It is not just one the primary as a reminder to others out there that film theory is an entire team. It is not just one person. The host is not also the editor, writer, researcher, producer, & channel manger all at the same time while managing to get a video out almost every week or a couple of weeks on this channel. I mean I don't know how anybody could ever look at their production value and think it's made by just one person ever while also still managing to get a video out almost every other week.
Not to mention a lot of the editors that work on one theorist Channel actually work on all of them. We have multiple different editors for multiple different segments of the videos. It's doing their individual part.
So if anybody has any criticism against the editing, writing, or research of the video then it should either be directed towards that specific person who did that specific job, or at the very least the film theorists as a whole. As a team.
Because frankly, it makes no sense of blame the host for something that was a job of the researcher or the editor. It's literally just his job to be the voice / face when he's on camera. A.K.A. the host.
And a reminder to not take these videos seriously. They're just for fun. But as the creator of this video stated, it doesn't mean the film theorists are above criticism.
Iroh would have joined Aang and crew episode one and helped him learn Fire bending if he could have, but he knew it had to be Zuko's doing! The man was one of the wisest people on the show. This dingus is trying to apply our rules to a fake world, to make one of the best father-figures in modern cartoons several years after it finished as somehow being evil - and he had to lie about it!
This guy is projecting his own daddy issues in these videos and it's obvious after oogway and now Iroh.
It sucks, but I think Film Theory is going for way more controversy now than before
Out of curiosity have you ever found a video that you had a neutral to positive impression of to react to?
A few times. I even did respond to one that I agreed with.
Which one was that?
@@mrbey5496 I responded to Slanderous's video about whether For Honor was good or not.
@@RavenKnightYT Also out of curiosity, would you ever do a video response on MatPat's first "Post-Marriage" video? I say "Post-Marriage", because while his earlier videos were just ridiculous in a humorous sense, it's not as insulting as his later videos. Like how I wouldn't take offense to the "Super Mario Pipe Dreams" video, because, canonically, MatPat is right that Mario wasn't born in Brooklyn, nor New Donk. Yoshi's Island and even Donkey Kong '94 points out that Mario was born in the Mushroom World, and has likely migrated to a City with his parents (if we take into account that Yoshi's Island DS might've scared his parents because of his disappearance until the end), while later became part of the Wrecking Crew until Donkey Kong showed up. Mario has then gone on a wild goose chase that led him back to the Mushroom World, where he would capture Donkey Kong, before being chased by DK Jr.
If we take into account that Super Mario Bros. is a direct sequel to Mario Bros. and that concept material has Bowser labeled as "Boss Creeper" (likely connected to Koopa Troopas originally being "Shellcreepers"), then that would mean Mario and Luigi were cleaning up the Plumbing in the Basement of Castle Toadstool, before confronting monster turtles, and eventually deduct that it was a diversion while Peach is being captured by Bowser. Mario hearing of the plight that befell the Kingdom went off to rescue Princess Peach, and defeat the evil Koopa King.
Now, the video in question I want you to respond to would be the video that followed right after Donkey Kong's Banana Wars, and that's "the Problems with Princess Peach" (or "Peach has Stockholm Syndrome"). In that video, he lies about Peach being more into Bowser (when we know for a fact that Peach doesn't see Bowser in a romantic sense, especially when Bowser is a repeat offender), he compares Bowser and Peach to Belle and Beast from Disney's adaptation of Beauty and the Beast (even though Beast himself wants to better himself to earn her love, or that the original fairy tale is more of the fault of Belle's Father for taking a Rose from the Garden, when he should've asked for one from his Greenhouse), and acting as if Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing. If anything, this blatant lie is why Peach hasn't been kidnapped canonically since Super Mario Odyssey. Outside of Remakes, Peach hasn't been kidnapped after Peach finally puts her foot down on this love triangle; and no, Peach wasn't going to abandon Mario after this, because she knows Mario will catch up to ride the Odyssey. If anything, people were right to believe Bowser is given a restraining order after Odyssey.
@@robbiewalker2831 I have no knowledge of this video. Could you send me a link? I'll watch it and see if it's something I want to respond to.
Before watching: they go for Iroh? Get ready for battle brothers!
Hey Raven I hope you see this message cuz I'd love your opinion on this. It has to do with Gryphon from For Honor. Do you think maybe his inspiration is dacian warriors? His armor looks similar to what they are depicted as. (I'm referring to his armor sets mercenary, explorer, penitent, and pilgrim.) I'm aware you have a vid of his heroes in history analysis but I don't think you mentioned anything about the dacians, and the devs themselves said his default is indeed dacian influence. Let me know!
I agree that Iron redeemed himself morally speaking by helping team Avatar, but wouldn't he still be guilty of trying to violate the territorial integrity of a state? He was trying to annex Ba Sing Se into the Fire Nation. Is that not an act of aggression?
It was a war. Territories are always fought over and captured in war. Had Iroh just attacked Ba Sing Sei and there was no century long war going on, then that would have been an act of aggression.
Example: In WWII the Nazi's took Paris. The War itself was an act of Aggression, the taking of Paris was just a part of the war.
11:40 they included it for drama and interaction. Inciting people to call them out is a good way to boost their analytics
2:31 Mass unaliving? Really?
And even if he said that the where laws against crimes of war and all that in the world of Avatar, would they laws have been made after the Wars Iroh fought in?
I mean judging characters by modern standards of war is interesting I'd say primarily cause alot less than you think would be war criminals
I love the video
Thank you!
I have a question can you do a video on if anti heros or good or bad for the culture @@RavenKnightYT
@@dwayneasher6765 That's...honestly a good video topic. Sure. I'll see if I can't do something like that in future.
3:16 Mass unaliving? Really? Is that what he really went with? That sounds dumb as fuck. There's already a term for what he was describing: mass murder. He didn't need to come up with that grammatically incorrect bollocks.
Great video Raven.
I just watched it
Could you do a how to build on Gudmungr, the final boss in the knights campaign
No.
I thought matpat retired, the theory channels are still going?
Yeah it’s more of a team thing now.
It was always going to be passed on. That was information everyone knew from day one.
@2:53 that sounds like iroh from his dotw days, the dude was torching whole citys of people.
its not current iroh, but when he was a general he was against peace.
im curious where he fumbles it
@3:48 yeah we know but we ae doing this for funsies, he probably used the nato list to see if he met any of the marks.
@4:44 fair point, id argue his brother is more of a war criminal then iroh in that case.
@11:55 people apply irl laws to cartoons all the time, look at "a video detailing warcrimes in undertale (that really shouldn't have been made)" for a good example of this.
people have been listing crimes on characters since the 90's its all in good fun and isn't meant to be so serious.
is iroh a war criminal no, but is it fun to think he might have done some "ducked up spit", yeah it is.
its really not that serious.
anyways good video response, at least you talked to them and didn't just bad mouth them like alot of the others do.
I would argue that as heir to the Fire Nation throne, Iroh definitely had the authority to be convicted. But that's pretty much the only thing I I disagree with you on.
That is a 'sins of the father' situation. Should the son be held accountable for the sins of his father? According to every modern legal system in place in the Western World (which Film Theory is drawing from) no. Children cannot be punished for crimes committed by their fathers.
Not only this, but one of the conditions of a Crime of Aggression is that the defendant be one of the leaders responsible for the aggression or conflict itself. As Iroh was not one of these leaders, and only a son and grandson of the ones responsible, he cannot be counted among these. That would be like holding Hitler's children accountable for his fathers crimes when all they did was serve in the military.
@@RavenKnightYT I'm not saying that he should be punished for Sozins or Azulons actions, BUT as an adult high ranking noble, not only was he privy to many of the plans that his father had, (which may not have constituted as war crimes either) he likely had an active part in making the decisions (and possibly prevented war crimes, much like Zuko did).
I'm not saying that Iroh is guilty of anything. But if he was then his position in the Fire Nation would be used against him.
@@whitbyabbey4830 Do you have any evidence that he planned any of his fathers actions or decisions, or that he had a hand in their implimentation? If not, he cannot be charged.
@@RavenKnightYT He was in Ozais war council. He didn't speak out against using new recruits as bait.
And why is it so difficult to imagine that the future fire lord would be in his own fathers war council? Shadowing his father would be basic training.
And again, I'm not saying Iroh committed any crimes. Just that he was in a very favorable position to.
@@whitbyabbey4830
Not speaking up and not following through are two different things. We have no evidence to suggest that he went through with this plan, and if there was no action, there was no crime.
"Why is it so difficult to imagine?" Because in terms of legal matters, imagining a possibility is not proof. It's conjecture. That's all you're providing. Conjecture. You simply assume he could have committed crimes. Without evidence, you cannot prosecute.
Sorry, but Film Theory is discussing this from a stance of real world legal doctrine, so real world legal discourse is the name of the game.
Think of it this way: If your father was guilty of planning and executing a terrorist attack, just because you live with the man, knew him personally, and probably heard him talk about his plans, does that mean you are culpable, or should even be brought to court to be tried as a possible conspirator? No. Not unless there is substantial evidnece that you were involved in the action.
E
rent must be due
Not really.
Bot
🤓