[TV] She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (*SPOILERS*)

[ClassicPeon]

She is not angry at him. She is not yelling at him. These are lies. You’re lying. Again.

Bruce is a very repressed person. Yes, it’s because of child abuse. Jen is not. She is not a child abuse survivor and seems to have a loving family. She does not have anger management issues. She has at times been angry and stifled her anger. Blonski is likely very similar to Jen. This is why they’re in control when they Hulk out. Banner is not in control. It took him years to control his anger because his life is much, much harder than almost everyone’s. Even then his current state is not Bruce Banner or the Savage Hulk, it’s effectively a new personality that’s somewhere in between.

Your problem is you think Bruce is the voice of experience but he’s really only experienced at living his own life and his experiences are not transportable to anyone else. I wasn’t kidding when I said up thread that the best teacher for Jen would be Thor. He’s a person that also has vast superhuman strength but rather than having to control his rage he needed to learn humility instead. Which is a far better lesson for someone with newly gifted power.

She is literally yelling at him. You are the one lying. Go back and watch the episode.

People want to excuse her behavior so badly that they are just completely oblivious to it.

Her reason for having infinitely more experience then him controlling anger is because hse is a women and he is a man. ANyone trying to argue against this is just arguing in bad faith and its obvious.

I wonder if she literally just said it people would still try and act like she didnt.

[Darththeo]

It is entirely possible that Jen (and really more so the writers) are insufferable whiners without it being an attack on all men everywhere.

And it is entirely possible that you are taking jokes as attacks rather than what they were intended as. But, you dont care about that possibility. Just because something is possible is not alone a justifiable reason.

It is far more likely that people taking it as attack on men "everywhere" are reading more into a series that is there than it actually being an attack. Yes, it could be an attack, but there are a lot of men who do not see it as such because she was speaking first person, men are shown in both positive and negative light in the series. The claim it is an attack is just not the best possible explanation, when a better explanation is that YOU feel attacked by the show.

The show isn't a massive frontal attack on men everywhere. Its just a whiney self-insert show for the writers to bitch about their own lives and play pretend with a power fantasy. Is it sad that they used She Hulk as a vehicle for that? Sure, but that seems to be the going process recently.

lmao. No, She-hulk isn't a self intert and people don't give a crap about "self inserts" in things anyway.

Hermione Granger is a CONFIRMED self insert for JK Rowling, but people still love Hermione.
Luke Skwalker is literally Luke S ... George Lucas. He named the main character after himself, but no one cares.

I 100% guarantee that one of your favorite characters or series has a self insert character, and you don't give a crap about it. This complaint has always been hollow.

It is neither worth the time to hate or support. If you don't like it, move on, not that many people are watching it and it will disappear on its own.

The first episode was watched by 1.5 million, the best was watched by 2.5 million. It isn't great, but people are watching it.

[Kathandira]

She is literally yelling at him.

You are literally lying.


https://youtube.com/shorts/RNGzNjTyYso?feature=share

[Ivanstone]

She is literally yelling at him. You are the one lying. Go back and watch the episode.

People want to excuse her behavior so badly that they are just completely oblivious to it.

Her reason for having infinitely more experience then him controlling anger is because hse is a women and he is a man. ANyone trying to argue against this is just arguing in bad faith and its obvious.

I wonder if she literally just said it people would still try and act like she didnt.

You must be living a really hard life if the sound of a woman's voice sounds like yelling to you.

Is your mom like Moon Knight's mom? If you want some quality lady yelling Moon Knight is definitely the show for you. Moon Knight's mom is a goddamn harpy.

PS You can measure how loud someone's voice is relative to another person's by checking the decibel levels of their speech. This is objective. Since you like to make great claims, its time to bring the great evidence.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

She is literally yelling at him. You are the one lying. Go back and watch the episode.

People want to excuse her behavior so badly that they are just completely oblivious to it.

Her reason for having infinitely more experience then him controlling anger is because hse is a women and he is a man. ANyone trying to argue against this is just arguing in bad faith and its obvious.

I wonder if she literally just said it people would still try and act like she didnt.

Man imagine saying any one who doesn’t agree with you is bad faith when your the one adding words that weren’t there and flat out lying about scenes.

[Darththeo]

She is literally yelling at him. You are the one lying. Go back and watch the episode.

People want to excuse her behavior so badly that they are just completely oblivious to it.

Her reason for having infinitely more experience then him controlling anger is because hse is a women and he is a man. ANyone trying to argue against this is just arguing in bad faith and its obvious.

I wonder if she literally just said it people would still try and act like she didnt.

That's not yelling. Raised voices yes.
Was what she said the best way to handle it? No, of course no.
But, I took that as part of characterization of Jen in this series.

No one is excusing her behavior. They are telling you are describing the scene in a manner it did not happen.

[Endus]

She is literally yelling at him. You are the one lying. Go back and watch the episode.

People want to excuse her behavior so badly that they are just completely oblivious to it.

Her reason for having infinitely more experience then him controlling anger is because hse is a women and he is a man. ANyone trying to argue against this is just arguing in bad faith and its obvious.

I wonder if she literally just said it people would still try and act like she didnt.

The most ironically hilarious thing about how you're lying about this scene in particular is that you prove Jen's point for her. The point you've got a problem with; you're literally proving it true, by demonstrating how little room there is for a woman to express anger in social settings without pushback, because Jen dared to express a little anger, and here you are, pushing back and condemning her for it.

And you don't even realize your argument proves her right.

[PrimiOne]

1. Is anyone buying Blomski's shit? Because in the show every character is buying it (let's see the court's rule) but I don't. This is not going to end well or to be precise this is going to end well but with a lot of smash!!!....or maybe I'm wrong and this is the necessary "redemption" to put the villain as the antihero in "Thunderbolts". Not buying his zen anyway.

2. We can't have too much of Wong. There's no such thing as that.

3. Maslany and Roth are great. I don't expect less from them ( big "Orphan Black" fan).

4. Everything works for me in this show and I know some people are exhausted of the comical nature of the MCU but I really think this works best when they do a comedy ( this) not a drama with comedic elements ( Moon Knight....dissapointing).

5. Seeing Banner in a spaceship an idea came into my mind. Is Banner making a huge mistake by repressing Hulk? a....World War mistake? Is Hulk getting angrier and angrier...and angrier in there with the added element of Banner borrowing his body and once he gets rid of Banner's control is he gonna explode?
Because at this point of space and time and knowing the nature of the Universal license and how it limits the narrative....would it be a good idea to make Hulk a "villain" for the ending of the "Multiversal Saga"? Something as: he aligns with the villains in "Kang's Dinasty" but it gets back being the hero in "Secret Wars" in a big party of smashing and gamma.

From my perspective there's two aspects needed for Hulk:

A) Banner and Hulk are not the same.
B) Hulk needs to be scary. Even as a hero he needs to be. He is the quintaessential Frankestein's syndrome of marvel and it works best as that ( Is there anyone here who don't think "Inmortal Hulk",a pure horror story,is the best thing Marvel has ever done with Hulk since Planet Hulk/WWHulk?)

Making Hulk a "villain" (quotes again) would solve those two problems. Now Hulk is in charge......and Hulk is not happy. Run. Fast.

[Kathandira]

Is Banner making a huge mistake by repressing Hulk? a....World War mistake? Is Hulk getting angrier and angrier...and angrier in there with the added element of Banner borrowing his body and once he gets rid of Banner's control is he gonna explode?

I personally think so.

Between the device Banner was wearing to suppress the Hulk, and his over use of 'Smart Hulk', I have a feeling he is just lying to himself. An illusion of getting better.

I suspect a reckoning where Hulk gets tired of it again, and goes crazy.

[Endus]

1. Is anyone buying Blomski's shit? Because in the show every character is buying it (let's see the court's rule) but I don't. This is not going to end well or to be precise this is going to end well but with a lot of smash!!!....or maybe I'm wrong and this is the necessary "redemption" to put the villain as the antihero in "Thunderbolts". Not buying his zen anyway.

Blomski's 100% honest about nearly everything. Wong has no reason to lie about breaking him out, or his desire to return to prison. He's clearly in full control of the Abomination transformation. He did return to prison after he was broken out, so he clearly wanted his parole hearing to go as well as possible rather than just being free.

That said, he's a shifty motherfucker, the cult thing is weird but not illegal nor a reason for the parole board to deny anything, and I think it's clear he has greater plans beyond what he explicitly said. But he wanted to get legitimate parole, and he's done everything he feasibly could to earn that, so the board had little reason to deny him anything. The real fun is that Walters didn't even have to get around to the "the government made me the Abom, they're the ones who're responsible for what the Abom did" argument suggested in Ep 2 in her first meeting; that feels like a Chekov's Gun but I can't figure out what they're planning with it.

5. Seeing Banner in a spaceship an idea came into my mind. Is Banner making a huge mistake by repressing Hulk? a....World War mistake? Is Hulk getting angrier and angrier...and angrier in there with the added element of Banner borrowing his body and once he gets rid of Banner's control is he gonna explode?
Because at this point of space and time and knowing the nature of the Universal license and how it limits the narrative....would it be a good idea to make Hulk a "villain" for the ending of the "Multiversal Saga"? Something as: he aligns with the villains in "Kang's Dinasty" but it gets back being the hero in "Secret Wars" in a big party of smashing and gamma.

From my perspective there's two aspects needed for Hulk:

A) Banner and Hulk are not the same.
B) Hulk needs to be scary. Even as a hero he needs to be. He is the quintaessential Frankestein's syndrome of marvel and it works best as that ( Is there anyone here who don't think "Inmortal Hulk",a pure horror story,is the best thing Marvel has ever done with Hulk since Planet Hulk/WWHulk?)

Making Hulk a "villain" (quotes again) would solve those two problems. Now Hulk is in charge......and Hulk is not happy. Run. Fast.

My big problem with pulling all that off is twofold;

1> The World War Hulk storyline is a tragedy and the Hulk's categorically not the "villain"; he's the antagonist, but his anger and fury is entirely righteous. It's a revenge story, cut short by Banner's self-loathing, but the revenge was righteous. We have no cause for such a revenge arc, for Bruce, and I think they need a movie to set that up before they go that route.

2> It's so much scarier when Bruce realizes Hulk's on his side and works with the big guy. If I wanted to go full "oh shit", that's where I'd go. I'd probably twist it; have a movie where Banner meets the girl of his dreams, they're moving forward, engaged, she's pregnant, all this in the background of some other film where he's a side character. Then you start World War Hulk with someone accidentally getting her killed, and Banner just lets Hulk take over to smash the shit out of whichever hero caused her death via collateral damage, and everyone jumps in to stop Hulk, and it just keeps escalating. That's basically World War Hulk in the comics, except we swapped it from Hulk's pregnant girl to Banner's, but I feel it works either way.

[PrimiOne]

My big problem with pulling all that off is twofold;

1> The World War Hulk storyline is a tragedy and the Hulk's categorically not the "villain"; he's the antagonist, but his anger and fury is entirely righteous. It's a revenge story, cut short by Banner's self-loathing, but the revenge was righteous. We have no cause for such a revenge arc, for Bruce, and I think they need a movie to set that up before they go that route.

2> It's so much scarier when Bruce realizes Hulk's on his side and works with the big guy. If I wanted to go full "oh shit", that's where I'd go. I'd probably twist it; have a movie where Banner meets the girl of his dreams, they're moving forward, engaged, she's pregnant, all this in the background of some other film where he's a side character. Then you start World War Hulk with someone accidentally getting her killed, and Banner just lets Hulk take over to smash the shit out of whichever hero caused her death via collateral damage, and everyone jumps in to stop Hulk, and it just keeps escalating. That's basically World War Hulk in the comics, except we swapped it from Hulk's pregnant girl to Banner's, but I feel it works either way.

No ,no , I did not mean that,there's not gonna be a World War Hulk. We dream of it but right not we can keep dreaming: it's not gonna happen.

The "World War mistake" ( maybe I was too ambiguous) was more a reference to Hulk Vs Heroes ( that is basically 50% of Hulk's history) not in the context of World War Hulk but in the context of Secret Wars, embroided in the narrative of a Battleworld.

See the problem I have predicting the future is: A)I can't do it and B) Where are all the villains?

I mean that is the Secret Wars full royal Rumble and right now 87.36% of the villains are dead so I'm wondering: who the fuck are the Heroes gonna fight? All versus Kang or versus Doom or The beyonder/s? Is that gonna work? Are gonna introduce a legion of villains from now to Secret Wars? Or give Electro back his powers? Or borrowing them from alternate universes?

This is why I'm starting to think there's gonna be more heroes going down Wanda's route ( that by the way is not dead at all). The heroes turning villains that at the final battle in a "Avengers assemble ....again...come dudes...don't have all day" moment will turn heroes again facing omnipotent Kang/Doom/Beyonder/Deadpool/Whoever.

[Endus]

No ,no , I did not mean that,there's not gonna be a World War Hulk. We dream of it but right not we can keep dreaming: it's not gonna happen.

There's not gonna be a "World War Hulk" title, but there could absolutely be an "Avengers: World War Hulk" title. They can't have Hulk be the headliner, for distribution rights reasons, but as a villain in a team-up, it could work.

[MCMLXXXII]

I was going to say: you know that's a fanmade trailer but you already removed it.

[Endus]

I was going to say: you know that's a fanmade trailer but you already removed it.

Yeah, brain farted after a quick Google as the other part of my brain went "wait, Universal still has rights, that can't be real, where's the official Marvel channel release" But then I had the above thought on how they COULD do that movie without tripping Universal's hooks.

[Koriani]

The short answer to your entire post is simply Females 18-34 years old are the most important demographic.

I would bet $100 the majority of negativity about any D+ show is likely made by people outside of the key demographic range.

There are tools to look up this type of stuff and would be trivial for companies such as Disney to get detailed information.

People outside the key demo of F18-34 could not matter less to media and product creators. They represent no loss of income or growth of product in the vast majority of cases.

Children's products are sometimes an exception. Though are largely marketed toward F18-34.... because they have children.

If product seems familiar it is because companies are cowardly and risk-averse. They seek and copy what is the current trend of the ruling economic demographic.

----snipped just to save space!----

Wow, thanks for the break down.

I find it REALLY Interesting that, for at least the tv/movie media market, it has flipped from prioritizing the Males 18-34 demographic - which was the case for most of my life (I'm my mid-40s, I know this was the generic/standard target demo up through at least the 90s in tv/movies) to the exact "opposite". Just amazing to me - as I certainly never expected that standard to EVER change. Just wow.

Just wish they weren't into trash reality tv though (kardashians, real housewives, etc.) =D.

Did that target-age-demo trend start to change around the 2000s? or since 2010s? Curious if you have any knowledge about that shift and when it happened. Don't mean to derail the thread though!

[Fencers]

I find it REALLY Interesting that, for at least the tv/movie media market, it has flipped from prioritizing the Males 18-34 demographic - which was the case for most of my life (I'm my mid-40s, I know this was the generic/standard target demo up through at least the 90s in tv/movies) to the exact "opposite". Just amazing to me - as I certainly never expected that standard to EVER change. Just wow.

Buying power and social influence for people in that demo are huge. M18-34 are also very valuable but have far less social influence among their friends & family. M18-34 are also less likely to promote the things they like to F18-34 or children.

Very plainly, if you can make products appealing to women usually you get the whole family as well. That is not the case necessarily for content that is orientated around M18-34.

The recent Blade Runner 2049, for example, was heavily analyzed for its audience breakdown tilted toward men. Not enough focus testing, frankly. The movie was a total flop. (I enjoyed BR2049 film FWIW). I also mentioned HBO Max's problems with having a mostly male audience and the biggest hits on that platform being the ones with the most F18-34 engagement. A tale of contrasts over at Dsc/WB.

BR20489 was such a flop, Gosling's power in the business waned. He was not considered a good enough draw. However, he smartly got packaged for the new Barbie movie. A single photo of Gosling from that barbie film has risen his stock exponentially. Look it up.

An even more recent film, Top Gun Maverick was exhaustively focus-tested to appeal to F18-34. It was one of the biggest hits of all time and one of the biggest non-comic book films. It has a 99% audience approval, nearly equal critical rating, and an A+ Cinemascore (the industry values Cinemascore HIGHLY). It's even been called one of the best films ever made because of its broad appeal.

Just wish they weren't into trash reality tv though (kardashians, real housewives, etc.) =D.

You're opinion though. Millions more think it isn't trash.

Did that target-age-demo trend start to change around the 2000s? or since 2010s? Curious if you have any knowledge about that shift and when it happened. Don't mean to derail the thread though!

Not sure really. I only work in the research side of marketing. I don't have anything to do with actual marketing. before that, I was a regional project manager for educational and entertainment software. Somewhat adjacent to market research in that I advise how to alter products for different markets; for example, how does a Japanese Mayo company get American consumers interested in their product?

So while it may seem like I am on the advertising side of things, I am really on the data collection and analytics side.

I just ran a study on Nacho Cheese Doritos this afternoon of 130 people in two different markets. I can tell you in detail by age, income, location, # of persons in the household, gender, and ethnicity what each of those 130 (Base 100, 30 overage, 50/50 65/65) think about Doritos and why.

I have no idea about the advertising or how they will go about making Doritos more appealing to M35+ with 2+ children and an income of $40k+; who generally hate Doritos.

[Ivanstone]

An even more recent film, Top Gun Maverick was exhaustively focus-tested to appeal to F18-34. It was one of the biggest hits of all time and one of the biggest non-comic book films. It has a 99% audience approval, nearly equal critical rating, and an A+ Cinemascore (the industry values Cinemascore HIGHLY). It's even been called one of the best films ever made because of its broad appeal.

Do you got any links for this? I know more than a few MRA types beating their chests about how Maverick is a man’s film and if you make movies for men (real men not soy boys), they’ll be wildly successful.

Then you come along and tell us it’s really a chick flick. Which amuses me to no end.

[Fencers]

Do you got any links for this? I know more than a few MRA types beating their chests about how Maverick is a man’s film and if you make movies for men (real men not soy boys), they’ll be wildly successful.

Then you come along and tell us it’s really a chick flick. Which amuses me to no end.

Never said TG: M was a chick flick, I said it was very well focus-tested.

Internal data is not released to the public. Only the audience demo breakdowns; that is a totally different thing. TG: M was an almost perfect 4-point film (appealing to young/old, male/female) audience viewership breakdown. It even skewed slightly older, which is rare.

[Ivanstone]

Never said TG: M was a chick flick, I said it was very well focus-tested.

Internal data is not released to the public. Only the audience demo breakdowns; that is a totally different thing. TG: M was an almost perfect 4-point film (appealing to young/old, male/female) audience viewership breakdown. It even skewed slightly older, which is rare.

Focus testing to the ladies is not the manly thing to do! Not that I object to this. Its IMDB score very slightly skews to female viewers.

The data would've been nice to see if only for trolling purposes. I'm not too shocked that it skews older. Its a nostalgia trip for older viewers like myself. They just took care to make it appealing to younger viewers as well.

[Witchblade77]

to be fair..... a lot of people watching reality tv - KNOW its trash. they watch it BECAUSE its trash. THAT's the draw.

that said... Emil Blonski is full of shit IMO. no, I don't think he is lying, but he is smart enough to blur the truths here and there and to omit details as needed to present a version of truth that is most beneficial to him. which he absolutely already did. so I'm looking forward to seeing what his actual plans are