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

[Syegfryed]

The only person I have seen explicitly argue over and over again over the last like 30+ pages of this thread that "there is no possible way a properly functioning prison would not have noticed Blonsky escaping" has been you.

Thats because you are not paying attention to the discussion and only want to "win the argument", But that is not surprising since you didn't paid attention to the show either.

As for it not being explicitly stated why they didn't know he had escaped: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

I do, many other people do(disney+ show with the lowest score), Just because you don't care about, it does not mean no one does

IT IS NOT MATERIALLY RELEVANT TO THE PLOT IN LITERALLY ANY WAY.

So? tons of worldbuilding is not relevant to the plot in many stories, many bits are included in a narrative to give sense, coherency, deep, meaning and etc

If only add "stuff that is relevant to the plot" you get a shit story like the one we did, and its pathetic to talk about "relevancy to the plot" in a show that spend half of its time being irrelevant and with no plot.

GET OVER IT FOR GOD SAKE.

RSRSR, its not me who get pissed and come back again and again to discuss with me, sounds like 3 people need to get over it already, not gonna name it, but they are easy to spot

[Darththeo]

Thats because you are not paying attention to the discussion and only want to "win the argument", But that is not surprising since you didn't paid attention to the show either.

You are the pot calling the silverware black here.

I do, many other people do(disney+ show with the lowest score), Just because you don't care about, it does not mean no one does

Logic not found. Just because people have problems with the show does not mean they agree with your problems. This is a mistake you constantly repeat. Endus and I both listed our problems with the show. You seem confused by why someone can agree with you the show is bad, but not agree with your reasons.

So? tons of worldbuilding is not relevant to the plot in many stories, many bits are included in a narrative to give sense, coherency, deep, meaning and etc

And now you are admitting your "holes" aren't holes at all with this. Also, worldbuilding isn't required for anything you just listed beside "etc" because etc could be literally anything.

If only add "stuff that is relevant to the plot" you get a shit story like the one we did, and its pathetic to talk about "relevancy to the plot" in a show that spend half of its time being irrelevant and with no plot.

Relevancy to the plot is what determines if something is or is not a plot hole! If it doesn't matter to the plot, it cannot be a plot hole.

RSRSR, its not me who get pissed and come back again and again to discuss with me, sounds like 3 people need to get over it already, not gonna name it, but they are easy to spot

Read your own posts. You constantly mock people who argue with you and never address a point and you repeatedly lie about the people arguing against you.

[rhorle]

If only add "stuff that is relevant to the plot" you get a shit story like the one we did, and its pathetic to talk about "relevancy to the plot" in a show that spend half of its time being irrelevant and with no plot.

take away shit that adds nothing to the show since many episodes nothing happened anyway.

So you want them to take away stuff that adds nothing to the show but they also have to have stuff that adds nothing to the show or it is a bad story? You really are all over the place here. The lack of security protocols by Damage Control adds nothing to the story. The story is about the parole of Mr. Blomsky. The parole board is not in charge of the prison.

An investigation into DDOC and how they failed to notice or notify a prisoner temporarily escaping is for another story. Disney seems interested in exploring DDOC as they have a VR video game about them that is quasi-canon. We may find out in a future movie about corruption and changes. It only becomes a plot hole if future information states that they had him under 100% surveillance. Something that contradicts what was shown before.

Unknown details are not poor writing. They can be but in these examples they are not. A foreigner that might not understand the culture and way things work might miss those cues. But if you know those things it isn't an issue at all.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I love how She-hulk is "badly written" because we aren't given all the details about Abomination being taken out of prison.

Anything that isn't explained to the most minute detail is "bad writing" as far as Syeg is concerned. She-Hulk should have had at least 70 episodes in order to cover all the things that Syeg could not just infer for himself.

[Darththeo]

Anything that isn't explained to the most minute detail is "bad writing" as far as Syeg is concerned. She-Hulk should have had at least 70 episodes in order to cover all the things that Syeg could not just infer for himself.

I have said this before, if Syeg stance was simply something like "I am annoyed this wasn't explained (more)." No one would care. Clear opinion. We can move on. But, he is arguing his opinion is an objective fact and we are all wrong for not accepting it.

I have seen shows where I am minorly annoyed by things, but I always go "I am annoyed because X." I don't go because X the show is badly written. I am voicing what I would want vs what I got. To use an MCU example, I am minorly annoyed that Uncle Ben has no clear main universe reference, but that annoyance doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the MCU Spider-man.

There are minor annoyances I have with She-hulk too. Some of the jokes didn't hit with me. Like the twerking scene for me was cringe, but I knew it was a joke.

[Endus]

To use an MCU example, I am minorly annoyed that Uncle Ben has no clear main universe reference, but that annoyance doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the MCU Spider-man.

I mean, have you seen No Way Home yet? If not, for the love of bacon don't click the spoiler tag and ruin it for yourself, go watch the film. Aunt Mae takes Ben's role in the MCU, creating an entirely different context for Spider-Man in the process. There's still the "with great power, great responsibility" angle, but where in the comics, that's a "you've got to get involved if you've got the power to make changes" kind of deal, in the MCU the message looks a lot more like "if you've got the power to make changes, you're responsible for the collateral damage of those changes, especially to friends and family", which is MUCH darker but also a lot more adult. Which hits way harder because Parker's still a kid when he's forced to learn this. I could see being annoyed leading up to NWH by this gap, but IMO it's worth it for the gut-punch of that outcome. Aunt Mae [i]is[/i] the Uncle Ben, here, in terms of narrative purpose.

Not saying you'd have to be happy with all that. Or at least, there's a whopping difference between "personally happy" and "narratively meaningful", and I'd argue it strongly makes the latter, way more than any Uncle Ben scene from prior films. Ben's always kind of been set up to die just so his death will send a message; that's the only reason he exists in the story. Which is actually kind of cheap.

[Darththeo]

I mean, have you seen No Way Home yet? If not, for the love of bacon don't click the spoiler tag and ruin it for yourself, go watch the film. Aunt Mae takes Ben's role in the MCU, creating an entirely different context for Spider-Man in the process. There's still the "with great power, great responsibility" angle, but where in the comics, that's a "you've got to get involved if you've got the power to make changes" kind of deal, in the MCU the message looks a lot more like "if you've got the power to make changes, you're responsible for the collateral damage of those changes, especially to friends and family", which is MUCH darker but also a lot more adult. Which hits way harder because Parker's still a kid when he's forced to learn this. I could see being annoyed leading up to NWH by this gap, but IMO it's worth it for the gut-punch of that outcome. Aunt Mae [i]is[/i] the Uncle Ben, here, in terms of narrative purpose.

Not saying you'd have to be happy with all that. Or at least, there's a whopping difference between "personally happy" and "narratively meaningful", and I'd argue it strongly makes the latter, way more than any Uncle Ben scene from prior films. Ben's always kind of been set up to die just so his death will send a message; that's the only reason he exists in the story. Which is actually kind of cheap.

Yes, I have seen it (though I haven't seen it again for personal reasons since seeing in in theaters). I am saying specifically the character of Uncle Ben and I understand what they did.

But, as I said it is a minor annoyance, nothing more. I still adore all of the MCU Spider-man movies and enjoy the story. I absolutely don't need to see Uncle Ben die again, I just would have like a clear reference that Uncle Ben existed in the MCU. In Civil War, you get an implied possible reference.

I am not one of those people going "MCU Spidey sucks because no Uncle Ben!" I think that Holland's take is exactly what I wanted from the character. I love the other actors too, but for me Holland is Peter Parker/Spider-man. And given that Holland's Spider-man is not yet done, we may get a reference later when it is more appropriate for the story.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I mean, have you seen No Way Home yet? If not, for the love of bacon don't click the spoiler tag and ruin it for yourself, go watch the film. Aunt Mae takes Ben's role in the MCU, creating an entirely different context for Spider-Man in the process. There's still the "with great power, great responsibility" angle, but where in the comics, that's a "you've got to get involved if you've got the power to make changes" kind of deal, in the MCU the message looks a lot more like "if you've got the power to make changes, you're responsible for the collateral damage of those changes, especially to friends and family", which is MUCH darker but also a lot more adult. Which hits way harder because Parker's still a kid when he's forced to learn this. I could see being annoyed leading up to NWH by this gap, but IMO it's worth it for the gut-punch of that outcome. Aunt Mae [i]is[/i] the Uncle Ben, here, in terms of narrative purpose.

Not saying you'd have to be happy with all that. Or at least, there's a whopping difference between "personally happy" and "narratively meaningful", and I'd argue it strongly makes the latter, way more than any Uncle Ben scene from prior films. Ben's always kind of been set up to die just so his death will send a message; that's the only reason he exists in the story. Which is actually kind of cheap.

There's also a couple of lines from Peter in Civil War and Homecoming that at least imply that there may have been an "Uncle Ben" at some point. It would seem that, if there was an Uncle Ben, he never gave Peter the whole "great power, great responsibility" speech, though.

In Civil War...when Stark asks Peter why he does the Superhero thing his response is along the lines of "When you can do the things I can do and you don't...when the bad things happen...they happen because of you". The implication is there was a time when Peter didn't do something and because of that...something bad happened and now he feels responsible. That doesn't directly point at the Uncle Ben situation...but it's pretty close. It's a rudimental version of "Great Power/Great Responsibility". He hasn't gotten the full scope of things yet.

In Homecoming he says something about "with everything May has been through"....which doesn't directly point at Uncle Ben dying...but there's definitely something there. Peter could be refering to May having to suddenly take on the raising of her nephew... but it seems like it's more than that. Again, not a direct referencce to Uncle Ben...but something along those lines.

It's kind of an unresolved mystery at this point whether or not there was ever an Uncle Ben in the MCU... there are signs that point to the possibility...but nothing confirmed or denied. But it doesn't actually matter. Where Peter is at now...he has all the elements. He's got the Great Power and he accepts the Great Responsibility that comes with it.

[Darththeo]

There's also a couple of lines from Peter in Civil War and Homecoming that at least imply that there may have been an "Uncle Ben" at some point. It would seem that, if there was an Uncle Ben, he never gave Peter the whole "great power, great responsibility" speech, though.

In Civil War...when Stark asks Peter why he does the Superhero thing his response is along the lines of "When you can do the things I can do and you don't...when the bad things happen...they happen because of you". The implication is there was a time when Peter didn't do something and because of that...something bad happened and now he feels responsible. That doesn't directly point at the Uncle Ben situation...but it's pretty close. It's a rudimental version of "Great Power/Great Responsibility". He hasn't gotten the full scope of things yet.

In Homecoming he says something about "with everything May has been through"....which doesn't directly point at Uncle Ben dying...but there's definitely something there. Peter could be refering to May having to suddenly take on the raising of her nephew... but it seems like it's more than that. Again, not a direct referencce to Uncle Ben...but something along those lines.

It's kind of an unresolved mystery at this point whether or not there was ever an Uncle Ben in the MCU... there are signs that point to the possibility...but nothing confirmed or denied. But it doesn't actually matter. Where Peter is at now...he has all the elements. He's got the Great Power and he accepts the Great Responsibility that comes with it.

This is kind of what I am referring to. There are possible references to Ben, but nothing clear cut that Ben existed in the MCU timeline.

I would want something clear cut, and annoyed we don't have that. Does that ruin the story? Absolutely not.
Does it ruin the Spider-man movies? Absolutely not.

To use an analogy, it is like I wanted chocolate ice cream with whipped cream and sprinkles, but didn't get the sprinkles. I still will eat the ice cream, but I am slightly disappointed at the no sprinkles, but hey, still got ice cream!

[draynay]

This is kind of what I am referring to. There are possible references to Ben, but nothing clear cut that Ben existed in the MCU timeline.

I would want something clear cut, and annoyed we don't have that. Does that ruin the story? Absolutely not.
Does it ruin the Spider-man movies? Absolutely not.

To use an analogy, it is like I wanted chocolate ice cream with whipped cream and sprinkles, but didn't get the sprinkles. I still will eat the ice cream, but I am slightly disappointed at the no sprinkles, but hey, still got ice cream!

How many Uncle Bens must die to satisfy your blood lust!?

[Kathandira]

How many Uncle Bens must die to satisfy your blood lust!?

Six hundred and sixteen.

[Darththeo]

How many Uncle Bens must die to satisfy your blood lust!?

All of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Six hundred and sixteen.

Damn, that's a better answer.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

How many Uncle Bens must die to satisfy your blood lust!?

There's never enough.

[PrimiOne]

I mean, have you seen No Way Home yet? If not, for the love of bacon don't click the spoiler tag and ruin it for yourself, go watch the film. Aunt Mae takes Ben's role in the MCU, creating an entirely different context for Spider-Man in the process. There's still the "with great power, great responsibility" angle, but where in the comics, that's a "you've got to get involved if you've got the power to make changes" kind of deal, in the MCU the message looks a lot more like "if you've got the power to make changes, you're responsible for the collateral damage of those changes, especially to friends and family", which is MUCH darker but also a lot more adult. Which hits way harder because Parker's still a kid when he's forced to learn this. I could see being annoyed leading up to NWH by this gap, but IMO it's worth it for the gut-punch of that outcome. Aunt Mae [i]is[/i] the Uncle Ben, here, in terms of narrative purpose.

I agree that the update of Spiderman mythos is one of the key factors of "No Way Home" sucess but that's not my interpretation of the message although I don't see it as exclusive: maybe multiples perspectives are valid

"With great power comes great responsibility" states , as explicitly told by Peter in the - not praised enough - Homecoming, that if you don't do the right thing ,if you get to choose the non moral option you are directly responsible of the consequences. If you could stop that train and choose not to you are responsible of the passenger's deaths...if you choose to not stop that thief running because you are upset at the wrestling manager ,that did not pay you the agreed ammount ,maybe then that thief end up killing your uncle and it's all your fault.
The classic one tell us :"I you don't do the right thing bad things will happen" and we can see a form of utilitarism in it ( multiple times criticized) because in the end the problem of not catching the running thief is the consequence ( Ben's death) dissociated from the direct moral decission.Was that the wrong decission because in the end Ben died or would have been wrong on itself even if the thief never met Ben but thiefs deserve to be catched?

In No way Home we can see a complete redefinition. Peter take a decission : that decission is saving the villains life that Strange has already set on a course for death. Peter take that decission because see it as the right moral option and as a consequence of that May dies.

It is still the moral option,the right one: that's the heartbreaking aspect of No Way Home , well apart from Marisa Tomei nailing the character, that's the devastating issue for the viewer, that May died because Peter took the morally right option. That completely separates the ethical decission from its unexpected consequences ( no utilitarism) and creates the "new" Spidey narrative: Right is right no matter if bad things happens.Right is right EVEN is bad things happen.

That transition from "If you don't do the right thing bad things will happen" to "If you do the right thing bad things could still happen but that doesn't change the fact that right is still right" seems to me the great achievement of the movie: that the moral options are that on themselves and should be taken even if the consequences break everyone's heart.

[JDL49]

You know I thought the Toxically Literal Man was an urban legend. But now, to see one
come alive in my lifetime, well words can not do justice to the feeling. I have now seen
it all, the end must be nigh.