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

[Fortress of Arrogance]

An open discussion would be you watching the show and then discussing it. Right now your just slinging mud for the sake of slinging mud.

I did watch all the Marvel series.
I did watch the latest she-shrek episode, and will continue doing so, if only out of morbid curiosity.
The show is so bad it's agonizing to watch tbf, and I am starting to question if I might be a masochist to an extent.

I mean come on, the jokes fall flat you might call them faceplanting.
All the court scenes are cringe-inducing and no amount of cutting slack amends them.
Blatant narrative about Jen being so very great, strong and independent female character reeks of Mary Sue -like scum the likes of Rey from SW trilogy.
Manhating narrative is just that - manhating, it is not funny, it is not a message, just a narrative.
The show is bad, which is sad, yet expectable to a certain extent considering its part of Marvel series, and Marvel series are a a disappointment in general.

[Darththeo]

I'm genuinely curious what the appeal is. And none of my points were counted outside of "comic book did it" so seems like there isn't much to say about this show unless you like the humor? People watch it out of some kinda sunk cost fallacy and are hoping to get a sneak peak of the next Thanos sitting down and mumbling out threats?

Then you wouldn't be arguing the way you are.
If you were curious, you'd be asking questions on the show or clarification for scenes that are taken out of context or misrepresented by social media.

You aren't coming across as curious, but rather opinionated on something you have no knowledge of.
It is like me saying I have an opinion on Stranger Things despite never finishing an episode of it. I have no opinion on Stranger things save "I can't get into it."

[Fortress of Arrogance]

You aren't coming across as curious, but rather opinionated on something you have no knowledge of.
It is like me saying I have an opinion on Stranger Things despite never finishing an episode of it. I have no opinion on Stranger things save "I can't get into it."

It's certainly a nice arguement there, but I haven't done drugs a single time, can I have an opinion in that regard?
Or do I need to do some coke before forming an opinion?

[Al Gorefiend]

A smart direction to take she-hulk season 2 would be to embrace the trolls and get under their skin more and more each episode. It'd be hilariously in tune with She-Hulk to depower critics by being oblivious to them.

Like imagine the final episode being a large twerking montage.
This shows been the best one from Disney+ sheerly out of the publicity they're getting. Now millions more will tune in immediately for the opportunity to OP the outrage thread.

[Soulwind]

It's certainly a nice arguement there, but I haven't done drugs a single time, can I have an opinion in that regard?
Or do I need to do some coke before forming an opinion?

You would be able to have an opinion on other people doing drugs, the effects on their lives and such, as an outsider.

You wouldn't be able to have an opinion on the experience of doing drugs.

I haven't watched this show yet, so I don't have an opinion on it, other than some people seem to be enjoying it, others aren't. Some think it's too much of a sitcom for Marvel. Some complain about stuff that isn't technically in the show, but they perceive to be. Some complain about stuff that others say it's implied in the show, but admit that they haven't seen it.

I do have an opinion on these people's "opinion", and it's that it's not worth shit. But I don't have an opinion on the show. Because I haven't watched it. And anything I'd say about it, would be coming out of my ass.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

You would be able to have an opinion on other people doing drugs, the effects on their lives and such, as an outsider.

You wouldn't be able to have an opinion on the experience of doing drugs.

So...being informed through other means sides personal experience makes one's opinion null and void?
That is quite a logic there, but I digress.

Some think it's too much of a sitcom for Marvel. Some complain about stuff that isn't technically in the show, but they perceive to be. Some complain about stuff that others say it's implied in the show, but admit that they haven't seen it.

I do have an opinion on these people's "opinion", and it's that it's not worth shit.

Why?

[Darththeo]

It's certainly a nice arguement there, but I haven't done drugs a single time, can I have an opinion in that regard?
Or do I need to do some coke before forming an opinion?

I was going to respond. But, Soulwind responded beautifully. And I feel there is nothing I could add.

- - - Updated - - -

So...being informed through other means sides personal experience makes one's opinion null and void?
That is quite a logic there, but I digress.

Depends on where someone gets their view from.

If you get your information from a bias source that misrepresents the source material, your opinion is not valid.
If you get your information from an unbias source that accurately reflects the material, you can justify your opinion.

But, it is hard to argue with someone who lacks any understanding of the subject.

[fwc577]

You're more tolerant than I am. If I think a new show is promising I'll give it a go for the first three episodes to win me over.

You're missing out on a lot of television then because there are a ton of series where the actors and show runners are still working on their chemistry for the entire first season before the show gets good. For example, season 1 of x-files is complete trash and not at all a reflection on the rest of the series.

- - - Updated - - -

ok, just to clarify. I understand that its going to be inaccurate and I understand the point of comedy. my problem is when comedy starts to supersede character development to the point of being jarring, unless the point is that the character is supposed to be incompetent.

for example, lets take Leverage. that series while bases itself on actual real life inspirations, its WILDLY exaggerated in terms of what characters actualy do. there are always vents for Parker to climb through and lasers to gymnastic her way through, Hardison engages in ridiculously wide variety of arts and crafts and his hacking is NOT on a level of "Hackers" in its ridiculousness, but its not exactly 100% realistic either, Eliot gets to beat up some mooks and for whatever reason its always hand to hand, and always very showy, Sofie cons her way through some very implausible situations sometimes.... and yet.... I never fell thrown out of the story, because both original and the reunion shows take pains to not just tell me that characters are competent - but also shows me.

with Jen... I don't get that. I feel like we are being told that she is competent... but we are not shown that. what we ARE shown is that she gets lucky. yes. even though there are typically circumstances that make things harder for her - she STILL gets lucky with things. she doesn't seem to win through competence. and that bothers me unless showing that she is not actualy competent despite her assurances otherwise - is the whole point. maybe it is, the show is barely half way through.

I still find a lot of the bits funny and overall, I'm enjoying it, but there ARE things about the way its written that bother me, because to me they feel like the narrative is just a tad disjointed where too many things feel like a series of comedy skits set within the same universe, using the same characters, but they are still separate skits rather then a cohesive story, you know?

She's a competent prosecutor. She's not a competent defender of super heroes/villians and civil manners involving super-powered individuals. Nobody is.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Depends on where someone gets their view from.

If you get your information from a bias source that misrepresents the source material, your opinion is not valid.
If you get your information from an unbias source that accurately reflects the material, you can justify your opinion.

But, it is hard to argue with someone who lacks any understanding of the subject.

Which, in turn, depends on who's to define what's biased and what's unbiased, don't you think?

But, it's hard to argue with someone who either demands you to watch and stfu or do not watch and stfu just as well. Not pointed directly at you, but it's a certain vibe going on when discussing tv shows on most platforms, from my experience.

Do we agree that it is allowed to criticize stuff, to begin with?
Under what conditions?
In what shape and/or form?
Can I cease watching, yet continue to criticize?
Can I criticize without watching it any more?
Can I continue watching it out of morbid curiosity and criticize? Or this one strikes me out as biased from the get-go?

[fwc577]

I was more disappointed in the abject inability of competent investigation by NYPD. But it was good for me, since I didn't go into prosecution but public defense.

ROFLMAO. The only place cops are good at investigating is television, so it's more realistic if cops are incompetent.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

ROFLMAO. The only place cops are good at investigating is television, so it's more realistic if cops are incompetent.

Cannot disagree more.
I had a job at Investigation Committee for a couple of years and I can say they're working mighty fine considering the amount of tasks they have to deal with.

[Geckoo]

The problem is, a lot of people thought this was going to be a lot more like previous MCU shows. Not necessarily super serious, but serious enough to slot into that lineup. And it's just not that, and never tried to be. They may have just not done a good enough job explaining that to people.

I don't think they failed to explain anything. I think they are fully aware of what they are doing and they rely on the MCU and the MCU audience just to be relevant, even if it means enraging part of that audience.

If they honestly just wanted to make a sitcom about a woman with a green problem messing up her life... they would not rely so much on cameos from already liked and stablished MCU characters up to the point that they use the 4th wall to admit that those cameos are more liked than the protagonist, or film an entire sequence of expected bad reactions to she-hulk being a woman.

[Darththeo]

Which, in turn, depends on who's to define what's biased and what's unbiased, don't you think?

It isn't just bias or unbias. You ignored half the sentence. It isn't just the bias that matters, but how the source reflects the material.

For example, Jen says women's anger is more justified and is attacking Hulk <- This did not happen in the show.
Jen says she is infinitely more often controls her anger, I find this odd because the Hulk has had to control his anger for over a decade at this point and Jen should know this. <- This accurately reflects the show.

You are judging bias by how they explain the show. There is a lot of misinformation about what the show says out there.

But, it's hard to argue with someone who either demands you to watch and stfu or do not watch and stfu just as well. Not pointed directly at you, but it's a certain vibe going on when discussing tv shows on most platforms, from my experience.

If you haven't watched the show, your opinion on what happened in the show can be discounted unless you show where you got that information from.

Do we agree that it is allowed to criticize stuff, to begin with?
Under what conditions?
In what shape and/or form?
Can I cease watching, yet continue to criticize?
Can I criticize without watching it any more?
Can I continue watching it out of morbid curiosity and criticize? Or this one strikes me out as biased from the get-go?

You can criticize whatever you want. But you cannot expect people to take your critique seriously or treat it with the same validity as other critique.

As I have stated, I have never seen Stranger Things. I cannot get through the first episode with how boring I found it. I do not expect anyone to take my "critique" Stranger things boring.

[Endus]

Numbering these for ease of response;

1> Do we agree that it is allowed to criticize stuff, to begin with?
2> Under what conditions?
3> In what shape and/or form?
4> Can I cease watching, yet continue to criticize?
5> Can I criticize without watching it any more?
6> Can I continue watching it out of morbid curiosity and criticize? Or this one strikes me out as biased from the get-go?

1> Literally no one has suggested you can't criticize stuff. What people are frantically trying to defend isn't criticism, though.
2> That your criticism is A> objectively analytical, and B> actually based on direct experience of the show.
3> Pretty much whatever, though I'll note that anything that's inspired by any form of bigotry or the like is automatically not "criticism", it's just abusive horse shit.
4> Not what you haven't watched, because you literally wouldn't know what you're talking about.
5> See #4; this is the same question.
6> If you're trying to argue "bias", that's an objective determination and you'll be expected to back that up with evidence, such that anyone else can agree with your conclusion. Hate-watching a show out of "morbid curiosity", however, admits that you're not coming at this with an intent for honest criticism in the first place. It's an admission of your bias and dishonesty.

And while you didn't bring this up;

7> Anyone and everyone is fully entitled to criticize the absolute fuck out of your "criticism", especially if you're pushing any kind of dishonest, biased, misinformed, or agenda-driven bullshit. And if that makes you upset, your options essentially boil down to A> suck it up and accept your new life, or B> don't post your bullshit to the Internet in the first place. Feel free to make either choice, rather than complaining about being taken to task.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

It isn't just bias or unbias. You ignored half the sentence. It isn't just the bias that matters, but how the source reflects the material.

Thanks for the reply.
I do not believe I ignored a thing, but lets put that aside for the time being.
Say, criticizing a book adaptation from the point of said adaptation staying close enough to the source - is it a biased point of critique?
Let's say there was a show about a certain man who was somewhat proficient slayer of all things magical/nocturnal/witchlike and it had a certain book source material and the actual show in question had nothing to do with the source material. Would it be a viable point of critique? Especially if the showrunner said they held the original in high regard when writing the plot?

For example, Jen says women's anger is more justified and is attacking Hulk <- This did not happen in the show.
Jen says she is infinitely more often controls her anger, I find this odd because the Hulk has had to control his anger for over a decade at this point and Jen should know this. <- This accurately reflects the show.

Certainly, but it can be interpreted both ways, and who's to say your interpretation is the correct one?
You can say it is *the* correct one, but seeing as the narrative about women being oppressed, men being shallow, assholish mysoginic stupid pigs is a certain focal point in this show, can you still say there was no certain angle to that anger management scene?

You are judging bias by how they explain the show. There is a lot of misinformation about what the show says out there.

I am not judging bias, I am judging the show, and no matter how I slice it, I find it bad.
Ofcourse, there is always the point of my opinion being subjective, I won't argue that.
But I think there are some quite objective points we could agree on, like Jen 3d model in 3rd episode being godawfully bad, or the whole plot of t he 3rd episode around Megan Thee WAP and Jen's stupid male white straight former colleague. That is not to mention the twerk scene. WAs said scene funny? Sure, for some people it might've been, just as some people find farting ass funny, I suppose.


Can we say _anything_ is *objectively* bad, considering that anything can be liked(found entertaining) by some people?

If you haven't watched the show, your opinion on what happened in the show can be discounted unless you show where you got that information from.

Here we are again: who's gonna decide which source of information is valid, biased or unbiased?
Say, I watched Critical Drinker's review - does it mean my opinion is invalid, biased, null?
If yes, why?

You can criticize whatever you want. But you cannot expect people to take your critique seriously or treat it with the same validity as other critique.

I'm yet to see people taking critique of this show seriously to begin with, to be frank. Perhaps it's my point of you, so I'll leave it at

[Kathandira]

I'm still not entirely sold on Wong as comic relief, but I fucking love that actor so much, I'll deal with it.

I haven't been on the Wong train up to this point. But this past episode definitely made me enjoy him more.

- - - Updated - - -

My bad I forgot discussion on forums are only here to be won or lost. Well done Endus you defeated me with such a mighty blow. Apologies for thinking a genuine conversation was possible

You are kinda joe Roganing this topic. Hardly have any actual knowledge other than what people have told you, and jumping into a discussion with people who have direct experience with it. Don't be Joe Rogan.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

6> If you're trying to argue "bias", that's an objective determination and you'll be expected to back that up with evidence, such that anyone else can agree with your conclusion. Hate-watching a show out of "morbid curiosity", however, admits that you're not coming at this with an intent for honest criticism in the first place. It's an admission of your bias and dishonesty.

And while you didn't bring this up;

7> Anyone and everyone is fully entitled to criticize the absolute fuck out of your "criticism", especially if you're pushing any kind of dishonest, biased, misinformed, or agenda-driven bullshit. And if that makes you upset, your options essentially boil down to A> suck it up and accept your new life, or B> don't post your bullshit to the Internet in the first place. Feel free to make either choice, rather than complaining about being taken to task.

so, basically, you're suggesting people either watch it and stfu or do not watch yet still stfu, gotcha.



I do not like the show. Does this statement reveal me as biased?
If yes, how am I supposed to provide critique about something I dislike without being branded biased by the likes of you?

[Kathandira]

The court room stuff is terrible, it's not even Jen not doing her job right, its the writers not knowing the basics of court.

Should have hired the writers for Better Call Saul. Imagine She-hulk, but directed and written by that team.

[Darththeo]

--snip--

No, it cannot be "interpreted" both ways. One objectively misrepresents the show, the other does not.
If you honestly believe something that didn't happen in the show can be an appropriate way of viewing the show and should be considered valid, I cannot continue with this discussion because I cannot accept that someone honestly feels that way. That isn't critiquing the show, that is arguing that how a scene made someone feel is what the scene said.

Sorry, all opinions are not valid and Critical Drinker is trash who has misrepresented the show.

[Endus]

so, basically, you're suggesting people either watch it and stfu or do not watch yet still stfu, gotcha.

Nope. Not even a little bit. You're just spewing whatever you want rather than actually responding to what I said, which clearly laid out how to give reasonable criticism.

I do not like the show. Does this statement reveal me as biased?

No, but it's also so wholly subjective it's meaningless. Not liking something does not, in any way, suggest the thing is "bad".

If yes, how am I supposed to provide critique about something I dislike without being branded biased by the likes of you?

If you don't like a show and don't watch it, you can't criticise that show, because you don't actually know the show; you didn't watch it.
If you didn't like it and forced yourself to watch it because you hated it, you're admitting to bias straight-up. This is different from, say, a professional reviewer who doesn't personally enjoy something but still professionally reviews it for their job. Personal enjoyment isn't something a reviewer factors in to their assessment, and often, that enjoyment occurs despite serious flaws they note.

There's plenty of room to not let bias and agenda drive your criticism. If you're trying to figure out how to let that happen and be taken seriously, that's ridiculous and nobody ever will.