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

[Fortress of Arrogance]

I've been watchin the show with my wife and daughter. its pretty damn cool. Idk why it gets the hate it does. I enjoyed the mini cross-over with the dr. strange universe and WONG is a badass!

It's a good topic, actually.
I'm watching she-shrek with my fiancee, and we both are questioning our sanity over doing so.
We watched "She-Mother:smol multiverse of sadness feat. Dr.Strange" together, too. We both disliked that movie for a variety of reasons, among them being:
1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision
2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.
3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.
...to name a few.


I guess what I am saying is tastes might vary.
I find all the marvel series and recent movies to be godawful, including "Love and Taika Waititi's Humor" and I drew no joy out of watching any of them.

[Skulltaker]

It's a good topic, actually.
I'm watching she-shrek with my fiancee, and we both are questioning our sanity over doing so.
We watched "She-Mother:smol multiverse of sadness feat. Dr.Strange" together, too. We both disliked that movie for a variety of reasons, among them being:
1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision
2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.
3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.
...to name a few.


I guess what I am saying is tastes might vary.
I find all the marvel series and recent movies to be godawful, including "Love and Taika Waititi's Humor" and I drew no joy out of watching any of them.

I think it's nice that you treated yourself to a ring for your left hand, but calling her your fiancee is pushing it, don't you think?

[Fortress of Arrogance]

I think it's nice that you treated yourself to a ring for your left hand, but calling her your fiancee is pushing it, don't you think?

I think it's nice that you tried to be witty, but I am not impressed.
Maybe next time?
I'll even cheer you on.

[Endus]

We watched "She-Mother:smol multiverse of sadness feat. Dr.Strange" together, too. We both disliked that movie for a variety of reasons, among them being:
1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision

It makes sense just fine. if you want to know how Wanda got to the place she's at, yeah, familiarity with the prior chapter in her story would be expected. This is like complaining that Iron Man 3 is confusing if you haven't seen Iron Man 1 and 2 yet.

2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.

She's the villain.

You don't make this complaint about Thanos' screen time in Infinity War or Endgame, even though those are "Avengers" films, not "Thanos" films, do you?

Wonder where the double standard could possibly come from.

Edit: Hell, it's also not even true. Here's a breakdown by someone with more time than me: https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudi...se_of_madness/

Strange has nearly twice the screentime of Wanda in that film.

3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.

An alternate universe Illuminati, for one. For two, what exactly was "bad" about how she handled it? Welcome to Wanda's actual power level. The Illuminati ain't shit on her. The woman nearly ripped Thanos into pieces by herself when she wasn't even close to the peak of her powers. In the comics, she's canoncially rewritten the reality of Earth itself entirely. Taking away Black Bolt's mouth is peanuts to what she's capable of.

Sure makes me wonder why you claim to be a fan when you seem dedicated to not understanding the characters or their stories.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

1) How many men in the show have been shown in a positive light? I see Pug aaaand that is it.

If you go by this level of scrutiny...none of the women in the show have been protrayed very postively either.

Jen is unprepared for court constantly, and so insecure about herself she has to switch to She-Hulk for dates
Madisynn is a loud drunk party girl
Titania (from what we've seen so far) is violent and opportunistic and, if she's like you suggest, Doom's weak-willed pawn.
Blonksy's Harem/Cult... 'nuff said. Not exactly "Stronk wymyn"

My point is not "Women are also shown in a negative light"...but "If you twist things to look for an agenda...you'll find it". That's called confirmation bias.

And, again, no one is forcing you to watch She-Hulk. You can stop anytime. There's plenty of entertainment out there for you to consume....find something you like.

[Biomega]

1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision

Bullshit. I haven't watched WV and I had zero problems following the movie. Maybe you just, uh, aren't good at paying attention or something?

2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.

Wanda is the main villain, of course she gets a lot of action in the movie. But she still gets NOWHERE NEAR as much screen time as Dr. Strange himself. So this is just... a lie.

3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.

You also don't seem to talk about the fact that Wanda is, canonically, an ABSURDLY powerful character. She's a reality warper. She can affect things on a multiversal scale, changing the realities of entire worlds. And you're surprised she can kill a guy who screams real loud, a lady with a shield, and the gum-gum fruit man? Do you know anything at all about the power levels of these characters?

[RobertoCarlos]

Bullshit. I haven't watched WV and I had zero problems following the movie. Maybe you just, uh, aren't good at paying attention or something?


Wanda is the main villain, of course she gets a lot of action in the movie. But she still gets NOWHERE NEAR as much screen time as Dr. Strange himself. So this is just... a lie.


You also don't seem to talk about the fact that Wanda is, canonically, an ABSURDLY powerful character. She's a reality warper. She can affect things on a multiversal scale, changing the realities of entire worlds. And you're surprised she can kill a guy who screams real loud, a lady with a shield, and the gum-gum fruit man? Do you know anything at all about the power levels of these characters?

Dr strange doesn't have an arc in his own film. There is definitely too much going on outside of the main character so even with benedict cumberbatch throwing out some good acting "I love you in every universe" it ultimately falls flat because there's zero character work in his standalone. That is bad story telling

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.
...to name a few.

It was brutal, efficient, and well within the scope of Wanda's abilities.

What's to talk about other than that?

I find all the marvel series and recent movies to be godawful, including "Love and Taika Waititi's Humor" and I drew no joy out of watching any of them.

Well shit...maybe you should just stop watching them

[Al Gorefiend]

It's a good topic, actually.
I'm watching she-shrek with my fiancee, and we both are questioning our sanity over doing so.
We watched "She-Mother:smol multiverse of sadness feat. Dr.Strange" together, too. We both disliked that movie for a variety of reasons, among them being:
1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision
2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.
3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.
...to name a few.


I guess what I am saying is tastes might vary.
I find all the marvel series and recent movies to be godawful, including "Love and Taika Waititi's Humor" and I drew no joy out of watching any of them.

Well, one thing I can agree with you about was Love and Taika Waititi's humor, having seen it on D+ last night. What the actual hell happened to that movie. The trailer made it look so good :/ I guess that's a trailers job after all but damn.

[Endus]

Dr strange doesn't have an arc in his own film. There is definitely too much going on outside of the main character so even with benedict cumber batch throwing out some good acting "I love you in every universe" it ultimately falls flat because there's zero character wiryk in his standalone. That is bad story telling

This is just demonstrating an utter failure to grasp what "bad storytelling" even is.

Two points;

1> "Character development" does not mean "character change". A character does not need to change as the story moves forward. Character development may just mean a deeper exploration of who that character is. A good example is Indiana Jones. Indy doesn't fundamentally change, at all. He's the same dude in Crystal Skull as he was at the outset of Raiders, just older. He got married, to the gal he had an outstanding relationship with at the start of Raiders, which isn't a meaningful change at all.

2> Character development isn't even necessary. Asimov's Foundation is entirely about psychohistory and the cultural connotations, and takes place over spans of time that make the lives of individual characters irrelevant, anyway. None of the characters in Jurassic Park have any kind of arc at all; they're just present to solve problems and make pithy comments and either survive or die terribly. And all that's fine. Character-drive stories exist, but they're not all stories, and not all stories require character development. Often, it's just about dealing with the situation those characters are in, not about those characters changing and growing over the course of the story. For yet another example; see the entire Sherlock Holmes canon.

Lastly, Strange even does have an arc in MoM. He sees what other Stranges have done, recognizes those predilections within himself, and resolves to not make their mistakes. It's really, really blunt about this. Sure, he doesn't have a massive character change over the course of the film, it's fairly small, but it's there, and that's not the point of the movie. You're lambasting the film for not achieving something it never set out to do and was in no way expected or required of it.

[eschatological]

Imagine calling WandaVision a terrible TV show and expecting to be taken seriously.

Of all the D+ Marvel shows, it and Loki are probably the best of the lot. I prefer it to Loki, personally, even, because WandaVision is more of a character study.

[Endus]

Imagine calling WandaVision a terrible TV show and expecting to be taken seriously.

Of all the D+ Marvel shows, it and Loki are probably the best of the lot. I prefer it to Loki, personally, even, because WandaVision is more of a character study.

Loki was, way more, about introducing the TVA and Kang. I think it works less well in retrospect because they did a LOT of setup and now we haven't paid any of that off. We didn't need to see a Loki reformation arc because we already had that with proper Loki, in the films; Loki turning out to have a good streak wasn't a surprise to anyone.

I'd put Hawkeye over Loki, personally, but Matt Fraction's run on Hawkeye is one of my very favorite Marvel runs in the comics, and that was the TV version of it, and I love everyone in that show.

She-Hulk's been great so far but it really needs to find its direction for the back half. I'm hoping the Titania lawsuit is the beginning of that. The groundwork they've laid is fine, they just need to start pulling it all together; this isn't a criticism of the first 4 episodes. Just an acknowledgement that the remaining ones need to come together to pay this all off.

[RobertoCarlos]

This is just demonstrating an utter failure to grasp what "bad storytelling" even is.

Two points;

1> "Character development" does not mean "character change". A character does not need to change as the story moves forward. Character development may just mean a deeper exploration of who that character is. A good example is Indiana Jones. Indy doesn't fundamentally change, at all. He's the same dude in Crystal Skull as he was at the outset of Raiders, just older. He got married, to the gal he had an outstanding relationship with at the start of Raiders, which isn't a meaningful change at all.

2> Character development isn't even necessary. Asimov's Foundation is entirely about psychohistory and the cultural connotations, and takes place over spans of time that make the lives of individual characters irrelevant, anyway. None of the characters in Jurassic Park have any kind of arc at all; they're just present to solve problems and make pithy comments and either survive or die terribly. And all that's fine. Character-drive stories exist, but they're not all stories, and not all stories require character development. Often, it's just about dealing with the situation those characters are in, not about those characters changing and growing over the course of the story. For yet another example; see the entire Sherlock Holmes canon.

Lastly, Strange even does have an arc in MoM. He sees what other Stranges have done, recognizes those predilections within himself, and resolves to not make their mistakes. It's really, really blunt about this. Sure, he doesn't have a massive character change over the course of the film, it's fairly small, but it's there, and that's not the point of the movie. You're lambasting the film for not achieving something it never set out to do and was in no way expected or required of it.

Firstly if a disney family friendly blockbuster started mixing it up with the story telling format they repeat ad naseum id be very impressed,

Secondly you need to consider the genre of film you're talking about, Superhero/fantasy/sci fi.

that is when character work is MOST essential because its the viewers link to said magical world where they're utilizing such creative concepts as worlds where people speak Spanish instead of English, and green means stop at traffic lights and red means go! And it needs a human connection so you can make sense of the world and understand the threats and dangers let alone the day to day working of the world.

Without a character you care about and can invest in, why should you care when the one eye spaghetti monster is chasing him down the street? You dont.

And the themes of the film and resolution were directly about human emotion and love and all that crap. Did he chase power and want to become a god? No he wanted to chill out with rachel mcadams and dr strange was proven to be a universally good man as all variations of him minus the evil version were essentially good men. So some character growth that tied into those themes would have aided the film.

[Darththeo]

It's a good topic, actually.
I'm watching she-shrek with my fiancee, and we both are questioning our sanity over doing so.
We watched "She-Mother:smol multiverse of sadness feat. Dr.Strange" together, too. We both disliked that movie for a variety of reasons, among them being:
1. the movie making no sense unless you've watched quite an awful show called Wanda/Vision
2. the movie being entirely about Wanda despite being called "dr.Strange" and said dr.Strange playing not even a 2nd violin, reduced to a plot device/support cast levels in HIS OWN movie.
3. We don't talk about the demise that Illuminati have had to face at the hands of Wanda.
...to name a few.


I guess what I am saying is tastes might vary.
I find all the marvel series and recent movies to be godawful, including "Love and Taika Waititi's Humor" and I drew no joy out of watching any of them.

1. Outside of knowing Wanda "made her children" during Wandavision, there is literally nothing else required. And that fact, they literally spell out for you. You get the entire cliff note Wandavision story. Wanda mind controlled a town and used magic to create her kids. Everything else in the series is not required to understand it Wanda in the movie.
2. Because Wanda is the antagonist of the movie.
3. The purpose for that scene was to show the audience two things. The sheer power of Wanda and her absolute desire to achieve her goal. Those characters are solely in the movie to be cannon fodder.

[Endus]

Firstly if a disney family friendly blockbuster started mixing it up with the story telling format they repeat ad naseum id be very impressed,

Secondly you need to consider the genre of film you're talking about, Superhero/fantasy/sci fi.

that is when character work is MOST essential because its the viewers link to said magical world where they're utilizing such creative concepts as worlds where people speak Spanish instead of English, and green means stop at traffic lights and red means go! And it needs a human connection so you can make sense of the world and understand the threats and dangers let alone the day to day working of the world.

Without a character you care about and can invest in, why should you care when the one eye spaghetti monster is chasing him down the street? You dont.

And the themes of the film and resolution were directly about human emotion and love and all that crap. Did he chase power and want to become a god? No he wanted to chill out with rachel mcadams and dr strange was proven to be a universally good man as all variations of him minus the evil version were essentially good men. So some character growth that tied into those themes would have aided the film.

I have no idea what you're even talking about at this point. I cared about and was invested in both Strange, Chavez, and even Wanda. Those connections are there for the audience, in that film. You are again confusing your personal dislike with some kind of objective truth. The film did not have the objective flaws you're claiming to exist.

[RobertoCarlos]

I have no idea what you're even talking about at this point. I cared about and was invested in both Strange, Chavez, and even Wanda. Those connections are there for the audience, in that film. You are again confusing your personal dislike with some kind of objective truth. The film did not have the objective flaws you're claiming to exist.

Jesus christ is this all you do? When countered with points you just go on a personal attack and disregard all points.

My personal beliefs aside there are tropes in story telling for a damn reason. Why do you think nearly every single piece of transformers has had humans in it. Why harry potter was a "muggle" before going in the magical world.

And your examples of Indiana Jones and Jurassic park as storys that "dont need an arc" are also franchises that have one good movie each between them and had a visionary superstar director in his prime behind them

Seriously dude.

[Endus]

Jesus christ is this all you do? When countered with points you just go on a personal attack and disregard all points.

My personal beliefs aside there are tropes in story telling for a damn reason. Why do you think nearly every single piece of transformers has had humans in it. Why harry potter was a "muggle" before going in the magical world.

I don't know. It sure doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you were talking about before.

And you're not talking about the use of tropes. You were talking about "bad writing", and you did not have an argument about why the writing was objectively "bad". Your statements regarding a lack of character development do not back up that claim, as character development in that sense has never been a requirement for writing to be "good", in the first place. You're making that up.

And your examples of Indiana Jones and Jurassic park as storys that "dont need an arc" are also franchises that have one good movie each between them and had a visionary superstar director in his prime behind them

And good writing.

You just don't like it because they're clear examples (along with Sherlock Holmes I might add, in the original Doyle books) that conclusively debunk your point, since their writing was praised and they're considered excellent films or stories with good characters, even if little development of those characters.

There was no personal attack whatsoever in the post you quoted. I expressed my own confusion as to what you were even trying to say, and pointed out that you were confusing a personal subjective dislike with an objective truth. None of that's an "insult" or "attack". It's criticism, because you're not making sense and you're claiming things that don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

[Biomega]

It boggles the mind how many people still don't realize that there's a big difference between "this is bad" and "I don't like this".

Stop pretending your opinions are applicable. They're not. They're just YOUR individual preferences, and they have zero value to anyone else. You're entitled to any opinion you like, but at best people can acknowledge them and go "good for you" (and they're also entirely within their rights to go "bro that's fucked up", too). Trying to elevate them above the level of personal preference by formulating them as if they WERE applicable statements is screwing up your own thinking.

Stop saying "it's bad", start saying "I don't like". Keep yourself grounded in perspective.

Oh, and: if you DO want to make applicable statements, then don't proffer opinions. Provide ARGUMENTS instead, backed by proper REASONING and evidentiary JUSTIFICATION, and subject to CRITIQUE by others.

Far too many people want to have their opinions treated as arguments in terms of validity, but treated as preferences in terms of justification. That's not how it works. You can't dodge the burden of proof for an argument by pretending it's JUST MUH OPINYAN and expect anyone to take it seriously.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It boggles the mind how many people still don't realize that there's a big difference between "this is bad" and "I don't like this".

Also, add "I haven't watched this"...because several of our "critics" here haven't actually watched the show they are "critiquing".

It would be fine if they were to come in and say "I haven't watched this...because it doesn't look like the kind of show I would enjoy".

Instead, they seem to have taken the opinions they got from whatever youtuber they feel the strongest connection to and just regurgitate them.

[wushootaki]

You literally just, in that post, described, in detail, how you chose to use it as a slur.

How are you this lacking in basic self-awareness?

My dude...plenty different types of people can have a circle jerk, not just woke.

Circle jerk in this instance is referring to the constant agreeing with each other and continuing to talk about the topic. It's going around and around in a circle. One side is just yes manning the others that share their view point.

Those people, happen to be part of the woke crowd.

I like this show and think its funny. But that dude was not using woke as a slur. Circle jerk maybe, but it does feel appropriate for the actions of the posts I am reading (all the agreeing with each other after you've "won" the argument and pushed out the objecting view)