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

[Santti]

You trying to equate being called woke makes you feel the same was as being called something associated with literal decades of people in bondage is kind of ridiculous. I'm not here to argue about the show or semantics but I will lastly just point out that that dude wasn't calling you a slur...and woke is in no way shape or form anywhere close to or resembling using the n-word. The fact that you even think they are remotely close to each other is slightly mortifying.

I think you need to read it again, because that's not what Endus said.

[NineSpine]

You trying to equate being called woke makes you feel the same was as being called something associated with literal decades of people in bondage is kind of ridiculous. I'm not here to argue about the show or semantics but I will lastly just point out that that dude wasn't calling you a slur...and woke is in no way shape or form anywhere close to or resembling using the n-word. The fact that you even think they are remotely close to each other is slightly mortifying.

I will re-quote one thing



There are plenty examples of extremists on BOTH SIDES of the political agenda that are equally as close-minded. For every white surpremacist racist, there is also someone on the extreme liberal end of things that is "Freedom of speech, unless you don't agree with me then go kill yourself". The media sensationalizes both.

There is a reason elections are chosen by a handful of swing states and independent voters.

We have two major political parties in this country. One is run by the extreme right. The other is run by the moderate left. Trying to equate the extremes by pretending they wield equal power is dishonest, and incredibly lazy. One extreme runs a major political party. The other extreme gets laughed at on twitter.

[Endus]

You trying to equate being called woke makes you feel the same was as being called something associated with literal decades of people in bondage is kind of ridiculous.

Not what I said, at all.

I said they were both slurs. That's it. Everything past that, you're inventing. I only compared them in that both originated from a neutral term that was, originally, not objectionable. Their use has made them objectionable. "Woke" far more recently, but still. There's a reason I backed that up with sourcing, for that matter. It was never about trying to say they were "equally bad" or some horseshit; the other word has centuries of brutally violent racism behind it to the extent I won't even say it. If you've got two words and you're trying to figure out which is the "worse word", and you won't even say one of the words, I think that's answering that question.

I'm not here to argue about the show or semantics but I will lastly just point out that that dude wasn't calling you a slur

It's a slur. I've backed that up. You've made no counter-argument. You're just gaslighting me at this point.

There are plenty examples of extremists on BOTH SIDES of the political agenda that are equally as close-minded. For every white surpremacist racist, there is also someone on the extreme liberal end of things that is "Freedom of speech, unless you don't agree with me then go kill yourself". The media sensationalizes both.

There is a reason elections are chosen by a handful of swing states and independent voters.

1> The "freedom of speech for me or go kill yourself" is what appears to be a willful misrepresentation of reality. Nobody gets banned for speech that people don't agree with. They get banned of social media or the like for being abusive shitmongers to other users and breaking site rules. Which isn't a free speech issue, in the first place. Far-right fascy types lie about that, to try and get special protections for their abuses, and they get told, deservedly, to fuck off when they do so.

2> We're talking about "woke". Which just means having an active level of respect for everyone, regardless of their race/culture/creed/whatever. A lack of open bigotry. That's what you're labelling "extreme". Honey, no, bigotry's the extreme position. It's an irrational, baseless expression of hatred that has no purpose or goal other than enjoying the infliction of harm upon innocents. "Woke" isn't an opposing extreme pole, it's just the absence of bigotry. This is why nobody uses the term for its original meaning; it's so bland and normal a position it really just doesn't mean a lot, which is why the alt-right types picked it up to use it as a slur for anyone opposing their bigotry.

- - - Updated - - -

We have two major political parties in this country. One is run by the extreme right. The other is run by the moderate left. Trying to equate the extremes by pretending they wield equal power is dishonest, and incredibly lazy. One extreme runs a major political party. The other extreme gets laughed at on twitter.

The Democrats are in no way "moderate left", dude. "Moderate left" is democratic socialism, like Tommy Douglas up here in Canada was. Even Bernie Sanders isn't far enough left to qualify for that. Democrats are center-right with a smattering of center-left types who really don't hold a lot of power in the party.

[VMSmith]

Luckily there is no moderation in this thread or your constant insults might actually have consequences.

I have literally quoted the rules of the forum from that "Rules" tab on the top of the screen about someone doing exactly what the rules say you cannot do and nothing has been done about it. As long as you're on the "right" side of an argument and don't start spewing vulgarities you can pretty much do whatever you want on these forums.

This is why, whether it's to the benefit of my opinions or not, I rarely bother posting here anymore. I don't want people on "my side" getting away with things simply because the mods believe it to be the correct "side", because that just shows lurkers that the side being shown preference can't stand on its own merits.

I anticipate my infraction for talking about moderation in a thread, since that's another one they actually enforce, as well, if you're complaining about the moderation. I'll take it, they know they're clowns.

[NineSpine]

The Democrats are in no way "moderate left", dude. "Moderate left" is democratic socialism, like Tommy Douglas up here in Canada was. Even Bernie Sanders isn't far enough left to qualify for that. Democrats are center-right with a smattering of center-left types who really don't hold a lot of power in the party.

I agree. I was being generous.

[Polyxo]

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.

Your points are good, but I don’t think Jurassic park is a good example at all here. A major thematic point of the movie is dealing with the fear of fatherhood and that largely gets explored through Alan Grant and the kids.

[MCMLXXXII]

Didn't Jen's dad played in some kind of 80's sitcom, where he lives together with his Greek(?) cousin?

[Twdft]

Didn't Jen's dad played in some kind of 80's sitcom, where he lives together with his Greek(?) cousin?

Yes, he did.

[eschatological]

You don't know who Cousin Larry Appleton is? Perfect Strangers is peak 80s TV.

[MCMLXXXII]

You don't know who Cousin Larry Appleton is? Perfect Strangers is peak 80s TV.

Thank you. Now I know. Wasn't his cousin called Balki?

[eschatological]

Thank you. Now I know. Wasn't his cousin called Balki?

Yep, played by Bronson Pinchot.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

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

Maybe yes, maybe not.
The trick is if I were to stop watching them, I'd be instantly cudgeled by NPCs with the "if you haven't watched it - your opinion is null and void" argument.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

His "humor" is kind of...specific, I guess.
If you're not laughing at Ali Wong "jokes", you won't laugh at Taika's, I suppose.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Why not?
I abhor american sitcom genre to a certain level barring Friends, and a few more which I cannot recollect at the moments notice.
I couldn't care less for this forced couple of Wanda and Vision and her emotional struggles of the loss of a cyborg look cheap and strained at best, as marvel failed to establish their relationship to begin with.
Her grief over the loss of said cyborg look even cheaper considering she didn't grief over her brother, who, being her only close and blood relative, was(at least in my opinion) a much more severe loss.
So, plot aside, I don't like W/V series, and Loki is another can of worms which simply cannot feasibly be rated higher than 5/10 simply through the fact that it has Crookface in it.

- - - Updated - - -

2. Because Wanda is the antagonist of the movie.

Why's the movie "Dr.Strange" , then?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Why's the movie "Dr.Strange" , then?

Because he’s the Protagonist?

[Endus]

Why's the movie "Dr.Strange" , then?

Because he's the hero of the film, the central protagonist, and the character with the most screen time by a wide margin.

I have no idea how you watch Multiverse of Madness and don't think it's a Doctor Strange film.

[Biomega]

Why's the movie "Dr.Strange" , then?

Sorry, when have you EVER seen a superhero movie named after the villain?

What kind of a demand is that?

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Allow me to re-quote myself:

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.

I got a response to that that wanda is the main villain.

Because he’s the Protagonist?

My question was not about who's protagonist and who's antagonist, as you've noticed.
What I asked was why he's not even a 2nd violin in his own movie.
And my question has nothing to do with the screentime.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, when have you EVER seen a superhero movie named after the villain?

What kind of a demand is that?

Why would you imply I demand that?

[Biomega]

What I asked was why he's not even a 2nd violin in his own movie.

And people have demonstrated to you - WITH ACTUAL DATA - that this is just not true.

Don't hook all your complaints on something that's factually untrue. ESPECIALLY after you've been shown that it is untrue.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

And people have demonstrated to you - WITH ACTUAL DATA - that this is just not true.

Don't hook all your complaints on something that's factually untrue. ESPECIALLY after you've been shown that it is untrue.

I repeat myself: I was not talking about screentime.

[Endus]

My question was not about who's protagonist and who's antagonist, as you've noticed.
What I asked was why he's not even a 2nd violin in his own movie.
And my question has nothing to do with the screentime.

Then you don't have a point. He's playing "2nd fiddle" the same way basically every single protagonist in nearly every literary adventure story always playss second fiddle. The antagonist is, pretty much inevitably, the one driving the story, the one with a plot or mission that he hero has to try and stop. If the Empire and Darth Vader and Palpatine weren't pushing their agendas in Star Wars, there'd be no Rebellion for Luke to join, his uncle and aunt wouldn't be collateral damage driving him to join the fight, the story wouldn't happen. That's how stories generally work. There are exceptions; heist movies are nearly always driven by the protagonists' actions against a static antagonist and their "vault", but adventure stories are nearly always driven by the antagonist, primarily. Without the antagonist's action, there's nothing for the hero to take action against.

That's the only way Strange is "2nd fiddle"; that he's reacting to Wanda's actions (and others'). In every other way, no, he's not, and you do not have an argument to support that claim, and haven't made any effort to do so, meaning it can simply be dismissed out of hand anyway.

Why would you imply I demand that?

There's no implication; you questioned why Multiverse of Madness was titled a Doctor Strange movie, rather than a Wanda movie. Despite Doctor Strange being the central protagonist and the character with the most screen time by a wide margin. You made that argument, openly. And now you don't want to take responsibility for the posts we can still see you having made.

- - - Updated - - -

I repeat myself: I was not talking about screentime.

What else could you possibly have been talking about?

When you take great pains to not explain your points and people leap to the only reasonable conclusions about what you could possibly have meant, the fault's with you. If nobody's getting what you're trying to say, it's because you aren't communicating it properly. We have to go by the words you actually post, we can't read your secret inner thoughts about what you really meant.

[Biomega]

I repeat myself: I was not talking about screentime.

Then you have no leg to stand on to begin with. The movie is entirely formulaic in its villain vs. hero setup, no different than any other random superhero movie. Your complaint is entirely made up.