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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Like for example a few years back, we had the story around Overwatch with Tracer's ass being too detailed and some female customers started a shitstorm, so the character model was changed.

this never happened, some one said a pose didn’t fit tracers character so blizzard changed it to a aviator pin up pose, no model was ever changed nor was it made less sexualized they actually sexualized it more but in a fitting way.

[Raisei]

But it's not the male point. It's your point. You don't speak for us

So what you are saying is that you are speaking for all men? Or are you using the the royal plural?

What you meant to say, I am sure, is that I am not speaking for you and the 3-4 other guys in this thread defending the show for whatever reason. That is a pretty small percentage of the male population, wouldn't you say? I could with a 2 minute YT search find more men that criticise the show then that. Heck I could probably find more women as well.

Of course none of this matters. It is a male point precisely because it is my point. I speak for myself and only myself of course, but that does not change this fact at all. Otherwise we should probably question if the show really presents a female point, because it is only written by a handful of middle-aged women with a very specific outlook, who also cannot claim to speak for all the worlds women (and thank god for that).

and since you haven't backed anything you claim up, I really don't see why I should go through the effort? Why don't you back your statement up, for a change, instead of asking others to refute the bullshit that you conjured up from nowhere?

I backed everything up. But if people claim that a scene from the show, posted here, does simply not exist, then pray tell me how I am ever supposed to back anything up to those people? If straight visible reality does not work as proof I am kinda at a loss. How exactly does one win an argument against pure denial? Again, it feels like talking to a religious fanatic. Reality does not work with those either.

Literally nothing you said about the people can be considered honest or forthright. It's nitpicking and gross overstatement that can be applied to literally every character on screen, ever, regardless of gender, and especially in shallow entertainment like the MCU. You're talking about double standards, and yet, if I went with your approach of overexaggeration, I could make every character in the MCU, regardless of background, look like a despicable asshole.

Many of the characters are assholes. On purpose or during specific times. Tony for example was horrible early on. But the difference is that in this specific show the only people presented like this are the male cast, while the female cast is always presented in a better light.

For example: Wong can't deal with a few little demons alone as friggin Sorcerer Supreme. Meanwhile Maaadyyson despite being a complete idiot plus heavily drunk manages to survive in a hell dimension for however long and even finds her own way home.
How are you seeing scenes like that and can't see my point? It is glaringly no blindlingly obvious that every woman in the show is presented more competent and smart then any of the males.

- - - Updated - - -

Your arrogance in your belief you are correct isn't critical thinking. You lack critical thinking in your argument. This post is proof you don't understand what critical thinking is and you are viewing the show through your bias and declaring your bias reality. I am judging the show on what it actually says, you factually are not.

It is baffling how you can say this with a straight face. So completely unaware. The fact that you believe you are unbiased and are seeing the show for what it is is both adorable and sad. I didn't know you are that far removed from offering a constructive discussion, so there is no point talking to you further. Once you have understood the basics and realize that everyone is biased by a little something called "socialisation", we can talk again.

[Darththeo]

It is baffling how you can say this with a straight face. So completely unaware. The fact that you believe you are unbiased and are seeing the show for what it is is both adorable and sad. I didn't know you are that far removed from offering a constructive discussion, so there is no point talking to you further. Once you have understood the basics and realize that everyone is biased by a little something called "socialisation", we can talk again.

Because unlike you I am not adding to what the show said. You are, you are saying "Yes, that is what the show said, but this is what they really mean." That's is your full argument. I am sorry, I am not going to debate someone that doesn't accurately portray the show.

You have no constructive argument because your entire argument is built on if you view the show like you do, you believe as you do. You are not even attempting to hide that you are viewing the show through a bias lens.

My argument is the show said X and therefore that is what the show says. Yours is the show said X, and if you add this into it you get Y therefore the show means Y. One of these is clearly a better form of argumentation and hint, it isn't yours.

Also, how did you have Skulltaker quoted as me?

[Raisei]

Because unlike you I am not adding to what the show said. You are, you are saying "Yes, that is what the show said, but this is what they really mean." That's is your full argument. I am sorry, I am not going to debate someone that doesn't accurately portray the show.

You have no constructive argument because your entire argument is built on if you view the show like you do, you believe as you do. You are not even attempting to hide that you are viewing the show through a bias lens.

My argument is the show said X and therefore that is what the show says. Yours is the show said X, and if you add this into it you get Y therefore the show means Y. One of these is clearly a better form of argumentation and hint, it isn't yours.

That is what people call "interpretation". It is a way of discussing media and art, because both usually aren't 100% clear and thus what we call "open to interpretation". Of course you can also take everything at face value, but that is kinda pointless and does not really leave any room for discussion, no? Or would you say that the Mona-Lisa is just a pic of some random woman?

Ah well, just adds to what I said. You lack even the base equipment of discussing a show like this. If interpretation is something unfamiliar to you then of course you would have to assume I am "making things up". It all makes sense now. The show would have to outright state it's message, otherwise you will not recognize it. Shame I wasted my time.

Also, how did you have Skulltaker quoted as me?

My bad, but it is not like you two are in anyway different in your opinion, so it kinda blends together for me.

[Biomega]

That is what people call "interpretation".

But there's good ways to do it, and bad ways to do it.

For example, your argument about Wong not being able to handle demons on his own but Maddisyn surviving hell - you take the fact that one is a man and one is a woman and you interpret it as that being the important thing there. That's a problem, because while the first thing is a self-evident fact (it's shown on screen) the second thing IS NOT and requires backing by arguments. Which you conveniently eschew, but which is the ACTUAL work that needs to be done in an interpretation.

You can't take facts from the show and add YOUR "facts" to them as though the two were on equal footing. They're not. It's fine if you think that the Wong/Maddisyn thing has those specific connotations - that's your prerogative. But if you want to convince others of that interpretation, you need to provide more than "It is glaringly no blindlingly obvious" as an argument.

Otherwise, anyone can just say "nope, you're wrong, isn't THAT glaringly no blindingly obvious!" and we are right back where we started with people just flinging subjective opinions at each other. Opinions are fine to have, but if you want to actually convince people, opinions don't help; you need arguments.

If convincing others is NOT your goal, then cool beans, you do you bruh and we hereby acknowledge you have an opinion. Yep. You totally have one. Just like any other person on the planet. But this one's yours. For sure.

[Darththeo]

That is what people call "interpretation". It is a way of discussing media and art, because both usually aren't 100% clear and thus what we call "open to interpretation". Of course you can also take everything at face value, but that is kinda pointless and does not really leave any room for discussion, no? Or would you say that the Mona-Lisa is just a pic of some random woman?

Ah well, just adds to what I said. You lack even the base equipment of discussing a show like this. If interpretation is something unfamiliar to you then of course you would have to assume I am "making things up". It all makes sense now. The show would have to outright state it's message, otherwise you will not recognize it. Shame I wasted my time.

First off, do not elevate what you are doing to interpretation, because it isn't. You deliberately misrepresent scenes, that isn't just interpretation.

Saying Mona Lisa is just a pic of a random woman IS interpretation of it, not a good one, but still is one. Saying the Mona Lisa has an evil grin and therefore is a representation of how women intend on harming men is misrepresentation because she clearly does not have an evil grin.

If you were interpreting the show, I would have no problem with you.

Even if I for the sake of argument say you are interpreting the show, it doesn't make your interpretation valid just because you are doing it. You paint everything via your bias view of the show despite the show not supporting that. It would be like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying she is purple because you are looking through glasses that make her look purple.

Again, you are even attempting to hide your bias. It is out in the open and clear. You advertise that you are viewing the show based on your bias. This isn't saying I am unbias, but you aren't even attempting to be unbias.

[Witchblade77]

Yes, the "mob" here has decided that making shit up to critisize is not an allowed criticism.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean, we don't actually know which states Murdoch can practice law in the MCU... but in the comics he has served as a lawyer in California...and that may be where we're going to see "Daredevil: Born Again" pick up from. New City, New Start. Also in the comics...the first trial he had versus Jennifer Walters was in California.

huh, interesting.

I guess its just another one of those "this is not how judicial system actualy works" things

that said... if they do it that way, not my favorite. I kinda like it that Matt Murdock is a new yorker.

also Medisynn vs demons is basically this cartoon. https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Buttons_and_Mindy

[Endus]

But there's good ways to do it, and bad ways to do it.

Rather; justifiable ways to do it, and unjustifiable.

Looking at Orwell's 1984 and seeing it as a commentary on fascism is a pretty obvious and eminently justifiable interpretation. Orwell was famously anti-fascist his entire life.

Claiming it's anti-socialist, though, because you identify Nazis as both fascist and "national socialists", would not be justifiable. Because Nazis weren't socialist; you're just ignorant about reality on that point. And Orwell was an avowed democratic socialist his entire life, and nothing he wrote can be construed as "anti-socialist". If you're getting that, it's because you're intentionally misinterpreting to push an anti-socialist agenda.

Interpretation, like all opinions, is not immune to criticism; you can't just claim whatever the fuck you want and others have to accept it as valid. That's not how opinions work. Anyone pushing that idea knows they're pushing bullshit that won't hold up, and they're trying to deflect criticism pre-emptively. See also tone-policing about how "everyone's rejecting criticism" when that's just obviously untrue on the facts, and so on.

[Skulltaker]

So what you are saying is that you are speaking for all men? Or are you using the the royal plural?

What you meant to say, I am sure, is that I am not speaking for you and the 3-4 other guys in this thread defending the show for whatever reason. That is a pretty small percentage of the male population, wouldn't you say? I could with a 2 minute YT search find more men that criticise the show then that. Heck I could probably find more women as well.

Of course none of this matters. It is a male point precisely because it is my point. I speak for myself and only myself of course, but that does not change this fact at all. Otherwise we should probably question if the show really presents a female point, because it is only written by a handful of middle-aged women with a very specific outlook, who also cannot claim to speak for all the worlds women (and thank god for that).



I backed everything up. But if people claim that a scene from the show, posted here, does simply not exist, then pray tell me how I am ever supposed to back anything up to those people? If straight visible reality does not work as proof I am kinda at a loss. How exactly does one win an argument against pure denial? Again, it feels like talking to a religious fanatic. Reality does not work with those either.



Many of the characters are assholes. On purpose or during specific times. Tony for example was horrible early on. But the difference is that in this specific show the only people presented like this are the male cast, while the female cast is always presented in a better light.

For example: Wong can't deal with a few little demons alone as friggin Sorcerer Supreme. Meanwhile Maaadyyson despite being a complete idiot plus heavily drunk manages to survive in a hell dimension for however long and even finds her own way home.
How are you seeing scenes like that and can't see my point? It is glaringly no blindlingly obvious that every woman in the show is presented more competent and smart then any of the males.

No, it's a stupid point. You trying to label it as a male point doesn't change that. And congratulations, you found idiots on YouTube who agree with you. There's also plenty of them that offer proof that the world is flat, think the 2020 election was rigged and that lizardmen want to drink your babies blood. Does that give any merit to what they claim to be facts, like you do? No, it doesn't. It just means that the internet gave a bunch of morons the chance to bunch up like a couple of mentally challenged bananas.

Your interpretation of any scene and the things you lie into them doesn't change anything, either.

It's not like I can't see your point, you don't have a point. All you have are nonsensical ramblings and misrepresentations of scenes and characters.

All the women are portrayed in a better light? Jen uses her super-hero alter ego to find dates on Tinder, and she outright rejects Bruce's advice even though as a lawyer, she should know the value of experience. Titania uses her name to sell useless crap to idiots (which, ironically, can be seen as a dig towards Gwyneth Paltrow, the proud owner of goop!). You just said that Madyson is portrayed like an idiot, and just two sentences later you say every woman on the show is portrayed better.

And yet, you see Wong having trouble with a literal portal to hell as, for whatever reason, him being completely helpless, throw in a couple of buzzwords like 'woke' or 'incel' because you think that that adds any weight to the moronic take you're presenting here. It doesn't. It just reflects badly on the quality of company you keep.

Seriously, dude. Get a life. Is this show without flaws? No. Is it good? Meh. Not particularily, imho, but it is entertaining.

You want to see a Disney production that actually presented men in a bad light, check out 'Dinosaurs' Season two, Episode 13. That's a Kids show, btw. The title of the Episode is 'What 'Sexual Harris' meant'.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This coming from the guy who got me banned in the first few pages because I was pointing out the hypocrisy of him telling me I was playing the victim card when this entire show is nothing more than a giant one...

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Now go ahead and get me banned again, prove me and the poster your quoted right. You can do it!

You didn't need my help to get banned.


EDIT: Funny, before your little vacation we were talking about playing the Victim Card...and now you're back and you're blaming me for something you said to get yourself banned.

Classic.

- - - Updated - - -

huh, interesting.

I guess its just another one of those "this is not how judicial system actualy works" things

Well, he did have to get accepted by the California Bar and stuff. They didn't really go into much detail as to how he actually did that but there was a little narrative bubble about how he can practice law in California.

[Endus]

You want to see a Disney production that actually presented men in a bad light, check out 'Dinosaurs' Season two, Episode 13. That's a Kids show, btw. The title of the Episode is 'What 'Sexual Harris' meant'.

Even Dinosaurs didn't think Dinosaurs was a kid's show;


Most important bit at 27 seconds in.

Plus, that finale, oooof.

[paxen]

Looking at Orwell's 1984 and seeing it as a commentary on fascism is a pretty obvious and eminently justifiable interpretation. Orwell was famously anti-fascist his entire life.

Claiming it's anti-socialist, though, because you identify Nazis as both fascist and "national socialists", would not be justifiable. Because Nazis weren't socialist; you're just ignorant about reality on that point. And Orwell was an avowed democratic socialist his entire life, and nothing he wrote can be construed as "anti-socialist". If you're getting that, it's because you're intentionally misinterpreting to push an anti-socialist agenda.

A tangent, but Orwell was both a (democratic) socialist and anti-authoritarian; Animal Farm is a retelling and critique of Stalin (Snowball is a thinly-disguised Trotsky). So if you're a person that thinks that socialism == stalinism, then you might think that Orwell is anti-socialist, but of course he was a staunch socialist in a different tradition.

But that's more down to how a lot of people are totally ignorant about socialism.

[Endus]

A tangent, but Orwell was both a (democratic) socialist and anti-authoritarian; Animal Farm is a retelling and critique of Stalin (Snowball is a thinly-disguised Trotsky). So if you're a person that thinks that socialism == stalinism, then you might think that Orwell is anti-socialist, but of course he was a staunch socialist in a different tradition.

But that's more down to how a lot of people are totally ignorant about socialism.

Yes, but as a demsoc myself, I'm well aware of the distinction. But that's my point; a lot of people have objectively unjustifiable "interpretations" that are based on prejudice or ignorance, and saying "well, that's my interpretation/opinion" is not a defense against such accusations. You're just objectively, determinably wrong, and unwilling to accept that, in that case.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes, but as a demsoc myself, I'm well aware of the distinction. But that's my point; a lot of people have objectively unjustifiable "interpretations" that are based on prejudice or ignorance, and saying "well, that's my interpretation/opinion" is not a defense against such accusations. You're just objectively, determinably wrong, and unwilling to accept that, in that case.

Yeah, I mean, using the "logic" presented in this thread...I could contruct an "interpretation" that Die Hard is "misandrist trash"

[Raisei]

Seriously, dude. Get a life. Is this show without flaws? No. Is it good? Meh. Not particularily, imho, but it is entertaining.

The most entertaining thing about the show is how you folks bend yourself out of shape to talk every bit of sexism in it out of existence. As for the Dinosaurs. That show is what 30 years old? Obviously it has a very different presentation of gender roles then we do at the moment. It would be incredibly stupid to criticise that without taking the time it is written in into account.

My criticism of She-Hulk stems specifically from the fact that it is written today. Because it is clearly written to drum up hate against a certain part of the population while pandering to another and something like that should not be existing in our time anymore and it only does exist because the part of the population that it shoots against (the straight white male) has been declared as the enemy of everything that is woke and thus can be abused in whichever way without fearing any repercussions.
It's like a church preaching about "love thy neighbour" and then murdering millions of people because they believe different things. It is hypocrasy of the highest order and there is nothing defensible about it.

Oh well, I will take a break. Only so long one can argue against a wall. I guess the presentation of Daredevil will give us a few more pointers on how right or wrong I am.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Having watched another episode of Resident Alien the other day, I found myself drawing some parallels between that one and the She-Shrek shitshow.

Both are based on comic books, both are (supposedly) a comedy, both push a certain agenda-driven narrative at times(all times for she-shrek), but with Resident Alien, it feels like a lot less hamfisted and quite lighthearted. Alien makes me chuckle occasionally, or blow out in a mighty giggle from time to time with occasional snickers here and there.
All in all, I find Resident Alien to be vastly superior, if goofy and corny at times.
Also, Alan Tydik > cgi atrocity that is she-shrek
@Raisei ,
/brofist

[Skulltaker]

Because it is clearly written to drum up hate against a certain part of the population while pandering to another and something like that should not be existing in our time anymore and it only does exist because the part of the population that it shoots against (the straight white male) has been declared as the enemy of everything that is woke and thus can be abused in whichever way without fearing any repercussions.

See, baseless bullshit like this is why people aren't taking you seriously. You're seeing things that simply are not there.

[Darththeo]

My criticism of She-Hulk stems specifically from the fact that it is written today. Because it is clearly written to drum up hate against a certain part of the population while pandering to another and something like that should not be existing in our time anymore and it only does exist because the part of the population that it shoots against (the straight white male) has been declared as the enemy of everything that is woke and thus can be abused in whichever way without fearing any repercussions.
It's like a church preaching about "love thy neighbour" and then murdering millions of people because they believe different things. It is hypocrasy of the highest order and there is nothing defensible about it.

lmao. Dude, you are serious here or is this a troll?

You are making crap up to feed a victim narrative here.

[Al Gorefiend]

so I realized what bugs me about this show. it is really REALLY bad at showing passage of time. I get that its LA and season don't change visibly there, but like... at least show holiday decorations in a background or something - ANYTHING that indicates that time is actually passing. because they make the whole Titania thing seem to appear so quickly, but even if she was planning her makeup and skincare line from prison... RnD STILL takes considerable time not to mention manufacture, EVEN if you are using white label products (generics that get repackaged and called a new brand). Even a company like Colourpop with their in house labs/manufacturing and endless repackagings and colabs have to take time to develop new products and she came out with a whole new line and all that advertising and launch parties and the show makes no effort to show how much actual time has passed.

its just... weird and disconnected, you know? like on one hand they are making sure to bring in characters from larger MCU... but on the other hand they still feel superfluous and more like gimmicks then actual connections to a larger narrative. I guess we'll see how the rest of the show turns out, but the more I watch it the more frustrated it makes me. oh I'm giggling while the jokes are happening and actors do great jobs, but ..yanno.

MCU in general is terrible at showing passage of time. Take Civil War for example: could have happened over the course of 4 days or 2 months.

[Darththeo]

MCU in general is terrible at showing passage of time. Take Civil War for example: could have happened over the course of 4 days or 2 months.

Generally, that is done in a lot of movies. Without knowing the passage of time, it makes events of the movie easier to suspend your disbelief. You can just insert whatever time fits. Ticking clocks rarely work in movies and shows if they medium isn't built around it.

Infinity War is the same, it could be a couple days or weeks. Outside of a handful of MCU properties, most don't show passage of time clearly defined.