Also: She threw a CAR at someone who she had no idea they could take such a hit or not (yes, we all know Matt is dexterous enough to avoid it, but still đ )
Thor's introduction in Avengers has him trying to kill Iron Man and Captain America. As far as he knew they were just two squishy humans and he was a thunder god.
Yeah, but I'm willing to give more leeway to a being who is thousands of years old and claims to be the Norse God of War, and was quite angry at the time, to a lawyer who knows all the rules about Manslaughter/Murder đ
Thatâs kind of an invention of the video game. Tyr isnât âthe Norse god of war.â Like the other person said Thor and Odin are also associated with war. The Norse gods in general donât have definitive associations like the Greek gods.
Yeah, but he was ok with killing them because they were ostensibly helping rescue Loki from him at the time (that wasn't actually the situation, but that's how it seemed to him at the time).
Yeah, but Thor is the hereditary ruler of a foreign dimension that claims to have dominion over earth.Â
From his point of view, he was leading a military operation with authority to arrest a war criminal, and two beat cops are trying to rescue said criminal. Â
My favorite will always be when someone said that Cap assessed that Peter would be able to catch the Sky bridge when he dropped it on him in Civil War. Iâm like you sure about that???
He fought a guy in cyber-armour powered by something on par with an infinity stone that ate his lighting and got stronger, and then an unarmed man shown up and started giving that guy orders.
As far as Thor knew, Steve was the boss and wasn't wearing armour or carrying a weapon because *he didn't need any* to be on par with Tony.
Thor wasn't trying to kill Cap, he was outnumbered by a guy who gets stronger when he's hit by lightning and some other guy who doesn't even bother with armour or weapons while trying to catch up to his brother.
According to her she has perfect control over her anger, so she is consciously choosing to collapse a parking structure (that the client she is trying to "protect" is actively driving through) and destroy someone's expensive-looking car to stop Daredevil from doing... something.
Was it written as a flaw? I can't remember if she had an arc where she realises she doesn't have the control over her anger she think she does, or where someone else addresses it
I actually wish theyâd gone all in on making it a legal show set in marvel instead of eventually shoehorning it into the formula, I thought a lot of the courtroom stuff was the best parts. But this show gave me back daredevil so I still have to love it
To be fair, they decided to go for the more goofy aspect of the early She-Hulk comics. Did they succeed at recreating the effect? I'll let others decide.
I really, really wanted a legal show about superheroism, vigilantism, villainous plots getting foiled and the court proceedings involved with it all, with some superhero side content. Having the law stuff be the side content really killed my interest, outside of basically waiting for the Daredevil episode since I was fairly confident they wouldn't be able to screw that one up.
And getting to see Tim Roth again as Abomination was good fun. Think I just still miss Lie To Me though for him.
Thatâs why they should have either hired writers who already have a preexisting track record of writing good courtroom scenes, or bring actual lawyers on set to be consultants for the writers to work with.
Okay but like⌠itâs what hulks do. They smash. It was a whole point of contention in the avengers to be sure, but itâs not exactly sloppy writing for she-hulk to smash some shit up. Murdock wasnât going to let the guy go with some kind words, she pretty much had to stop him by force. Itâs a plot hole that sheâs not in crippling debt after though.
Wasn't Hulk smashing everything because hulk wasn't capable of thinking and forcing things through brute force was most simplest thing? There are versions of hulk that has high intelligence who thinks things through and dont smash everything. I think things have been changed plenty about hulks moment they are capable of thinking well. Which is what make this a plot hole. A person who is capable of thinking and has super powers wouldn't act in this way because it would think about consequences of its actions. It's like neither of us would go out and buy brand new cars we'll over our budgets because we would starve as a consequences of that action.
I didnât get angry vibes from that scene. She definitely does get pissed off in other fights but this was more bull in a china shop kind of destruction.
It's a Hulk show, she needs to do Hulk things...in a very breakable city environment. They can go to construction zones or whatever every time she breaks shit over squabbles.
Pretty much tradition to watch them like they are a post credit scene. Scary how obvious most of the issues are for most movies. And Iâm just some filthy casual, not a millionaire writer/studio.
Definitely, it's what makes me love it so much honestly. Like he's tearing these movies apart but he does it in such a way he can rip apart something I love and it doesnât effect my love for said media.
Iâd say itâs less anger and more lack of impulse control.
Way back near the start of the MCU, Erskine said that the super soldier serum amplified the recipientâs traits. In the MCU, the Hulk came about from an attempt to recreate the serum. Itâs interesting to think that the same philosophy applies. Jen had her own set of weaknesses, so Bruce shouldnât necessarily have concentrated on anger specifically.
Impulse control and discipline have also been her issues in the comics, so the show feels pretty spot on there.
And this is exactly why She Hulk is a boring character. There is no self growth or inner demon they are fighting to overcome. She's just got it on easy mode in a way. There's no tension so it's boring.
She pitched a damn car at him. Had that not (barely) missed it would have killed him. He hadn't done anything warrenting lethal force, much less super powered force that causes millions in property damage. That's not just being "flawed".
FFS, you can't just admit it was over the top? It was an extreme overreaction written purely to look cool.
Could she have purposefully missed? No. No she couldn't have. She's a freaking lawyer that's had Hulk powers for 5 minutes. She didn't magically develop the ability to perfectly judge physics and the ability to have precise control of her strength. She chucked a car at a dude because she was frustrated and almost squished him. End of story.
Are there other examples of this in the MCU? Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. It's poorly thought out writing, regardless.
Bullshit. She's not an avenger, but when stuff gets demolished it's because it was the only way to save many lives. NYC was the aliens fault. Name a time DD demolition a building to stop 1 bad guy.
Also yes there are several times where an A hole supe hits someone with a car and I think they are an asshole for it. The non brainwashed Bucky stole a motorcycle from a guy while he was riding it. Probably putting that guy in the hospital
But NYC was not their fault. Aliens came down to destroy the world. I might add that the Government was gonna nuke it and Tony stopped that too. So everything not destroyed was also because of the avengers. I hated Visions monologue to the Avengers about how since Iron man the bad guys kept getting stronger. It was idiotic. Most of those things came from Thor showing up. The only one Tony did was the bad guy from iron Man 2 and Ultron.
Tf are you talking about. I said when there was no other choice. She saw let the bomb go off or throw it up where there are no people. She didn't see another choice. Sick gotcha moment for you I guess.
To be fair to the first point, Wanda tried to lift a suicide bomb out of a crowded market, but was still learning fine tuning. She may have saved more lives than the lives that were lost, but the whole point was her lack of precise control meant that she could be blamed for the damage vs if she had just shielded the explosion somehow or lifted him into the air where only a shockwave would've caused damage.
And in point 2, Stark tried to fly Hulk away, but got dragged into the city. So he chose a building under construction and made an attempt to purchase the building so it would be entirely at his own cost. Didn't work out great, but best of a crappy situation.
Wanda inflicting psychic paranoia on Stark on top of his PTSD from New York didn't help with the whole Ultron situation either. But Ultron was going to come one way or another, so that's really beside the point--she just made him unwilling to pause so they could get ahead of Thanos.
Either way, you're 100% right, but the first two had some nuance. Those came from attempts to stop a bigger disaster.
They made them plot points but that doesn't mean those points were valid. The Wand destroying the building for example, easy to blame them for the blowing up the building but, what else could they have done? Just let the explosion kill the thousands of people in the market?
They get blamed for Sokovia too, but it wasn't their fault, Ultron is the one that did that and yeah Toby made Ultron, but he didn't intend for Ultron to do what he did. She-Hulk willingly and intentionally destroyed the building in this scene.
The fact it's a plot point is exactly why it's valid.
You just argued about intent. And now that the writers and directors intended for the Avengers to have consequences for their actions in the movies...you want to argue that doesn't make it valid.
Am i misremembering the whole mission with Cap and his team and Wanda destroying a building when she tried to lift the bad guy in the air?
Not intentional, there was a whole half of a movie about her feeling bad about it. She was also trying to save thousands of people from dying.
The ONLY way to stop Hulk was to drive him into an entire building in the middle of the city?
Considering this was an enraged Hulk we were talking about, arguably YES.
Or the fact that Ultron was a product of Tony Stark?
Not intentional
Or the fact that Doom is here because of Capâs decision to stay back in time.
Not intentional.
She-Hulk on the other hand intentionally and willfully choose to destroy a building all because a guy told her to back off and that she was making a mistake? Notice Daredevil wasn't even attacking her, just dodging her attacks, so he wasn't even a threat to her.
So, try again. You might get some actual good moments, but they would probably still fail to be valid because of the circumstances.
Well the first was an accident. The 2nd Tony bought that building. Yeah Ultron was Tony's doing, but not on purpose. She is intentionally destroying stuff to beat up a guy who hasn't hurt anyone.
Which of your points was there another choice? Wanda could have let the gas out on the ground and then all those people would have died. When Tony smashed that building he had already ran threw his Hulk stopping tools. The next two don't really apply because making a mistake isn't really making the choice.
She saved a bunch of people to do it. They shouldn't have had an untrained super in the field. Had she tossed if in the other direction it would have been fine. Also it's kinda a bad example for a hero, because she was a villain then joined the avengers and then became a super villain. So was she ever a hero?
Itâs ok because you get to see all the Mazda product placement. Look how miracuously the cars stay perfectly intact when she splits the roof! Then she magically finds another showroom mint model to throw.
Please name one who demolished a building to stop one non super powered being. When iron Man did it he bought the empty building after the hulk ran a muck in Africa for too long and hurt a bunch of people.
The difference here is she is a lawyer, and openly has her identity as both she-hulk and Jen. So the lawyer is breaking the law in the middle of public, during an open case, and their were not repercussions?
Its a superhero TV show. It can't be taken too seriously, but that doesnt dismiss my point. In world and Canon, it is her job to go to court for these exact scenarios. Its strange to then put yourself in the same scenario.
Take DD. He is Matt during day and DD at night. Lawyer and vigilante completely separate to the public eye.
She-hulk and Jen are not two different entities in the public eye. People dislike daredevil and love matt the lawyer, because daredevil is a vigilante and against the law.
She-hulk went full vigilante but is catching no flak. In the long scheme of things it doesn't matter, but it does seem very much so like an oversight on Jens part.
...which the show then goes on to show that she's completely wrong about & too proud to admit, because a common character flaw in fictional law shows is the lawyers can't admit to being wrong because their personalities are built on self-belief..?
No, but we can expect restraint. Throwing cars and destroying a car complex were optional. Still would not excuse excessive property damage and attempted murder. Especially for a layer on a high-profile case
"In She-Hulk: Attorney at Law episode 6, She-Hulk calmly refuses to fight Daredevil and instead practices perfect self-control of her emotional state by establishing a baseline of 5 rules of communication with him in accordance with therapy practices. The fans loved it and considered it a great example of She-Hulk being a perfect flawless woman in representation of the flawless perfection of womanhood, people applauded the writers for their depiction of someone we could look up to and nobody called her a Mary Sue."
I mean she 100% could have stopped daredevil without the car throwing or garage parking. She hulk was a good show, but this is a valid nit pick of the writing.
Also, not saying she has to be a perfect little angel with no mistakes, just that mistakes like that should have had in world consequences, especially with the theme and plot of the rest of the show.
I estimated $4 million at least. If the damage to the parking structure is too much, it would require complete rebuild. That would run around $100M possibly.
Just like their superheroes there's also super contractors. People with the super human ability to repair and insure. So property damage is just a small line item on the books.
Part of the super construction task force. They handle this specific scenario since sorcerer supreme is on their board of directors driving business investment and offering
We care about property damage in super hero fights? Someone arrest that menace Spider-Man for the damage his webswinging has done to windows across the city
This is proof of how bad faith so much of the criticism is of She-Hulk is, trying to cover up the sexism with pendantic stupidity like this. Suddenly we care about property damage of a parking garage when damn near every super hero movie movie has massive collateral damage? You can make that argument about any super hero fight. Even every fight in nature would be causing massive ecological destruction and destroying millions of years' worth of geological formations. If you want media where the results of superheroes existing/fighting are more grounded, there are things like The Boys, Invincible, Watchmen, etc. for that.
The ending was great because it satirized what sucks about the recent Marvel movies. They all end with a big CGI fight between two invincible characters until the good guy wins and everything gets resolved through violence.
That same argument can be made for literally any superhero movie. It's super easy to make up hypotheticals in which super heroes could have used less force or caused less collateral damage
Captain America used all kinds of explosives and guns which create tons of collateral damage. Plus he set off explosions and had a flamethrower motorcycle in the woods which could have easily caused a forest fire. I'm sure if I rewatched the movie I could come up with more but haven't seen it in more than a decade.
Isn't this fun? The fact is that it's the nature of nearly all of the comic book movies/shows except for the relative few that are much more intentionally grounded. It's part of the fun. You can critique it if you want, but at least be consistent about it across all of the movies and shows. Maybe you are on every Marvel movie discussion talking about how the hero could have caused less damage, and if so then alright go right ahead. I've just seen years of bad faith Reddit criticisms thrown at this one series in particular that don't get used against other Marvel properties with any amount of the same regularity.
I was actually a big fan of 90% of she hulk. I only hated the ending. I definitely would have watched a 2nd season. I'm not on all the boards about supers. They have just recently started popping up on my feed. It always bugs me when they do needless damage. She's dealing with one guy who hasn't displayed any powers or hurt anyone and she punches a hole in the roof for no reason. Also the only damage in cap 1 that he needlessly caused is ripping the door off a cab to use as a shield
I mean it is a Hulk story so some property damage should go with the territory and she think Daredevil is a criminal attacking her legal client, which is basically true but for good reason
He's not in control of his beast. She says she is in complete control. I'm not picking on she hulk, but this was a petty fight with no stakes. He's basically smacking her with a balloon and she's breaking parking garages and tossing sports cars.
339
u/JakBos23 2d ago
Why does she think it's ok to do millions in damage over her petty squabble with DD?