|
E:f,b and a page snipe at the same time? (is that still a thing?)Kurtofan posted:What's his childhood story? Lupus Rufus posted:* The discussion Simpson and Trish have outside Trish's apartment (episode 4), Simpson recounts a childhood experience to demonstrate that he saves people--at all costs. He melted his army men and torched a Dream House. Like ur not a monster if u ever intentionally destroyed a toy, but he thinks that "I saved [my sister's] Barbie" justifies all the toy-violence he committed. Trish's reacts accordingly "You torched a dream house?!" Like it at the time just seemed like a funny "hah, kids do weird evil poo poo, isn't that funny and weird?" scene and then you realise, no he's always been the guy holding a magnifying glass on weaker things and convincing himself its justified. Also forecasting his near pathological need to play the masculine hero and save The Woman.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
This show is not subtle at all. And it's fantastic for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I guess I don't really understand Simpson's character at all. I thought he was controlled but apparently it was the drugs that made him kill the policeman and destroy the evidence? I don't read the comics so I have no idea if he's supposed to be a bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I guess I don't really understand Simpson's character at all. I thought he was controlled but apparently it was the drugs that made him kill the policeman and destroy the evidence? I don't read the comics so I have no idea if he's supposed to be a bad guy. He's machismo made flesh. Everything he does is in order to reinforce/regain his masculinity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I'd say the drugs made him completely unstable and edgy and impulse driven, but they kinda just brought out what was already there in him. Remember pre-drugs he was totally willing to murder the poo poo out of Kilgrave's poor mindslaves with a BOMB in a suburban area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Yeah right from the start Simpson was mansplaining about how Jessica/Trish couldn't possibly fight Kilgrave without him and was insisting they needed his protection. Simpson's arc is one of the most amazing deconstructions of patriarchal thinking going, especially cause it shows how those same attitudes are just as destructive for men as for women.gohmak posted:Since when the gently caress does it not? Please explain how seeing Krysten Ritter's boobs would add anything to the plot or themes of the show. Rarity fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:I'd say the drugs made him completely unstable and edgy and impulse driven, but they kinda just brought out what was already there in him. Remember pre-drugs he was totally willing to murder the poo poo out of Kilgrave's poor mindslaves with a BOMB in a suburban area. I wouldn't be surprised if they originally wrote a red pill eating original character in order to poke fun at MRA's and then someone at Marvel was like, actually, we gotcha covered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Yeah right from the start Simpson was mansplaining about how Jessica/Trish couldn't possibly fight Kilgrave without him and was insisting they needed his protection. Simpson's arc is one of the most amazing deconstructions of patriarchal thinking going, especially cause it shows how those same attitudes are just as destructive for men as for women. And then he turned out to be completely right when Trish and Jessica failed at every possible turn to capture Kilgrave and Jess finally killed him. Simpson was boring and I don't understand why he's supposed to be a deconstruction when the show finally goes "yeah he was right, Kilgrave had to die." Especially when Jessica is a pretty incompetent fighter and couldn't even throw off about six dudes with cattle prods, because the writers forgot she has superpowers. I guess Simpson is supposed to be a metaphor for blahblah patriarchy but his arc is such a boring waste that it really looks like he was written in because they wanted to namecheck a comic book character and not because they actually gave a poo poo about making an interesting person. I ended up fast forwarding through all of his parts because they were so bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
HIJK posted:
The show never went that. Also I don't think you tactical realists are getting the thematic connection between Jessica and the extremely literally named Hope and why saving that character from the exact same fate that Jessica suffered might be important to our protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Yeah right from the start Simpson was mansplaining about how Jessica/Trish couldn't possibly fight Kilgrave without him and was insisting they needed his protection. Simpson's arc is one of the most amazing deconstructions of patriarchal thinking going, especially cause it shows how those same attitudes are just as destructive for men as for women. Scene commitment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
It wasn't until (all) Hope faded away that killing Killgrave became an option. Or yeah what Zoux edited in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
*bangs fists on table* "Excuse me the female protagonist in this heavily thematic show about abuse, survival and redemption is not doing what I, a mid-20's white male would do to maximize effectiveness and even has a character to make fun of me for thinking it, yet I cannot stop saying Simpson was right!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:The show never went that. I'm not a tactical realist. I fully understand why Jess wanted to save Hope and why it would have been beneficial to bring Kilgrave to trial. That doesn't mean it was the best decision Jessica ever made, and ultimately Simpson was right. His own incompetence doesn't make that untrue. zoux posted:*bangs fists on table* "Excuse me the female protagonist in this heavily thematic show about abuse, survival and redemption is not doing what I, a mid-20's white male would do to maximize effectiveness and even has a character to make fun of me for thinking it, yet I cannot stop saying Simpson was right!" I am not white or male, and I don't care about effectiveness. I care whether or not this show ties its themes to the arcs of the characters in a well written way. Simpson was badly written and IMO the show undermined the message it was trying to get across with him. Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Eh, Jessica made almost all the right decisions when it came to Killgrave. She had him 3 or 4 times. And he only ever escaped because of outside interference. She(or Trish) didn't need Simpson's help. Simpson was only "right" in the sense that yes killing Kilgrave would probably be the eventual outcome you will have to do with someone of his powerset. But You didn't need to kill him right then and there as both Jessica and Trish were more than capable of coming up with plans to catch him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:*bangs fists on table* "Excuse me the female protagonist in this heavily thematic show about abuse, survival and redemption is not doing what I, a mid-20's white male would do to maximize effectiveness and even has a character to make fun of me for thinking it, yet I cannot stop saying Simpson was right!" Why do you assume everyone on this forum is a young white dude? I'm an asian woman, and even the white males on this forum are, like, mid thirties dads. Man, I'm actually getting peeved over this. Anyone who criticizes a thing has to be mentally male? Not liking something (not even the whole thing! Just one part!) is a sign of toxic masculinity? mycot fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
mycot posted:Why do you assume everyone on this forum is a young white dude? I'm an asian woman, and even the white males on this forum are, like, mid thirties dads. Are you agitating for the sniper murder of Kilgrave in episode 4? This show is about, among other things, gender roles and attitudes and Simpson is very clearly meant to embody the typical white American male stance of using violence and intimidation to achieve even laudable goals so I assume that people identifying strongly with that position are likely typical white American males. I guess I should apologize to all the non-white, non-male posters for assuming they they too couldn't hold atavistic views towards violence and agency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
HIJK posted:I'm not a tactical realist. I fully understand why Jess wanted to save Hope and why it would have been beneficial to bring Kilgrave to trial. That doesn't mean it was the best decision Jessica ever made, and ultimately Simpson was right. His own incompetence doesn't make that untrue. so your saying Jessica should have just killed kilgrave right then and condemned hope to the death sentence/life prison just for being a puzzle piece in some game between two people she never knew? because that how jessica saw the situation and you while you don't have to agree with her actions I find it pretty callous to not at least sympathize with the redemption, real or not, she was trying to seek by capturing kilgrave alive or exposing him. I mean that conundrum in itself is why Jessica imo is a well written character, and you seem to be arguing that the show as a whole is weaker because she wouldn't nut up and just kill him for whatever. It's easy to judge stuff like this when you have an eagle eye view of the story as the viewer. polish sausage fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
mycot posted:Why do you assume everyone on this forum is a young white dude? I'm an asian woman, and even the white males on this forum are, like, mid thirties dads. It's true. You are Eliot Rodgers. Your real identity doesn't matter because everyone is white on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I'm just kinda mystified that you're envisioning a wave of young hip dudebros populating this thread when the term "dying forum" isn't a joke for no reason.HIJK posted:It's true. You are Eliot Rodgers. Your real identity doesn't matter because everyone is white on the internet. Yes, it's clearly my fault for being a Bad Woman and holding white man opinions. I'm like a swole banana. mycot fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
mycot posted:hip dudebros That is most certainly not what I'm envisioning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
If not for the actions of Hogarth and Simpson himself - Simpson wouldn't have ultimately been right. Jessica would. And while Jessica might have settled on killing Kilgrave after she could no longer save hope, she still did everything possible to avoid collateral damage while Simpson saw the deaths of innocents as necessary. (Jessica proved they were not.) Jessica prioritised saving the support group from the nooses over killing Kilgrave, and that ultimately resulted in a smaller bodycount. So hey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
polish sausage posted:so your saying Jessica should have just killed kilgrave right then and condemned hope to the death sentence/life prison just for being a puzzle piece in some game between two people she never knew? because that how jessica saw the situation and you while you don't have agree with her actions I find it pretty callous to not at least sympathize with the redemption, real or not, she was trying to seek by capturing kilgrave alive or exposing him. I mean that conundrum in itself is why Jessica imo is a well written character, and you seem to be arguing that the show as a whole as weaker because she wouldn't nut up and just kill him for whatever. It's easy to judge stuff like this when you have an eagle eye view of the story as the viewer. That's not even remotely what I'm saying which you would know if you read all my posts. What I am saying is this: quote:I care whether or not this show ties its themes to the arcs of the characters in a well written way. Simpson was badly written and IMO the show undermined the message it was trying to get across with him. I am literally saying that this show managed to completely undermine its own thesis through terrible character writing. I think Jessica was right to put down Kilgrave. I was also proud of her for trying to bring Kilgrave to justice because she tackled an enormous task, one that was ultimately impossible. But I also think that Simpson was a badly written character that got in the way of the show's themes and ultimately rendered the show toothless. Or you can try and pretend that I hate Jessica for amorphous reasons that I never stated, because lumping me in with other posters' sentiments is easier than listening to what I'm saying. I'm female so it's completely normal for people to ignore what I say. I'm pretty used to it. (Did you see what I did there?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I want everyone who thinks that "Simpson was ultimately right" to explain what the gently caress they mean by that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Snak posted:I want everyone who thinks that "Simpson was ultimately right" to explain what the gently caress they mean by that. That bringing in Kilgrave alive was an exercise in futility and that the guy had to die. I only watched the show last week though so my memory is a little fuzzy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Snak posted:I want everyone who thinks that "Simpson was ultimately right" to explain what the gently caress they mean by that. It was in the previous page of posts.  Honestly I think the sentiment is more leaking dissatisfaction from the pacing (which is the larger problem) more than anything else. From a viewer's perspective it's hard not to feel "man I wish this dude keeled over 4 episodes ago" so some take it literally. Guy gives them an out and they take it.(I realize I'm comparing watching a show to a chore, but I'm not so good at watching series.  )
mycot fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
HIJK posted:That's not even remotely what I'm saying which you would know if you read all my posts. What I am saying is this: Why was he poorly written? I'm curious. Everyone who's said he was poorly written has almost always only brought up he was right all along defense. What didn't you like about his character?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
mycot posted:It was in the previous page of posts. I'm sorry if I conflated people's opinions or posts, but there are a lot of posters in here who were saying that literally Simpson should've snipered Kilgrave from afar, bam, show over. More people who didn't understand why Jessica/Simpson/someone didn't just straight up kill Kilgrave at various points, ignoring the thematic connections between Jessica and Hope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I guess my point is that "Simpson was ultimately right" is only true if you think the conflict being solved is stopping Kilgrave. Stopping Kilgrave wasn't Jessica's goal until the last few episodes. Jessica's goal was to help his victims. Everything Jessica did was with that goal in mind. Simpson completely ignored that goal. So in a way, Simpson was right that killing Kilgrave would stop him from making more victims, but he literally did not care about his existing victims. Jessica's plan would have helped his existing victims AND prevented him from victimizing more people. Simpson is like the War on Terror or The War on Drugs, where he is only concerned with neutralizing the enemy and does not give a gently caress about the victims. Operating under the false premise that removing the enemy will make the world a better place and is therefor the correct course of action. Not concerned with actually making the world a better place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
HIJK posted:
I'm making assumptions because you keep saying this. this makes me think that you don't think much of jessica's postion or the show is bad. I'm not the one calling you a white male but feel free to behave passively aggressively towards me. also Nuke isn't right because his position isn't simply "kill kilgrave," but you seem to want it to be(oh no another assumption), seeing as you keep dismissing all the other traits which characterize nuke because it's "bad writing I fast forwarded through all his parts who cares?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why was he poorly written? I'm curious. Everyone who's said he was poorly written has almost always only brought up he was right all along defense. What didn't you like about his character? I thought they derailed his character for no good reason. Simpson was a jump the gun kind of guy but basically they refused to give him any real arc, he didn't learn anything or even go into a downward spiral ala Loki, he just stayed where he was, aka a useless douche. The magic steroids subplot is where this is really born out. Like, when Simpson chose to stay and comfort Trish, I viewed it as good character development -- sure he was an overbearing jerk but he also got his rear end handed to him and I figured that by bonding with Trish he was having really cool character development where he learned to cool his heels a bit and let the Kilgrave expert, Jessica, take the lead. Instead he got on magic steroids for no reason? That really confused me because it came out of no where and it seemed to me that the writers had run out of ideas for his character and instead of killing him they decided to turn him into a total idiot that used steroids to oppress women...for no reason, and after all that character development he had with Trish. Then I found out he's Nuke from the comics and realized he was shoehorned in as part of a checklist probably handed over by that comic book committee. "Thou must namecheck these many comic book characters per series!" It just struck as a really dumb way to handle what could have been an interesting character. Instead we get steroidzzzzzzzz When it comes to "Simpson was right" I'm just pointing out that if the writers wanted to set him up as an antagonist they went about it the wrong way since Jess ultimately killed the purple man at the end. I don't really care to assign much moral value beyond "ew, bad writing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
An antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist, not the plot. The point of Simpson was that he was a useless douche. That's the point of his character. He does have an arc, it's showing his true colors after fronting as a nice-guy. You can tell he's a nice guy because he says caring things at first and performs oral sex on a woman. In his mind, this makes him a good guy. Nevermind that he completely dismisses the things that are important to that woman because he and "his boys" know better how to completely gently caress up this situation by getting in way over their heads and getting blown up, then taking a bunch of drugs to becomes universal soldiers and still failing. If Simpson was right, surely he would have succeeded?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Snak posted:
I think that's a bit reductive. In a different show he would've been the protagonist hero of the story, the hard charging all-American handsome hero who's willing to do whatever it takes to stop the bad guy. That he was so despicable in the end, that his methods were so destructive to everyone around him is a commentary on how damaging and backwards our typical conceptions of the masculine hero are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'm sorry if I conflated people's opinions or posts, but there are a lot of posters in here who were saying that literally Simpson should've snipered Kilgrave from afar, bam, show over. More people who didn't understand why Jessica/Simpson/someone didn't just straight up kill Kilgrave at various points, ignoring the thematic connections between Jessica and Hope. I thought I was the atavistic patriarchal poster? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
polish sausage posted:I'm making assumptions because you keep saying this. this makes me think that you don't think much of jessica's postion or the show is bad. I'm not the one calling you a white male but feel free to behave passively aggressively towards me. also Nuke isn't right because his position isn't simply "kill kilgrave," but you seem to want it to be(oh no another assumption), seeing as you keep dismissing all the other traits which characterize nuke because it's "bad writing I fast forwarded through all his parts who cares?" I think Jessica's situation is very understandable, and I also think that Simpson's character is crap. I can think that Jessica was 100% sympathetic and that she had the wrong mindset towards Kilgrave. I can also think Simpson was correct in wanting to kill Kilgrave and also think that his MRA personality was boring and terrible. It is possible to think these things at the same time, and it doesn't mean I hate Jessica or that I think she is stupid and wrong or whatever. "this makes me think that you don't think much of jessica's postion" what is that even supposed to mean? Is the only way to support Jessica's character to say "she did everything perfectly and without failure and she is a perfect human being uwu" Like, dude, even the show portrays her as making mistakes. She isn't perfect, that's the whole point of her character. The fact that you think "Simpson wasn't a great character = Jessica Jones is the worst" is...well I don't even know what. How did you come to that conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
HIJK posted:I thought they derailed his character for no good reason. Simpson was a jump the gun kind of guy but basically they refused to give him any real arc, he didn't learn anything or even go into a downward spiral ala Loki, he just stayed where he was, aka a useless douche. The thing is even when he was with Trish, he never actually allowed Trish and Jessica to run their independent plans without him having to interfere or mention how he could solve this problem for them. Even when he let them do it he did nothing but mention how his plan was totally right and they totally need to listen to him. he spent most of his time with Trish telling her that Jessica was wrong and they should be killing him. Trish did most of the work in finding information on the whereabouts Dude then went Rouge and hosed up when he tried to take things into his own hands causing the events that ended up getting his rear end blown up. After getting blown up the Drugs took his personality all the way to 100 and he stopped being the "nice guy" Dexo fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
How could I possibly come to a such a conclusion?HIJK posted:
At any rate is it even worth talking about nuke since you fast forwarded through all his scenes? polish sausage fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
I was just reading an article about Kilgrave on io9 and I thought it was funny that this was the first comment:
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I like how Simpson gets no sympathy for breaking down after being mindraped because he's a dude and the only ones that do sympathize with him miss the whole point of the show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I like how Simpson gets no sympathy for breaking down after being mindraped because he's a dude and the only ones that do sympathize with him miss the whole point of the show. Yeah that's weird too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I like how Simpson gets no sympathy for breaking down after being mindraped because he's a dude and the only ones that do sympathize with him miss the whole point of the show. Kind of a commentary on how sexual abuse vs. men is swept under the rug and that men are just expected to "man up" and deal with it and that's a way that the patriarchy damages men, innit. The show was good in the case of Simpson and Kilgrave of explaining they motivations without condoning what they did because of them. It's also kind of why I'm glad they killed Kilgrave because with an actor as charming as Tennant the impulse to Spikify him in later seasons is too great, and I don't see a believable path to redemption for the character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:13
|
|