|
raditts posted:But... that's what she wound up doing in the end anyway. So I guess if there's a message, it's "try to solve your problems by using the system until that inevitably fails catastrophically, then resort to murder." Jessica is a private eye. Her job is literally to find evidence and confront people with the truth because they won't believe poo poo they don't want to believe without proof. Jessica learns through the course of the show that killing Kilgrave is the only way. People are suggesting that the first thing you should do when you know there is a dangerous person is assassinate them. People who do that are literally villains. Yes I think you should exhaust other options before using murder to solve your problems. I don't think that's crazy. But my actual point is, and has been the whole time: People in real life do not normally have a "It's me against this villain" mindset. When we read about the attrocities that happen in say, North Korea, are we "stupid" for not getting a gun and going to try to kill Kim Jong Un? Do we maybe need to make sure that that's going to solve the problem? Also, powerful people in real life also have "plot armor". It's why real life terrible powerful people don't get assassinated by their victims right and left. People who think "neutralize the threat as soon as possible" are the reason we have so many fatal police shootings. Jesus Christ. "Oh but Kilgrave isn't some black teenager walking home who might not be a threat, he's a know quantity and he needs to be eliminated" Normal people don't think like that, because you don't have the mindset of "murder as a solution" unless you think that way. People who think that way are the ones who kill people by accident. Between this thread and the horror thread where they don't understand the point of people getting killed by accident, I don't know what the gently caress is wrong with people. edit: TL;DR: Jessica is a detective, she asks questions FIRST, shoots later. edit2: There is also another, VERY IMPORTANT reason that Jessica does not jump on the "Kill Kilgrave" wagon sooner: Kilgrave making Jessica kill someone is one of the most traumatic aspects of her time with him. Jessica wanted to use her powers to help people and Kilgrave made her use them to kill. She does not want to be a killer and if she just goes and kill Kilgrave, she's essentially let him turn her into someone who chooses to kill. He even implies that he didn't make her kill either, she chose that time as well. She kills him eventually not because she has been turned into a killer, but because she explored her options, asked the right questions, and determined that it was the right thing to do. That's something she can live with. Snak fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Dec 16, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Snak posted:Jessica is a private eye. Her job is literally to find evidence and confront people with the truth because they won't believe poo poo they don't want to believe without proof. Jessica learns through the course of the show that killing Kilgrave is the only way. This is why discussing fiction is impossible. People think that just because you want something to happen in fiction, that it means you want it to happen in real life. Like you're sitting here telling us that people who wanted lethal force used against Kilgrave are the same driving force behind civilian shooting cops. It's ridiculous and unreasonable to judge people by their storytelling preferences. Come on, you know better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Explain to me how the idea "you are stupid if you don't shoot a person who is a threat" is not related to cops shooting people? We have discussed up and down the thematic and character reasons why Jessica is not on board with sniping Kilgrave, and that doesn't seem to matter. The line of reasoning I am arguing against is the idea that it is literally foolish not to murder dangerous people. Which is what people are actually saying in this thread. This poo poo is gonna be unreadable when The Punisher shows up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Snak posted:Explain to me how the idea "you are stupid if you don't shoot a person who is a threat" is not related to cops shooting people? Because they are talking about fictional characters for entertainment purposes. Saying "people who wanted to shoot Kilgrave want cops to murder black people every single day" is like saying "violent videogames cause violent crime" or "Top Gun made my son gay" or "Harry Potter turned my child into a Satanist." Fictional entertainment is, well, fictional entertainment. Die Hard is one of the best Christmas movies ever, that doesn't mean I go full John McClane on the next person who looks sideways at me after I watch it. Enjoying something in fiction doesn't mean that we want it to happen in real life. It's just that simple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Snak posted:Explain to me how the idea "you are stupid if you don't shoot a person who is a threat" is not related to cops shooting people? I like shooting people in video games. When do I go crazy and shoot up a mall? Is it before or after I start worshipping Satan because rock music tells me to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Because they are talking about fictional characters for entertainment purposes. Saying "people who wanted to shoot Kilgrave want cops to murder black people every single day" is like saying "violent videogames cause violent crime" or "Top Gun made my son gay" or "Harry Potter turned my child into a Satanist." I didn't say that people who wanted Jessica Jones to shoot Kilgrave want cops to kill black people. I said that mindset of eliminated threats efficiently is responsible for both ideas. Secondly, I often want fictional characters to do terrible things that I do not endorse in real life, because it makes for a better story. The thing about Jessica shooting Kilgrave in episode 2 is that it would make for a worse story, so why do people think "She/the plot" is stupid for that not happening? There are two arguments being made here: 1) Jessica is stupid for not killing Kilgrave sooner, and 2a) the writers are stupid for not having Jessica kill Kilgrave sooner, because 2b) the fact that she eventually kill Kilgrave somehow invalidates everything leading up to it. I am saying that there has been no convincing argument made for 1 or 2b. 2a is totally arguable because Kilgraves many escapes could have maybe been handled better. But even if they were, 2b would still not apply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
People are getting huffy about it, but I kinda agree with Snak's argument - the idea here is that Jessica has a mindset closer to someone in real life might have - where killing is a last resort that many people would never even want to consider. It's a lot easier to say 'oh well she should have just killed him' since everyone involved is a fictional character for us (and we have the benefit of hindsight), but from the perspective of the people in a story, killing might not be so easy - it's not like she's a hardened killer or even a superhero that deals with supervillains regularly. Combine that with her fixation on saving Hope instead of getting revenge on Kilgrave and I can easy see why she would avoid killing. Sure, in hindsight and from a distance we know it probably would have ended better if they had, but in the moment she didn't have enough of that certainty to actually make such a decision. Like people have said, there are plenty of people in this world who do just as much harm as Kilgrave ever did, or more, and most of these people never get killed, even by their victims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Snak posted:I didn't say that people who wanted Jessica Jones to shoot Kilgrave want cops to kill black people. I said that mindset of eliminated threats efficiently is responsible for both ideas. Okay, that's cool. I understand that and I think you're 100% valid though I don't agree. That doesn't mean it's accurate to get up in people's grills about their mindset. That is pure thought-policing, you're getting pretty exercised about the thoughts people express about a tv show where a woman has super strength and can jump hella high. You're also making a causal link to people who are critical of the JJ writers to the very awful reality of police brutality. You are making a connection you don't actually know exists between the "just kill the Purple Man" posters and cop shootings. People who wanted Kilgrave to die faster are not, and I can't believe I'm saying this, in favor of violence and murder. I'm saying that making moral judgements on people who have different opinions than you just because you don't agree with that opinion, especially when it is about a superhero show, is not good. It is a net-bad. You need to chillax and let people enjoy their tv show how they want. To get this sorta back on track, I do think Kilgrave needed to die at the outset but Jessica needed to exhaust all her options first before doing so. This is understandable because she is still a messy ball of emotion, and she needed to have her own journey before she could kill anyone. So yeah, Kilgrave needed to die but Jessica also needed to go on her journey of self-discovery, and that was a lot more important in the grand scheme of things. HIJK fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Jessica Jones Did Nothing Wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Snak posted:Jessica is a private eye. Her job is literally to find evidence and confront people with the truth because they won't believe poo poo they don't want to believe without proof. Jessica learns through the course of the show that killing Kilgrave is the only way. I would assume the time she spent mind controlled by Kilgrave could be considered as gathering evidence(that's hes super loving dangerous) but I guess not  Snak posted:Explain to me how the idea "you are stupid if you don't shoot a person who is a threat" is not related to cops shooting people? Only if you post in that thread as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
HIJK posted:Okay, that's cool. I understand that and I think you're 100% valid though I don't agree. I admit that my big post earlier was um, a little aggressive. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to "thought-police" anyone. I'm tired of a criticism which I don't feel has been adequately backed-up. Again, there has been some huge mix-up with the claim that I am making. I am not making ANY CLAIMS WHAT-SO-EVER about what the people who want Jessica to have shot Kilgrave endorse in real life. I am asking about the mindset they imagine Jessica in to think that sniping Kilgrave is a good idea. I'm not making judgement's on people's opinions AT ALL. I'm asking them to clarify what sort of person they think Jessica would be to go "Kilgrave is alive, I should snipe him". Jesus, maybe I need to never post sober again, because this is apparently my least cohesive and most misunderstood argument ever. I'm gonna go drink now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
So it looks like next season we'll be finding out about IGH. Maybe they will even set up Simpson as the villain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Snak posted:I admit that my big post earlier was um, a little aggressive. I'm sorry. Too many red pills?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
HIJK posted:I mean they managed to stretch 10 episodes of material to 13 so it wouldn't be impossible. Ten is almost being generous Snak posted:Jesus, maybe I need to never post again 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Too many red pills? But no really, alcohol withdrawal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
You wrote all those words and I'm not sure you know what plot armor is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
It gives +5 armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Plot armor is the armor the main character gets. See, a cartoon told me, so it must be true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do y'all think the Iliad is bullshit because Achilles didn't wear armor on his heel at all times? Well now that you mention it
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Well now that you mention it Achilles is neither invincible in the Illiad, nor is he killed by a hit to the heel in it. He's injured by a cut on the elbow at one point and lives through the entire thing. The Achilles Heel legend arose due to a later play or something if I recall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
tsob posted:Achilles is neither invincible in the Illiad, nor is he killed by a hit to the heel in it. He's injured by a cut on the elbow at one point and lives through the entire thing. The Achilles Heel legend arose due to a later play or something if I recall. That's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Well a complete exegesis on the origins of the Achilles Heel myth seemed a little deeper than my "uh what's the most widely known symbolic literary device of all time" reference called for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
loving fan fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
tsob posted:Achilles is neither invincible in the Illiad, nor is he killed by a hit to the heel in it. He's injured by a cut on the elbow at one point and lives through the entire thing. The Achilles Heel legend arose due to a later play or something if I recall. His death is recounted in other stories though, and it mostly does involve him taking an arrow to the tooterfish fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
The stories involving his death are a lot more recent than the Illiad itself by several hundred years from what can be gathered and appear to just be the result of playwrights giving their own spin on things and not originally part of the Illiad or any associated stories. The fact that the same stories involve him being invincible except for the heel when he's injured by a slice on the elbow during the Illiad would also point to it being a later author's own version of events to suit themselves. Edit: Really I guess I was just pointing it out since the Illiad is what most people associate the guy with but the thing he's most famous for isn't in the Illiad and I think that's kind of funny/interesting and vaguely relevant when someone is comparing it to how people would probably complain about that nowadays. tsob fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Oh boy, we've got another Achilles Truther here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Greek fire cannot melt Trojan walls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The Fall of Troy was an inside job! ...wait
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
tsob posted:The stories involving his death are a lot more recent than the Illiad itself by several hundred years from what can be gathered and appear to just be the result of playwrights giving their own spin on things and not originally part of the Illiad or any associated stories. The fact that the same stories involve him being invincible except for the heel when he's injured by a slice on the elbow during the Illiad would also point to it being a later author's own version of events to suit themselves. These stories come from an oral tradition hundreds of years older than the earliest written works, many of them might even be older than that (the Greeks had a dark age too). There is no authoritative author, no "canon"... they're cultural artefacts. There are many different versions of the same stories, and probably many more versions that are lost forever. Do you see how in that context, unilaterally declaring parts of a mythology invalid because the earliest source is only 2000 years old instead of 2200 years old is a little bit silly? Also, stop misspelling Iliad, it's triggering me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Sorry about all this Achilles business, thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:There are many different versions of the same stories, and probably many more versions that are lost forever. Do you see how in that context, unilaterally declaring parts of a mythology invalid because the earliest source is only 2000 years old instead of 2200 years old is a little bit silly? I wasn't declaring it untrue or invalid, just pointing out that it didn't happen in the Iliad. Which it didn't, it happened in the Achilleid, which is a different thing. It's about some of the same events, but it's still a different story. zoux posted:Sorry about all this Achilles business, thread. I wish I hadn't replied either now. I only wanted to point out a thing I thought was funny and/or interesting and apparently it's upset some people for reasons I'm not even entirely sure of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
zoux posted:Sorry about all this Achilles business, thread. You shouldn't apologize, it's been the most interesting convo for about 30 pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
tsob posted:I wish I hadn't replied either now. I only wanted to point out a thing I thought was funny and/or interesting For what it's worth I agree with you mostly, you just seemed to be carrying your own misconceptions too. I probably am as well. tsob posted:and apparently it's upset some people for reasons I'm not even entirely sure of. tooterfish posted:Also, stop misspelling Iliad, it's triggering me. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:For what it's worth I agree with you mostly, you just seemed to be carrying your own misconceptions too. I probably am as well. Oh I definitely am. I am for from an expert on the Iliad and haven't even read it, only listened to an audiobook about it's history, themes and so on from The Teaching Company. The fact I was spelling it wrong despite spellcheck highlighting it should be proof enough of how ill informed I am on it I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Iliad is a bit dry, mostly because the better part of it is spent name dropping everyone who's fighting the battle (I mean literally everyone, and their loving ancestry to boot). It does have some pretty graphic descriptions of people's guts spilling out though, so there's that. Odyssey is generally a better story, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Iliad is a bit dry, mostly because the better part of it is spent name dropping everyone who's fighting the battle (I mean literally everyone, and their loving ancestry to boot). It does have some pretty graphic descriptions of people's guts spilling out though, so there's that. The Odyssey: Athena Basically Just loving with Ulysses the Entire Time
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:The Odyssey: Athena Basically Just loving with Ulysses the Entire Time I thought it was Hera and Poseidon loving with Odysseys and Athena was on his side. It's been a long rear end time since I read it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
^^^ Your memory isn't messing with you. I don't know what that poster's thinking but Odysseus was Athena's favored general.tsob posted:Oh I definitely am. I am for from an expert on the Iliad and haven't even read it, only listened to an audiobook about it's history, themes and so on from The Teaching Company. The fact I was spelling it wrong despite spellcheck highlighting it should be proof enough of how ill informed I am on it I suppose. But if you want to cut the legs out from underneath anyone claiming Achilles' invulnerability in the Iliad, the easiest way to do so isn't the slice on the arm. It's the entire book that's dedicated to describing the armor and shield that Hephaestus crafts for him after Patroclus' death (Patroclus was wearing Achilles' armor when he fought Hector, and Hector claimed it as spoils). The hell does an invulnerable man need with god-forged armor? And why spend a whole book on it if Achilles doesn't even need it? Also, to correct another post, the Iliad doesn't end with Achilles parading Hector's body around and pissing off the gods. It ends with geriatric Priam doing something that impresses even Achilles--sneaking into the Greek camp itself (Hermes' assistance notwithstanding)--and Achilles, recognizing both Priam's bravery and his own sacrilege, gives Hector's body back to the grieving father. It's an important conclusion; the thing about Achilles that saves him from hubris is that he respects the will of the gods when it's revealed to him, which is why book 24 ends with Hector's funeral pyre and not a scattered assortment of limbs. To get things a bit on subject, ancient mythology is a lot like comic books in that the details are often left up to the writer. All they had to do was make the character familiar enough that audiences would roll with it. Just as Siegel and Shuster's commie Superman is radically different from Frank Miller's government slave, so too is Homer's Achilles very different from the playwrights and storytellers who came after. As a very extreme example, Euripides' Medea is essentially a mash-up of Achilles and Odysseus' most dominant traits (passion/rage and cleverness), his whole purpose being to call traditional "virtues" into question. AtraMorS fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I thought it was Hera and Poseidon loving with Odysseys and Athena was on his side. It's been a long rear end time since I read it though. Yeah Athena is pretty much the only person in the entire epic to give Odysseus a break. That and his dog, for like two seconds. mycot fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
tooterfish posted:Iliad is a bit dry, mostly because the better part of it is spent name dropping everyone who's fighting the battle (I mean literally everyone, and their loving ancestry to boot). It does have some pretty graphic descriptions of people's guts spilling out though, so there's that. Now I'm sad that no one has pitched an Iliad/Trojan Cycle Netflix series
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:43
|
|
