"I'm hot for the gal who murdered my wife."
Yup. Super-lucky.
Yup. Super-lucky.
Jessica Jones-- Marvel/Netflix
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
I just finished up episode 4 this morning and I am loving the show. The whole cast did a great job.
This episode
So do we start getting more than one or two short scenes with Kilgrave per episode soon? I'm perfectly happy with the show either way, I'm just curious.
This episode
did a great job of showing just how paranoid dealing with somebody Kilgrave can make you. Kristen Ritter really did a great job showing that paranoia and PTSD that Kilgrave caused.
The whole Simpsons/Trish relationship that developed here was interesting. It's pretty rare where you have a situation like this and the attacker is just as sympathetic as the victim. I really liked the scene of them talking through the door.
Wow, I did not see what they're implying about the Malcom coming. I'm very curious to see if everything with him is what it appears to be.
The whole Simpsons/Trish relationship that developed here was interesting. It's pretty rare where you have a situation like this and the attacker is just as sympathetic as the victim. I really liked the scene of them talking through the door.
Wow, I did not see what they're implying about the Malcom coming. I'm very curious to see if everything with him is what it appears to be.
I really like the relationship between Jessica and Luke. The reveal of his powers was a great moment, and had to be pretty crazy for people who didn't know about the comic character
^ You'll see a lot more of Kilgrave. The mystery will unfold.
@ Christopher: The difference is that neither the audience nor Jessica would have known that it was rape when it was happening.
Mind you, I'm leaning toward your guys's interpretation of the intention of this plot twist, but the Kilgrave lines that I quoted muddy the water by implying something else...hence the fact that I was confused about it in the first place. I have to wonder if maybe Tenant's lines in that scene were partly improvised and he went a little OTT with it against the story's intent.
Also,
Mind you, I'm leaning toward your guys's interpretation of the intention of this plot twist, but the Kilgrave lines that I quoted muddy the water by implying something else...hence the fact that I was confused about it in the first place. I have to wonder if maybe Tenant's lines in that scene were partly improvised and he went a little OTT with it against the story's intent.
Also,
Cage would have been his true self at the end either way. And whatever the exact intended state of their relationship is supposed to be at the end, it makes sense to leave his relationship with Jessica in a less than ideal place because he's off to his own show next, which I get the impression she isn't co-starring in.
Which absolutely does not make it any better. If anything, it makes it worse.
No, it's just that Kilgrave lies. He twists the facts to fit his narrative. That's what gaslighting is. As this article marvelously expounds, it's a standard technique of abusers -- per Wikipedia (emphasis added), "a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity."
Kilgrave's "It was all me" was selectively omitting the parts of Luke and Jessica's relationship that weren't his doing.
The thing to remember is that Kilgrave is able to influence people even without his power, through his choice of words and the spin he puts on events. He's a master manipulator and deceiver even when he doesn't or can't control people directly. Which initially gave me problems from a credibility standpoint, because why would he need to develop more devious tactics for control when he could just do it by brute force with his power? But we know his powers wouldn't work over the phone or through e-mail, say, so I guess he needed to learn other ways of manipulating people so that he'd never have to lose control.
Except
all Luke did at the end was to wake up and disappear. There was no final scene between him and Jessica. She was away when he woke up, and by the time she got home, he was gone. So there was no "at the end" for them. Just a dangling thread.
There was no end scene for Luke and Jessica, but Luke had some significant time with Claire. We saw the real him, and regardless of how one interprets Kilgrave's control over him earlier in the story, it doesn't magically add meaningful closure scenes between him and Jessica. The exact state of their relationship was left unresolved either way.
^But the point is, it's the beginning of their relationship that matters. It has to be real, or they have no actual relationship at all. And that, as I've said, would be a terrible storytelling choice and a betrayal of the fans who care about the Luke/Jessica relationship.
It wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for the story that the show was trying to tell...it just wouldn't have been living up to the expectations of the minority of the audience who were familiar with the comic. In another context, you'd be the first person listing off examples of successful adaptations of comics in other media that took liberties with the source material.
Last edited:
^The key word being "successful." I don't generalize, because each case is distinct. What you're proposing would simply be a bad idea on multiple levels.
Not that I agree Cage was being Kilgraved the whole time (clearly, that wasn't the case) but it's worth remembering that his and Jessica's relationship has already gone to a very messed up place and one could argue it's already not "real".
I mean she basically stalked him because she second-hand killed his ex and then slept with him under false pretences *after* intentionally torpedoing his relationship with that married woman.
It's kind of hard not to see that as her being deeply manipulative, even if one argues that she didn't fully realise that's what she was doing.
So yeah, no Kilgrave necessary on that count.
I mean she basically stalked him because she second-hand killed his ex and then slept with him under false pretences *after* intentionally torpedoing his relationship with that married woman.
It's kind of hard not to see that as her being deeply manipulative, even if one argues that she didn't fully realise that's what she was doing.
So yeah, no Kilgrave necessary on that count.
A bit too many twists and turns for my tastes, but a very good 13 episode introduction. Dragged on a bit too long for my tastes. Preferred Daredevil.
So weird to show so little of female anatomy given all the sex scenes.
So weird to show so little of female anatomy given all the sex scenes.
Well, Marvel wants to keep its Netflix shows to more of a hard PG-13 than an R, as it were. Note that they avoid the F-word as well. Also, given the subject matter in JJ, I can understand why they didn't want to seem exploitative or objectifying toward women. Still, I've never been a fan of the "L-shaped sheets" trope, or the way women in bedroom scenes carefully keep their torsos covered with the sheets even when they're alone with their lovers, which makes no sense. It's just so self-conscious and artificial.
Not saying this in a bad way, but it seems that Jessica Jones was written with female viewers in mind. Most of the the roles that appear in media are flipped here. The strong super hero isn't played by a man, but a woman. The eye candy is aim at women, not men, in this show.
But, yeah, Marvel would still want to stay away from an R rating. Also, as with House of Cards, this show will still air on TV in some areas.
Over all, I loved the show, but the final "battle" seemed anticlimactic. I just finished it last night so I am still possessing it.
I think a more accurate way of putting it is that it's wasn't specifically aimed at pleasing the male audience, which is not the same thing.
It's still a gritty and violent psychological crime drama, not some fuzzy romantic comedy like most media specifically aimed at women.
Fair enough. I can agree to that.
I finally started this show. It's ok.
I'm on the episode 99 Friends, and I had a chuckle when the lady and Jessica refer to "The Incident" (the Chitauri Invasion in Avengers), and all the "death" and "destruction" caused by it. It's like they're trying to retroactively make the NYC invasion worse than it actually was shown. AOS did this back in season one. Although I forget what the actual body count was though.
I'm on the episode 99 Friends, and I had a chuckle when the lady and Jessica refer to "The Incident" (the Chitauri Invasion in Avengers), and all the "death" and "destruction" caused by it. It's like they're trying to retroactively make the NYC invasion worse than it actually was shown. AOS did this back in season one. Although I forget what the actual body count was though.
I re-watched this while running in the gym, the body count had to be pretty decent given the level of destruction we saw (I think at least two buildings go down) plus various foot soldiers running through buildings shooting at people.
Yeah, even though they mostly contained things to a three block radius of Stark Tower and the cops evacuating people down into the basements & subways there had to be a *lot* of collateral damage even in the first few minutes. A three block radius in every direction is still something like 50 buildings, each with potentially hundreds if not thousands of people in each.
With all the damaged and destroyed buildings, the falling debris, the Leviathans pancaking things as they go down and all the roving footsoldiers and flyers, I can easily see casualties numbering at least a thousand, to say nothing of the number of injured and maimed.
So yeah, it's not all that unreasonable to equate "The Incident" to a lot of death and destruction.
With all the damaged and destroyed buildings, the falling debris, the Leviathans pancaking things as they go down and all the roving footsoldiers and flyers, I can easily see casualties numbering at least a thousand, to say nothing of the number of injured and maimed.
So yeah, it's not all that unreasonable to equate "The Incident" to a lot of death and destruction.
I don't doubt it. Its just what we saw doesn't fully mesh with what they are saying happened.
AoS: Stated thousands of people died, but when you watch the movie, the Chitauri have the aim of OT Stormtroopers.
Daredevil: Large portions of Hell's Kitchen were destroyed during the invasion. Stark Tower is located in Midtown Manhattan. That means the Chitauri spread out a lot further than the 3 blocks Captain America said contain the fight to.
Jessica Jones: Characters assert a high death toll (probably relative given who said it) and that buildings were falling and people were crushed by debris. To my recollection, I only saw one building fall, and it was in the background, out of frame, blink and you miss it. It was right before Tony did his Jonah and the whale bit.
I laugh because compared to the devastation wrought by the Decepticons in Transformers 3, Kryptonians in MOS, and Ultron Bots in Age of Ultron, NYC got of really light; all in the context of the movie. The subsequent shows trying to paint it as being worse than what we actually saw is funny to me. I'd venture a guess that the people at Marvel are trying to retroactively change the scale of what the Avengers fought for. A cannon fodder army of space orcs, that was ostensibly hacked and slashed to pieces by the Avengers (even the non super powered ones) is hardly the stuff of legends.
Or maybe I think about these things too much. Haha
I'm on episode 9 and this show just got a whole lot more interesting.
Keep in mind that Avengers was a family friendly summer block buster--rated '12' over here IIRC, which I assume means it was PG-13 in the states--which means they *can't* really show the full carnage in explicit detail, it can only be implied.
Also, the statement from 'Jessica Jones' is from a ground level perspective, whereas Avengers was more about the big picture interspersed with some exciting action scenes.
Imagine for a second that you're walking down 5th Avenue and suddenly a giant snake thing flies overhead, knocks a huge chunk out of a building which then falls and crushes about five cars and a dozen pedestrians right in front of you. That's horrifying and it's what was mostly what was happening all over Midtown.
Also, the statement from 'Jessica Jones' is from a ground level perspective, whereas Avengers was more about the big picture interspersed with some exciting action scenes.
Imagine for a second that you're walking down 5th Avenue and suddenly a giant snake thing flies overhead, knocks a huge chunk out of a building which then falls and crushes about five cars and a dozen pedestrians right in front of you. That's horrifying and it's what was mostly what was happening all over Midtown.
