Jessica Jones Jessica Jones FULL SEASON THREE Discussion Thread (BEWARE, SPOILERS GALORE!)

Discussion in 'Past Marvel Series' started by flickchick85, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. Dr. From parts unknown

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,084
    Likes Received:
    898
    Finally caught up to season three. I’m still mulling. But my first impression: astonishingly impressive. Better than season two (which I thought was good if not great). Maybe even better that season one. For me, S3 was more thematically daring than anything prior. And, more importantly, the execution matched the ambition. Really top-quality television.

    As a regular Arrowverse watcher (I’m a masochist, obviously :word:), I’m deeply envious. I wish those shows were 1/10th as good as Jessica Jones.
     
    SPO2 Dalisay likes this.
  2. Fluedd Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely agree, this is total hypocrisy and a complete double standard. Punisher, Wolverine, Deadpool, they all kill casually.

    But I supposed to feel good about the ending because Jessica decides she isn't going to give up on her life? Why am I supposed to care about that after watching this depressing stuff about Trish being driven over the edge because her mother was killed in the most horrible way imaginable? And the result is she gets put in prison for the rest of her days. Sickening.
     
  3. Dr. From parts unknown

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,084
    Likes Received:
    898
    Obviously, all the Marvel/Netflix shows exist within the same universe. But I think we have to allow that, individually, each show will have different points of view at a thematic level. And in turn, this can mean that moral boundaries governing/endorsing characters’ behavior aren’t necessarily interchangeable; i.e., what’s established for The Punisher doesn’t necessarily hold true for Jessica Jones. Each “hero’s journey” proceeds according to its own internal rules.
     
  4. SPO2 Dalisay Rebel in exile, again.

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    179
    For the show, not the fan base it was introduced out of nowhere the "one of them" concept and the fear of the enhanced, in the MCU or "the powered" in the Defenders wing of the MCU. Which seemed to come out of nowhere with Luke Cage being the hero of Harlem. We were left with folks believing the authorities about Killgrave and that justifiable murder being major news. Only the number of "powered" people was so small, unless you can count on an explosion of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Inhumans causing unseen on screen general mayhem, I really don't see how public opinion could shift so hard so fast.

    While we knew of Matt Murdock's enhancements only Fisk and Frank Castle knew of it in the Defenders world. And Frank Castle was just a bull headed Marine, not powered thus were treated differently from a powered Patsy. Perhaps for the fan base it was the Hellcat attack on the tax cheat who was in therapy for his spousal abuse which made her different from the Punisher, before his final scene.
     
  5. Fluedd Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, individually, every person has a different point of view. But the Marvel shows especially exist in a smaller universe than the MCU in general. Heck, the MCU barely acknowledges the TV shows. But getting back to individuals, Trish was unfortunate that she had Costa to deal with instead of Madani. Although it was Jessica who was so hell bent on getting Trish thrown in the Raft rathole for the rest of her life.

    Don't get me wrong, I believe Trish was wrong. But if you look at it in the context of the entire Marvel universe, we're told by the writers to feel differently about her than other Marvel antiheroes. Even though the only person she killed intentionally was Sallinger, and that dirtbag had it coming if anyone did. It was dumb to invade police headquarters to get revenge, but that wouldn't have stopped the Punisher either. We don't get any people screaming in horror because Billy Russo was killed, or disfigured. I guess we're supposed to hate Trish in comparison because she had a TV show.
     
  6. Dr. From parts unknown

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,084
    Likes Received:
    898
    Obviously, S3 charts Trish’s tragic passage to the dark side. But since the milieu is vigilante superheroes, this descent can’t just entail stepping outside the technicalities of the legal system. It has to be about extreme transgressions of certain moral codes - lines which Jessica (who is, after all, the hero of the story and the counterpoint to Trish) doesn’t cross. Moreover, we also have the empath fellow who is (apparently) a reliable barometer of evil. And by the end of S3, he pronounces that Trish - most definitely - has gone over to the dark side. Even Trish, herself, admits as much.

    So as a viewer - looking at the season (and series) as a self-contained narrative - I was satisfied by this plot logic. Put another way: I didn’t need Trish to commit additional acts of violence or murder in order to more firmly cement her morally compromised status - or to rationalize Jessica’s decision to stop her. The acts Trish was already guilty of were, for me, sufficient.

    Now, interpreting the Marvel/Netflix shows as a single continuity is an interesting notion. And if we assume the same arc for Trish, I suppose she would have to commit more extreme brutalities - simply because characters from the other series had already done equivalent (or worse) deeds without the same moral repercussions.

    However, it seems to me that this interpretation is optional. For instance, I can choose to treat Jessica Jones as a standalone story - which makes the broader continuity irrelevant. Indeed, I can - quite legitimately - watch Jessica Jones without ever having seen (or needing to see) any of the other Netflix series. Therefore, the charge of moral “double standard” isn’t an objective fact; it’s subjective, in the eye of the beholder.
     
    SPO2 Dalisay likes this.
  7. Fluedd Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's probably true, for the most part. I've tried to watch all the Marvel series in order of release, so for me they're one continuous story. And I feel like the show promotes this universal feel, we see the new Luke Cage in the final episode, with his new job and new threads. But fair enough.

    For me, I can't help but wonder if Jessica would be so hell bent on going after Frank Castle because he had slaughtered some bad guy. I tend to doubt it.

    Also, on the face of it, I don't like that they besmirched the Patsy Walker character, knowing at least some of her long history in the comics. It's as if someone would have written Lois Lane or Martha Kent as a murderer, just to make for an edgier story.
     
  8. SPO2 Dalisay Rebel in exile, again.

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    179
    Only the Devil of Hell's Kitchen and the Iron Fists went after random criminals. If Castle started shooting at someone involved in Jessica's case, like her sister did then Jessica Jones would have gotten involved. Even if she has zero protection from someone willing to shoot her.

    Her sister being in the mix made it her responsibility, just like her mother was before the Hellcat put her down.
     
  9. dmcreif Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    48
    The morals for this season are fine when contained within the arc of Jessica Jones, but are really shaky when you bring in the rest of the shows.

    The Punisher: Frank Castle hurt innocent guards and cops who got in his way. Remember the discussion about how he put down the guards that were protecting Colonel Bennett in his first solo season? And the guys he went after weren't nearly as bad as Nussbaumer or Montero. A corrupt cop kid-murderer and an arsonist are way clearer cut badguys then goverment sanctioned black-ops that resort to torture and murder in a foreign warzone. It's literally the difference between killing kids and innocent people vs enemy soldiers.

    Daredevil:
    Matt beat the **** out of multiple cops and FBI agents, and killed a COUNTLESS number of ninjas and Hand. There's literally a character defining scene in Season 1 where he tortures a Russian on Claire's roof. Oh and you have Stick sending assassins after allies, beheading people. Karen Page kills Wesley and apparently "THAT'S FINE!" Wesley, while doing lots of reprehensible dirty work for Fisk, probably was not personally responsible for killing and torturing eight completely innocent people.

    Matt kills Nobu, burns him alive. So a ninja doesn't deserve due process, but some serial killer does? Nobu was a businessman too, a high-ranking member of Murakami's Hand faction who served as the mouthpiece between Murakami and Fisk. Serial killers are almost objectively worse than ninjas, apparently, because Sallinger killed random innocent people for fun, while the Hand Ninjas only basically attacked Daredevil and the Defenders and other targets in the name of an ancient goal.

    Iron Fist: In his first season, Danny Rand hired out the Triad to attack a rival gang. He knew they would murder and maim their opponents. He exacted and presided over Triad law. Also in The Defenders, Colleen totally decapitated Bakuto. Head sliced right off.

    Ward Meachum kills his dad TWICE with no legal repercussions. He ordered mercenaries to literally kill Danny, and got forgiven for all THAT ****, no jail time, nothing. But Trish killing a corrupt cop..arsonist..these are things we can't do?

    What about Danny shooting at people with the chi guns in the last scene of season 2? Opening fire with two magic guns in the middle of a barfight is reckless and attempted murder. It's worse than Trish literally punching people that shoot at her and use tasers, or some guy who uses an axe then a shovel.

    The Defenders: When Jessica's actions in The Defenders are considered, she looks hypocritical. She's fine with killing random ninjas and then blowing up a skyscraper on top of them, and then SUPER concerned about some two bit trash serial killer. Does due process only come into play with white dudes? How does she know those ninjas aren't American citizens? And Jessica had no problems with Stick killing Sowande (a black guy). The rule of law is suspended for magical coloreds, apparently.

    Luke Cage: Luke is literally the poster boy of vigilante assaults. In season 2, he beats up Cockroach so badly that he gets sued. He wages a war on Bushmaster and Mariah etc all without proof from the police, no due process whatsoever. He literally rolls into a drug factory with Danny and there's explosions everywhere, heavy machine gun fire, ricochets. Did they call the police? No? Follow due process? No. Did they even GOOGLE? No. Trish used Internet research, on the other hand, to prove her target's guilt.

    The case for Trish:

    And this show portrays Trish as the menace? [sigh] The targets Trish went after were confirmed murderers of innocent/helpless people. She confronted them, gave them a chance to admit on tape, and then they attacked her (she was unarmed) with lethal weapons.

    Trish has no super durability of any kind. She's just as vulnerable as Matt is in that regard. If she gets axed or shot, it's over. Sallinger, Naussbaumer and Montero were legitimate, lethal threats that attacked her when she threatened to reveal their criminal activities. We literally see it in the show. She shows them the evidence, that she's "GOT" them, and boom, they attack. Because Trish had those events on tape, she would be found not guilty. Accusing someone of a crime doesn't give them the right to attack with lethal weapons and force. Fighting back after being attacked with a weapon and killing the attacker isn't a crime.

    Hell, Jessica herself literally sends guys flying through crates- only because super hero logic do those guys not die from being impaled.

    The double standard this show has for Trish/Hellcat is crazy. Apparently, Jessica is fine with the Punisher, Danny Rand and Daredevil running around beating people up but Trish is the main threat to NYC's rule of law. Jessica Jones also shows the NYPD as strangely competent and reliable, far more than real life, or for that matter, the other shows where the NYPD is barely effective and/or corrupt.

    Where was Jessica when Davos was running around Chinatown murdering people? She certainly spends a lot of time there. She didn't think to get annoyed when Matt was running around beating up cops and FBI agents?
     
  10. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    Yeah, i didn't watch past season 1, after finding out what it did to Trish and Jessica's relationship, to the point of turning Trish into a villain.
     
  11. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    Jessica killed Killgrave. She was fighting with the defenders, where they brought down that building. Didn't people die there?
     
  12. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    She smiled in his face and mimiced what Hope told her at the beginning of the season. How is that not some form of malice?
     
  13. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    She smiled cause she was pretending to be under his control. Remember, Killgrave commanded her to ''smile'' so she had to in order to get close. But her intent was to perfect Trish and everyone else there. I thought this was very obvious.

    If she just wanted to flat murder him, she easily could have. She had him unconscious after she drugged him during that dinner scene. Her goal was to bring him to justice until Trish and those people on the bridge were threatened, and she no longer had a choice.

    Context matters
     
    #38 Spider-Fan, May 5, 2020
    Last edited: May 5, 2020
    flickchick85 and SPO2 Dalisay like this.
  14. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    I'm more or less using that and her telling him to smile in that way before she kills him. Just watching it now, she looked nd sounded angry to me. How does that have no malice in it?

    If I remember correctly, she wanted proof, to get Hope out of prison.
     
  15. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here? If you're asking why Jessica's actions had no malice, I explained that in great detail. Please refer to that above post fit that explanation as I am not going to keep repeating the same thing. Otherwise, I don't get your point.
     
  16. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    Why would she throw the smile thing back in his face, by telling him to smile, before killing him, if she had no malice in her actions? And I think she sounded angry and looked it, in that scene, just watching it now. Aren't those showcases of that, in a way?
     
  17. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    But that remark is not why she is killing him. She's killing him out of protection of someone she loves and necessity. Quip or no quip. Unless you're trying to insinuate that she wasn't going to kill him until he made that remark, and that was a bridge too far or something. Either way, she didn't kill him out of malice. I find it really hard to argue otherwise.
     
  18. Dr. From parts unknown

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,084
    Likes Received:
    898
    Even if there was malice (and I think Jessica was entitled to some), there's another crucial -- and somewhat unique -- factor as well: literally no prison could hold Kilgrave. So taking his life was less an execution or act of vengeance and more akin to justifiable homicide. Thus, this particular act by Jessica and those committed by Trish in season 3 are morally distinguishable.
     
  19. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    I don't even think you have to go that far. There is a big difference between hating somebody and doing something out of hate. Did she hate Killgrave? Absolutely she did and she had every reason to. But her action of killing him was not done out of hate. It was done to protect people. Also, after the fact Jessica was very disturbed by it and it haunted her. You can see the damage that did to her all throughout the show. Conversely, Trish was just killing bad guys because she gets off on it. Really that's the end of the story. I just don't really think there is any valid argument that she killed Killgrave out of hatred or malice. The show simply does not support that thesis.
     
    SPO2 Dalisay likes this.
  20. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    Based on the tone of her voice and the look on her face, along with that repeating line in there, I don't see there's no malice in there.
    Couldn't she have cut his tongue out or ripped it out?
     
  21. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    Why does tha mean Trish should get consequences for her actions and Jessica not? Why does that mean Trish has to be the one put away above all other criminals, like Punisher, who kill, to Jessica?
     
  22. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    Killgrave was actively threatening people at the time of his killing. There is legal precedent to protect people under those circumstances. But you can't just go to a killer's house randomly and kill them. That's illegal. The difference is obvious.
     
  23. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    As far as I remember, she didn't have to. She could've broke his jaw, ripped his tongue out, and he couldn't talk. Tell that to Punisher. When is Jessica gonna go after him? The show and Jessica pinpoints Trish. In spite of not only that, but also And she gets sent to the raft, run by Ross of all people (unless that's changed). Am I supposed to be happy about this? Along with Jessica, as far as I've read, being willing run away with her mom after what she'd done, and, as far as I've read, killing that prison guard and covering it up (irregardless of what he'd done). Where's the legal standards there? Why does the legal system only apply to Trish?
     
  24. Spider-Fan SHHFFL 2014/2019 Champion

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    55,979
    Likes Received:
    9,061
    No one caught her for the prison guard. Hard to arrest people for something you're not caught for. Also, the cops think she killed her mother on self defense and that she was basically kidnapped. So again, what do you want her charged for?

    I am sorry amigo, but I think you need to watch the show again. You're trying to use audience knowledge against Jessica here, ignoring what characters actually know, and you're argument on the Killgrave event just doesn't hold water in anyway. So I am sensing either a character bias, not remembering the for events properly, or just missing something.
     
  25. fan4stic Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    326
    I know these things. I want the show to hold Jessica responsible the same way it does Trish. Jessica has to have Trish turned over. But she shouldn't be? Why should Trish go away, but Jessica shouldn't? They've both committed crimes. Jessica, as far as I've read, was gonna help her mom. Jessica killed that prison guard and covered it up. Am I supposed to see Jessica as right? Or see the show's treatment of this story as right?

    Didn't Killgrave have to talk to control people? If so, then Jessica didn't have to kill him and could've ripped his tongue out?

    Isn't there a character bias in the idea that Jessica's actions aren't being held responsible, by the show itself?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"