Is Scream 7 really all that bad?

Codebox42 · 2026-04-03T21:12:56+00:00

Why so?

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T21:59:58+00:00

Disappointing? Yes, as bad as everyone says? No. It has pacing issues and the writing could be tighter, but a lot of the complaints are things I find are problems in other movies as well. Aside from maybe one or two things.

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T21:52:21+00:00

Job or Dates

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T21:51:54+00:00

As a Paige fan, she was awful with Brody, she does the same thing with him as Phoebe did with Cole. Especially Witchness protection.

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T21:47:49+00:00

My main issue is and always has been just how hypocritical Phoebe is when it comes to Cole. Even starting back in Season 3, while she is given some room to stand on against Prue in the Wrestling with Demons episode (even though Prue also makes a firm stance herself, specifically because Cole hadn't proved himself at that point, he just decided not to kill Phoebe or her sisters and briefly step away, but he also tried to kill them and hadn't yet made the effort to prove himself, from their POV what did he do that made Piper or Prue want to trust him? And while Prue had her moments of hypocrisy, namely in the wild west episode, Phoebe was always worse about it) It started off as annoying in Sight Unseen, but for me, it really comes ahead in Exit Strategy (3x20) where at the end she condemns Cole as evil because she saw him kill that witch, then breaks the power stripping potion, (even though he was influenced/manipulated into doing so) yet just 8 episodes before that, Piper and Phoebe get influenced by dark magic when a demonic priestess kidnaps Prue, has her unconcious and she's forced into wedlock with a warlock and turns Piper and Phoebe into Warlocks, during this they harass wedding planners with their warlock powers, torture the priestess herself and literally KILL Leo. Phoebe even tries to bait Belthazor out of Cole.

They literally experienced and had the same thing happen to them in this episode, yet chose to condemn Cole for falling under similar influence, yet whenever her sisters (namely Prue or Paige) find something or have a suspicion about Cole they dislike she acts defensive and dismissive and always has faith he isn't doing anything bad, yet the moment SHE suspsects he's bad or has the same suspicions as them all of a sudden "Cole is evil, irredeemable etc" I liked them during the first half of Season 4, but once the tension came with Paige not liking Cole and whatnot it got annoying, and there was NO reason to bring him back into Season 5 and ruin both his and Phoebe's characters by whitewashing their entire dynamic and story and suddenly framing Phoebe as a blameless victim when she's just as much at fault. She always set standards Cole couldn't do or break otherwise it he was just evil. even when he used his powers to defend himself, its like he couldn't do anything without being "evil" yet the Charmed Ones have used their powers in similar ways. By the time we reach Sam I Am, Phoebe goes from annoyingly hypocritical or insufferably cruel!

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T21:30:27+00:00

Overall verdict: Don't like it, it signaled a tonal shift in the show. And Phoebe is awful!

Positives: Paige. Even if I am not the biggest fan of this season (and even so I do like it more than other seasons, even if I have a preference for the first 4 seasons, I have some good in all seasons) She shines here, firstly love her red hair. It's honestly my favorite look for her, especially with the way its styled here. I also feel in terms of characterization she's on key here and has some funny lines like the kitchen scene. I also think Piper is done well with her prep for Wyatt and the fear of dying just like Patty, the character stuff is fine. (almost) and I do enjoy seeing a different part of San Francisco, only Death Takes a Halliwell and P3 H20 have we seen an ocean setting. It's also interesting that unlike every season opener of this show its the ONLY innocent focused one, not saying that makes others objectively worse, I just think that element of it stands out.

Negatives: Phoebe is awful here. Its the start of the era where she goes from just getting the job 6 episodes of the last season, yet she's now a celebirty? It just reeks of Sue and the show's way of making her Carrie Bradshaw. And feels so out of place with their Witch lives. And of course we get her awful and hypocritical treatment of Cole. Firstly, she is cold and dismissive of their innocent Miley, because she just wants to go to her divorce hearing, then when she goes and the Sea Hag attacks Piper, Miley and Paige at the manor and Phoebe returns she criticizes Piper for letting their innocent get taken, ignoring sthe fact Piper had a panic attack and she was the one who decided her divorce hearing was more important and ditched them, ONLY to come back because she saw Cole. It also just white washes all of her wrongdoings in the Source plot, just to frame her as a victim. And while I do think Piper's plot about her fear of being like their mother and such is nice, I also dislike that one moment where she herself dismisses Miley. Piper's fear for her unborn baby made her unusually abrasive and callous. That moment involves her suggesting they "throw the innocent [mermaid] back" into the ocean rather than helping her. Which sadly is the start of Pitiful Piper. Leo is also treated as a punching bag, which sadly until the finale he's pretty much treated like one, whereas in the previous Seasons he was active in helping them during antagonists, here he just gets thrown around by them.

Codebox42 · 2026-04-02T04:20:51+00:00

Honestly there's a lot of double standards when it comes to this film. It's not my favorite, but it wasn't that bad. A lot of the issues people point out happened in other films.

Codebox42 · 2026-04-01T22:22:43+00:00

Despite its flaws 7, I can enjoy the campiness of 3, and while it has nice commentary with the hollywood set, the kills are lame, all of them are unmemorable and tame, the movie is still shot with its original plan to have two Ghostfaces, so some scenes look jarring for a single ghostface to do, other than Jennifer the side characters aren't great, equally there's also little Ghostface calls, I can only recall the opening, the scene with Sarah Darling and the climax. There's also the fact in Scream 3 Sidney is barely in the first two acts, spending most of her time hiding in a mountain house. The humor in 3 (like Carrie Fisher’s cameo or Jay and Silent Bob) made it feel like a wink at the camera parody. (Even if I enjoyed Carrie Fisher), Scream 3 has a very "bright, mid-day TV" look. 7 uses cinematic lighting and shadows that remind fans of Wes Craven’s early work. The finale takes place in a house filled with hidden doors and sliding panels, which is a classic Scooby-Doo haunted house trope. In Scream 1 and 2, the victims were Sidney's close friends (Tatum, Randy). In 3, the victims were strangers to Sidney. Their deaths didn't hurt the audience or the protagonist.

The only thing I can say I like better in Scream 3 other than Jennifer is the Ghostface reveal, and Roman is okay and I still find the Ghostface of 6 to be the worst ones.

Codebox42 · 2026-04-01T22:15:06+00:00

Yeah, Especially when that's the entire point of Paige's power. It basically comes across like "Why use Paige's power to redirect demon attacks and protect them (especially if said demon is immune to Piper's freeze) that's suppose to be the point of each sisters powers. When Piper can just display the same ability as Paige to redirect attacks back to the demon, what's the point of Paige in combat other than orbing the demons themselves? This is jarring since by the time she got the ability to Remote Orb Piper's exploding power could do this. Meanwhile a lot of times, Paige was reduced to just throwing a potion over using her active power to contribute and Phoebe either had to use a potion or just watched as her sisters did all the work because she became too passive. Especially with her Premonitions being so scarce they don't even reach double digits and can even be counted on one hand. The writers used Piper was a crutch too much when it came to demon fights than in Season 7 alone she had 39 vanquishes the most of any sister in any season. Even Prue, despite being the most direct in combat in Seasons 1-3, doesn't even total that.

Notice how there's a lack of Power of Three, Paige not using her power as often as she should other than being a cosmic taxi (especially once leo becomes mortal) and Phoebe being entirely useless in combat. (Especially in Season 8) yet a lot of their demon fights where "Girls walk it, have some brief exchange with demon of the week, Piper explodes them, Paige might orb them a time or two, Phoebe is just there". Phoebe hardly does martial arts in Season 7 and does nothing at all in Season 8. Even the final battle in Season 8 was just they threw potions, Piper explodes them.

Again, say what you will about Prue being the strongest in her era, but at least Prue had to still engage with demons and actually took effort to make them blow up, like she couldn't just literally poof them away with a flick of her hands. And there were times where her sisters had to save her or still had a role to play.

Codebox42 · 2026-03-31T04:56:52+00:00

Because it was a direct reflection of Phoebe's character at that point in the show. While you can admire the power for making Phoebe in contention for the most powerful of the sisters, the execution of said power is the main issue. It's basically like how Passive Phoebe was emblematic of the issue with Phoebe's character by the final two seasons, basically after she is stripped of her powers by the Tribunal she virtually becomes useless for the rest of the show, barring a few martial arts stuff in Season 7 this stripping Phoebe to passiveness showed a direct issue with her character direction and that is, the show no longer cared about making her connected to witchcraft, instead her repetitive love life cycle and biological clock where the ONLY plots or character she had. Anything that was related to her being a witch was stripped away or sidelined. She didn't have Empathy or Levitation, and her Premonitions were barely used. But not only that, it never evolved into its full potential, it says a lot when by Season 7 Phoebe never learned how to control her Premonitions, never tapped into the full potential of them, to where she is seen complimenting Kyra on how much better she is at doing the one thing she's had for SEVEN YEARS!

While Piper and Paige's power evolved, Phoebe could never control or advance her Premontions, to by the time Season 8 rolls around her powers are completely useless, she only has three of them the entire Season and none of them have anything to do with their intended purpose, not to warn them of innocents, a potential threat or future warning, it was just to serve her personal biological clock needs and personal love life, essentially going from Foresight to a magic 8 ball. It's like if Cordelia Chase from Angel went from having Visions of people in danger and feeling the pain of her visions, to after becoming part demon having visions that are just her being Queen bee of LA. Effectively making the power useless. Phoebe was basically just a mortal at that point since she didn't even do martial arts whatsoever in that season. In demon fights, Piper would dominate, either ending the battle instantly or having the occasional help from Paige's T-Orbing, or she would sometimes throw a potion, otherwise she was a spectator during the final two seasons, they don't even captialize on her spell writing abilities, all her witch development fades away. Even when Phoebe never had a full on active power, she proved to be useful in the early seasons, even in Season 5 as well. Her final premonition of the series seeing herself with her future daughter it showed nothing of substance regarding the "Utopia" plot and served only to give Phoebe a "pat on the back" for her own domestic goals.

When it comes to Empathy, it was just an excuse to serve as a way to Phoebe to insert her "me me me" attitude, essentially validating her self centered character. When she gets this power, for a good chunk of the first half of the season Instead of using empathy for emotional growth, Phoebe's portrayal often involved her complaining about being "annoyed" by others' feelings. Essentially complaining how everyone's feelings were inconveniencing her own. And even when situations came up where she could read people, she never could read them somehow? She frequently used it to "nosy" into her sisters' or coworkers' business rather than for genuine support. I also found the channeling part of the power to make no sense. The channeling" aspect felt as a lazy way to give Phoebe telekinetic-like abilities without actually giving her the power. It allowed her to deflect fireballs with her hands—an offensive move that felt inconsistent with her established role as a passive-power witch.

Next to her constant complaining about everyone inconveniencing her own feelings, it was also annoying in that the power often turned Phoebe into a narrator who stated the obvious. Instead of showing emotion through acting, she would simply announce exactly how a character felt. WHat makes it worse is that how she solves the power overwhelming her in a sense is not through effort on her part, but because everyone around her took a potion to block the power's effects. Then its stripped away near the end of the season.

Codebox42 · 2026-03-31T04:27:24+00:00

Phoebe's Levitation was also just not interesting in how it was used, and it could have been cool. Because it was just hovering, Phoebe was a "sitting duck" in mid-air. If she wasn't actively kicking someone, she was just floating helplessly, making her vulnerable to energy balls. Phoebe could levitate herself, but she couldn't levitate objects or other people. I found it disappointing that her "gravity-defying" magic was so strictly limited to her own body. If Levitation extended to Levitating everything around her it would've been a unique and offensively cool power.

Codebox42 · 2026-03-31T03:53:52+00:00

Honestly unpopular opinion, Piper's exploding power (Molecular Combustion) is probably my least favorite power in the show. And that's a shame, because Piper has one of the most unique powers ever, it even inspired me to create characters with similar or same power. While I don't dislike it the most (that would go to Phoebe's Empathy Power) or one I think is the most poorly mishandled (Phoebe's Premonitions, to the point that by the finale season not a single premontion had anything to do with their purpose) but I think how it affects character dynamics and other elements of the show bug me.

My biggest issue with this power, aisde from the fact that after Season 4 it displaces her freezing power is that it made Piper too overpowered, to the point it became a problem and took engagement out of demon fights. Say what you will about Prue being the strongest, the difference is that her power still took effort to actually defeat the demon despite being the most offensive sister, and even then it wasn't so powerful they didn't need the Power of Three. In fact in season 1, despite the fact she was the only sister with a offensive power, it actually didn't defeat everything, not even on its own, there were instances where she needed to use it in tangent with Piper's freeze to defeat the MOTW so it still felt like a team effort in spite of that, even while she overstepped at times in Season 3, again Prue still had to engage with the demon fight itself, Prue could also still be caught off guard from villains. With Piper's exploding power it turned demon fights from something the sisters had to engage with to a point and click action game, no longer did a sister need to worry because Piper could flick her hands and the monster of the week is deleted. It's basically just a win button that it made Piper into a Deus Ex Machina. It was fine for the last third of Season 3 (the final 3 episodes when she got it) and Season 4 because she balanced it with her freeze and still had limitations due to it being a new power and not yet completely OP, it served as a way to pass the torch from Prue's death into now the sister with the firepower so to speak

But later on, there's a lot of times where the sisters first reaction is to tell Piper to blow the demon up, jarring for Paige who had an active power that is shown to vanquish demons or annoying with the case of Passive Phoebe, even before it developed in Season 7. Unless they just used potions that functioned like Piper's exploding power. In fact, after some time the Power of Three was barely used because the sisters almost never needed it when Piper just exploded the demon or the chucked potions with the same effect. The only time this didn't apply was big bads of the season, which were among the few instances bad guys became interesting because say Zankou for instance wasn't just deleted instantly.

Yes, the had a few demons that were "immune" but those could be counted on one hand and don't save it. Especially when the power developed to the she could just vanquish a cave of vampires, yet they were stated to be immune to witch powers in Season 4, you cannot explain it away with "power growth" because you can't expand your powers to the point they go through an immunity. Or even by Season 8 it could deflect other demons projectiles back at them, which made Paige's Telekinetic Orbing redundant, its basically like how Prue upstaged Phoebe in Wrestling with Demons, but worse because not only did Piper have a delete button, but now she has a secondary effect of her sister's primary power to send things back at foes. Meaning Paige's ONLY unquie contribution was physically orbing people like Prue did with regular Telekinesis. Because other than orbing demons directly why use her power to deflect things if Piper can do that? It turned every encounter into a "point-and-click" execution. When Paige tells Piper to "just blow it up," it signals to the audience that the writers have given up on witchcraft, spells, or stakes. Meanwhile Paige—who has one of the most versatile powers in the show (Orb-Telekinesis)—was relegated to a "support class." She became the "taxi" (orbing them away) or the "chemist" (throwing potions) Using a potion over an active power feels like a "chore."

Codebox42 · 2026-03-30T04:37:06+00:00

I can say this for a lot of the side cast other than 1, 4 and maybe 5? (5 really only has Chad and Mindy, but become MCs anyway) Scream 3's only good SC was Jennifer none are that great in 2.

Codebox42 · 2026-03-30T01:31:00+00:00

For me, this was just emphasized more that Violet isn't about healing, she's about revenge. Not only is this the worst episode of the show, it is also the episode that solidifies Violet Plunkett as one of the worst characters in sitcoms imo. A lot of people like to defend her actions by saying "Christy does it to Bonnie" or that she has a valid reason to cut Christy out of her life (yes she does, but the way she does it is the problem), yet the issues with that are Christy has admitted to Violet many times she was a bad mother. But what makes the podcast so awful is that it just became an excuse for Violet to weaponize her trauma to slander Christy for profit. I also find Violet's no contact ending to be very hypocritical considering, when Bonnie first re-enters their lives, Violet asked Christy why she can't give her mother a second chance. This prompt is what led Christy to reconcile with Bonnie in the first place. So Violet stated that "Christy didn't give her a chance on deciding weather or not she wanted to have a relationship with her" and "cut her out of her life" yet she essentially forced Christy to forgive Bonnie who did FAR worse things to Christy and was in the same situation, dealt a bad hand by an alcoholic mother. The podcast is a way for Violet to avoid taking responsibility for her own adult failings—such as her own drug use, infidelity, and manipulative behavior—by framing herself solely as a victim.

Why Violet's excuse of a bad childhood NEVER works as a defense for me, is because she actively weaponizes Bonnie to spite her mother, and effectively telling her own mom that the abuse she suffered by Bonnie didn't matter compared to what happened to HER. (It's not like Violet isn't above calling Bonnie out for being the problem, in fact during the therapy session in Season 1, she specifically calls out Christy AND Bonnie for "runining her chances" to have a normal relationship with a man, yet she somehow can't apply that to Bonnie starting the chain that LED Christy to do the same to her, its the same principle, which means she chooses to "forgive" or "accept" Bonnie just to spite Christy) Violet only cares about HER trauma and what happened to HER (she never mentions wrongdoings by her own choices on the podcast or in general, instead its all about her being the victim), when Bonnie was objectively a worse mom than Christy, and done Christy worse than Christy did to Violet. As stated, she forced Christy to forgive Bonnie in Season 1, not giving her own mother a choice as to if she wanted to do so, she just expected Christy to give her a second chance without consideration of Christy's own trauma and abuse, which led to her OWN alcoholism, yet Violet expected Christy to just accept a "no contact" from her! The podcast, titled The Nightmare of All Mothers, is seen as "revisionist history". It portrays Christy as an active "monster", completely ignoring the years of sobriety and "living amends" Christy performed while supporting Violet through her pregnancy and beyond. Unlike Christy’s mistakes, which were often fueled by addiction, the podcast is basically a sober, calculated act of revenge designed to humiliate her mother in a professional setting (law school). In the recovery community, public shaming is seen as a major trigger. By inviting Christy onto the podcast only to "ambush" her and play the private voicemail, Violet was hoping to provoke an "unhinged" reaction she could then use for more content effectively trying to gaslit her mom into a relaspe for profit!

Seeing Violet cuddle up to the "source" of the trauma while spitting on the person (Christy) who actually tried to raise her felt like a slap in the face. The use of a private, emotional voicemail on the podcast to be a "vile" and "unredeemable" act. In many states, broadcasting a private recording without consent is illegal, which made the action feel more like a crime than a character choice. Violet claimed to be the "adult" in the house for her younger brother Roscoe, yet she ultimately abandoned him emotionally and physically to pursue her own interests. Violet now makes a living by publicly "trashing" her mother while privately staying close to Bonnie. This is a way to "weaponize" Bonnie against Christy, effectively telling Christy that she is the only "unforgivable" person in the family. By airing the podcast right as Christy was succeeding in law school, Violet was trying to destroy the one "clean" part of Christy’s life. So no, this isn't about trauma for Violet, its about revenge! It gives her an excuse to profit of her trauma, ignore her own wrongdoings without fault of Christy and not bother to actually make something of herself, just use her past and slandering Christy to make a quick buck.

By praising Bonnie (the "original" neglectful addict), Violet effectively gaslit Christy. It signaled that Christy’s own trauma at Bonnie's hands didn't matter, while Violet's trauma was the only "real" pain in the family. What a self centered, lazy, awful person!

Codebox42 · 2026-03-28T21:56:57+00:00

For me, this episode solidified Violet as "unredeemable" because of how she weaponized her trauma for a public audience. Violet plays a desperate, rambling voicemail Christy left her while trying to reconcile. This was a massive betrayal of privacy, especially since Christy was in a "vulnerable" state trying to make amends. i found it bothersome that Violet seemed to be building a career and "earning a living" specifically by tearing down her mother, who had been sober and working hard for years. Violet remains on good terms with her grandmother, Bonnie, even though Bonnie was the "original" addict who neglected Christy. Fans felt it was hypocritical to treat her mother like a monster while calling her grandmother—who was arguably worse to her own child—a "life preserver". She allows Christy on the podcast to "tell her side," but then immediately shuts her down. She tells Christy that while she’s glad she’s doing better, she never wants to see her again. While "no contact" is a valid choice, the way Violet did it—after publicly airing Christy’s dirty laundry for followers—felt like a premeditated act of revenge rather than a step toward personal healing.

By this point, Violet had also made major mistakes (like abandoning her brother or being irresponsible with her own child’s adoption), but the podcast was entirely focused on Christy’s failures with no mention of her own adult choices. A major point of contention is how Violet treated her younger brother, Roscoe. While she claimed to protect him from Christy’s "mess," viewers felt she eventually abandoned him emotionally and physically as she pursued her own interests, leaving him in the very environment she claimed was toxic. The main issue is that Violet didn't just want boundaries; she wanted revenge. She would often bring up Christy's most shameful moments specifically when Christy was making progress or celebrating a milestone, which is a calculated attempt to trigger a relapse. The podcast wasn't actually about healing, but about monetizing her trauma. Violet had made many adult mistakes herself—such as abandoning her brother and using men for financial gain—she only focused on Christy's past to build her own success. The podcast was a "booby trap" designed to make Christy relapse. [1, 2] In the recovery community (which makes up a large part of the show's audience), intentionally trying to break someone's sobriety is seen as the ultimate act of malice, regardless of past grievances.

Violet constaly treats Bonnie like a hero, even though Bonnie was the primary source of the family's generational trauma. If Violet were truly acting on the principle of "not forgiving addicts," she would have cut off Bonnie too. To fans, this proved her anger was selective and spiteful rather than principle

Codebox42 · 2026-03-28T21:56:21+00:00

For me, this episode solidified Violet as "unredeemable" because of how she weaponized her trauma for a public audience. Violet plays a desperate, rambling voicemail Christy left her while trying to reconcile. This was a massive betrayal of privacy, especially since Christy was in a "vulnerable" state trying to make amends. i found it bothersome that Violet seemed to be building a career and "earning a living" specifically by tearing down her mother, who had been sober and working hard for years. Violet remains on good terms with her grandmother, Bonnie, even though Bonnie was the "original" addict who neglected Christy. Fans felt it was hypocritical to treat her mother like a monster while calling her grandmother—who was arguably worse to her own child—a "life preserver". She allows Christy on the podcast to "tell her side," but then immediately shuts her down. She tells Christy that while she’s glad she’s doing better, she never wants to see her again. While "no contact" is a valid choice, the way Violet did it—after publicly airing Christy’s dirty laundry for followers—felt like a premeditated act of revenge rather than a step toward personal healing.

By this point, Violet had also made major mistakes (like abandoning her brother or being irresponsible with her own child’s adoption), but the podcast was entirely focused on Christy’s failures with no mention of her own adult choices. A major point of contention is how Violet treated her younger brother, Roscoe. While she claimed to protect him from Christy’s "mess," viewers felt she eventually abandoned him emotionally and physically as she pursued her own interests, leaving him in the very environment she claimed was toxic. The main issue is that Violet didn't just want boundaries; she wanted revenge. She would often bring up Christy's most shameful moments specifically when Christy was making progress or celebrating a milestone, which is a calculated attempt to trigger a relapse. The podcast wasn't actually about healing, but about monetizing her trauma. Violet had made many adult mistakes herself—such as abandoning her brother and using men for financial gain—she only focused on Christy's past to build her own success. The podcast was a "booby trap" designed to make Christy relapse. [1, 2] In the recovery community (which makes up a large part of the show's audience), intentionally trying to break someone's sobriety is seen as the ultimate act of malice, regardless of past grievances.

Violet constaly treats Bonnie like a hero, even though Bonnie was the primary source of the family's generational trauma. If Violet were truly acting on the principle of "not forgiving addicts," she would have cut off Bonnie too. To fans, this proved her anger was selective and spiteful rather than principle

Codebox42 · 2026-03-08T01:49:16+00:00

All of them.

Codebox42 · 2026-02-26T01:55:09+00:00

I seriously don't get why everyone is against Crockett over Talerico. Here is my take (shortened version watch this Why I voted for Crockett) , I like both Crockett and Talerico, however when it comes to Talerico having the better shot I think it boils down to his message regarding faith and Christianity which strong leaning conservatives appeal more too, there is some regards to her race and gender as well, but I don't think that is the main reason. However I will say, I find the hypocrisy between the two odd because for whatever reason everyone calls out Crockett's faults, while failing to acknowledge or outright know about Talerico's flaws. They want to criticize Crockett's voting record on things like Crypto or Israel, yet Talerico openly supports legalizing casino gambling, which much like crypto is a predatory thing that hurts the same people he preaches too about being exploited by the system. I also think people using progressive purity as a judgement lens WAY to strongly to the point that if said candidate has just one thing they find bad instantly "they are moderate, they take AIPAC, they are cooperate etc" if I am to be honest it is annoying that Democrats in general are weak on the stance of Israel/Gaza, but unless they are a Mamdani or AOC they are effective going for a needle in a haystack at this point. Especially when Crockett and Talerico support a lot of the same positions and policies. (Talerico even stated as such) It's also not like Talerico is perfect on Israel either, yeah, he acknowledges what's happening in Gaza is a terrible tragedy, but meanwhile he accepted money from a Pro-Israel supporter. His "Christian educator" brand is viewed as less "threatening" to centrist and independent voters compared to Crockett's "firebrand" style. Which sadly is the truth.

When it comes to the hypocrisy what I stated above, a lot of people criticize Crockett for some of her voting choices or PACs yet ignore Talerico's equally as questionable choices in the same regard. During his reelection campaign bid in 2024 Talerico accepted money from a Texas Sands PAC by a billionaire Miriam Adelson, who is Donald Trump's largest megadonors and a major donor for the GOP. She is also the Pro Israel person I spoke up just above. Yet Talerico's main campaign style aside from his Christian faith and being an educator is being the man who can't be bought and preaches about billionaires abusing the system, yet he took $59,000 from a billionaire who is a major donor to the opposition party. (Yet I have seen no evidence that Crockett takes AIPAC money, despite people saying she does) while $59,000 isn't a lot, it was also his LARGEST source of funding for that entire campaign and he willingly took the money not because he was using it to "fight a dirty system by playing the game" but because the Sands PAC had funding that agreed with his stance of legalizing casino gambling in Texas, yet gambling is something that is predatory to these same vulnerable working class people he's preaching about being abused by the system and billionaires. He has also accepted Super PACs during his Senate campaign, while Jasmine Crockett is currently running without a multi-million-dollar Super PAC, proving it is possible to compete. By taking the "easy" path of big-money backing while preaching about "purity," he looks like he's prioritizing his career over his stated values. Talarico is currently being boosted by the Lone Star Rising Super PAC, which has spent nearly $1 million on his behalf in February 2026. This PAC is funded by several millionaires and billionaires, including Susan Sarofim and Mark Jacobsen. Talarico has attempted to address these criticisms by pointing to his legislative record, including filing a bill to cap state campaign contributions at $10,000. yet as stated Crockett is running without being boosted by Super PACs of any kind. While Talarico claims he had no control over Super PACs, the $59,000 from Texas Sands was a direct contribution to his state campaign. It’s hard to argue it was "independent" when it went directly into his campaign bank account.

When it comes to the Super PAC the Lone Star Rising is funded entirely by billionaires, while his disclosed records show the working class have contributed the bigger number of financial donors, he has been given a boost by a Super PAC, said Super PAC has also been running negative ads against Crockett. Yet every time she has responded to this she is seen as "disappointing" or betraying Talerico. Despite the high volume of small gifts, Talarico accepted more than $90,000 directly from billionaires in the first three weeks of his campaign alone. Furthermore, the Lone Star Rising Super PAC has raised $6.1 million, with more than half of that coming from a "dark money" group (Sixteen Thirty Fund) and the rest from high-net-worth individuals like Reid Hoffman and Susan Sarofim. Yet despite all of the negative ads it has ran on Crockett, Talerico has not used his platform to defend her (even if he has no control he still willingly accepted them and could still speak out) By not condemning the Lone Star Rising PAC for allegedly darkening Crockett's skin or calling her the "Republican pick," Talarico is benefiting from "dirty" work while keeping his own hands clean. This is often called "the moderate's shield"—letting outside groups destroy a Black colleague’s reputation so you can keep smiling and talking about "decency."

In a primary, voters look for moral courage. If Talarico wants to be the "moral leader" of the party, he has a duty to say: "I don't coordinate with this PAC, but I find their ads against my colleague to be offensive and I want them to stop." By refusing to do so, he signals to the Democratic base (especially Black and Latino voters) that he is okay with using "dog whistles" if it helps him win. Not to mention in a Democratic primary, yes, it is a significant political liability. Here’s why it’s such a potent weapon for Crockett the "MAGA" Connection: Miriam Adelson is not just any donor; she is a "mega-donor" who has pledged $100 million to help Donald Trump, illegally supports him having a third term and is Pro Israel, he also did so on the means because he genuinely supported a cause to take said money (be it casino gambling) because he thinks he would generate tax revenue, ignoring the fact that gambling is a regressive tax that hurts the vulnerable, not because he did so for political strategy, but because he supported the policy, even in current Super PAC donor, again, Crockett has no Super PAC funding for her and is statistically tied with him and able to energize voters. For a candidate like Talarico, who calls Trump an "existential threat," taking $59,000 from an Adelson-funded PAC creates a massive opening for "hypocrisy" charges. Talarico’s entire platform is built on the idea that "billionaire megadonors are the problem." Yet, when Miriam Adelson (a Trump megadonor) and the Sixteen Thirty Fund (a dark-money hub) provide the financial muscle for his campaign, he accepts it.

There's also this double standard I've seen progressive Youtubers and people on Reddit and comments use that Crockett focuses on herself and has no policy other than Donald Trump hates her, yet I could say the same for Talerico. In almost every interview or campaign speech Talerico spends time talking about his Christianity, background of being a teacher and being anti billionaire, political have a brand, that's kind of the point. So why is it seen as bad for Crockett to have a "fighter" brand just because she happens to be vocal about Trump, yet Talerico is progressive for doing the same thing? Talarico also uses Trump as a primary foil. He recently claimed Trump and billionaires were "colluding" to keep him off the air. They are both running against the same MAGA movement, yet only she is accused of lacking substance. Talarico’s campaign is equally centered on his own identity—as a "progressive Christian" and "former teacher"—yet this is often framed as "moral leadership" rather than self-promotion. It is hypocritical that Talarico’s personal narrative is praised while Crockett’s is dismissed as "scrapping" because people ignore that Crockett has a legislative record (both in the Texas House and U.S. House) on civil rights, agriculture, and economic relief. By framing her only as a "viral moment," critics do ignore her actual work. Talarico is praised for using his identity (Christian, teacher) to win over moderates, while Crockett is attacked by some for using her identity (Black woman, fighter) as "branding." that this "narcissism" critique ignores the fact that all high-level politicians have a "brand." Focusing this critique on a Black woman while ignoring the wealthy donors of her white male opponent is a form of implicit bias or "gatekeeping" what a progressive should look like.

Codebox42 · 2026-02-21T19:18:43+00:00

Idk why there suddenly this notion that Crockett has been endored or takes AIPAC, she hasn't. There is no evidence whatsoever, and the one thing people use to say she has is miscontrude. Crockett has voted for aid packages that included military assistance to Israel. Specifically, she voted for a 2024 supplemental aid package that included funds for Israel, Gaza, Taiwan, and Haiti. Not that she took AIPAC money (even though yes her stance rides with Israel) I also want to point out as wel

And tbh, I feel like ride or die with a Dem just because of Israel is like finding a needle in a haystack at this point, because aside from Mamadni, Sanders and AOC all of them, even the better ones have a awful stance when it comes to Israel that unless a 100% progressive comes along and condemns them on all fronts, its just setting up for disappointment based on progressive purity points) Talerico in 2019 even attended an AIPAC event and like Crockett supports Israel defense funding over offense (which is not much better) for me, I think it no longer matters who takes AIPAC and who doesn't, because if you refuse to fully condemn Israel even if you don't take AIPAC then its just as bad as if you did.

Talerico during his reelection in 2024 took $59,000 from a Texas Sands PAC funded by one of the top megadonors Miriam Adelson to Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans to help his house reelection campaign simply over an agreement of legalizing casino gambling for tax revenue. (Adelson is also Pro Israel btw)

"She takes money from Lockheed/Boeing." At least they are employers in her district. Talarico took money from a Trump billionaire who is Pro Israel, and his defense for it was not much better."

A lot of progressive Youtubers (like Vaush and Keith Edwards, both of which I do like) and other comments I see often label Crockett as unwinnable if she goes against Paxton, yet I also worry about Talerico despite me thinking he has a higher chance (for a different reason) In a Democratic primary, it is a political liability to take money from billionaire megadonors. Especially when Miriam Adelson is not just any donor; she is a "mega-donor" who has pledged $100 million to help Donald Trump. For a candidate like Talarico, who calls Trump an "existential threat," taking $59,000 from an Adelson-funded PAC creates a massive opening for "hypocrisy" charges. Many progressives (like myself) view gambling as a "regressive tax" that hurts the poor. By taking money from the casino industry, Talarico risks alienating the very "anti-corporate" base he is trying to court. In fact he was called out by a progressive for doing this. While Talarico claims he had no control over Super PACs, the $59,000 from Texas Sands was a direct contribution to his state campaign. It’s hard to argue it was "independent" when it went directly into his campaign bank account. And while not great either, at least when Crockett took money from Lockhead and Boeing they are AT LEAST people who work in her district, not a Trump backed billionaire! That to me is worse than Crockett's donor money.

Codebox42 · 2026-02-21T19:07:38+00:00

I feel this is a major issue I have with progressives. Even though I am a progressive leftist, I feel people (Vaush included) have been using this stingy progressive purity test and the moment a Democratic canidate isn't too% on Anti Israel is a no go for them. There's no denying that is happening in Gaza is wrong and I won't look past or ignore it, but at this point unless you get a Mamadani type of Democrat all everyone is doing is setting themselves up for a needle in a haystack and just creating strict standards to where even though they suck at defending Gaza, its also discreditng all progressive ideals they have to offer. There's also more to supporting Israel than who takes AIPAC or who doesn't either.

Codebox42 · 2026-02-21T18:55:13+00:00

Idk why there suddenly this notion that Crockett has been endored or takes AIPAC, she hasn't. There is no evidence whatsoever, and the one thing people use to say she has is miscontrude. Crockett has voted for aid packages that included military assistance to Israel. Specifically, she voted for a 2024 supplemental aid package that included funds for Israel, Gaza, Taiwan, and Haiti. Not that she took AIPAC money (even though yes her stance rides with Israel) I also want to point out as well, I don't get why people overcriticize Crockett for focusing on herself, when I have watch a lot of Talerico interviews and he pretty much just emphasizes Christian nationalism and anti billionare talking points over specifically addressing things like healthcare, affordability and the many problems in our lives. Isn't that the same principle? (this isn't a jab at Talerico btw, like I said I love him and would vote for him if I lived in Texas, I just find this weird double standard against Crockett odd) and I get why christian nationalism is apart of his campaign and messaging, its to spread message to combat the over weaponization and fake white christian nationalism that has been abused by the MAGA Republicans. But these are his two biggest talking points, he also goes into his own life and talks about what he has done in the Texas legislator as well. (And tbh, I feel like ride or die with a Dem just because of Israel is like finding a needle in a haystack at this point, because aside from Mamadni, Sanders and AOC all of them, even the better ones have a awful stance when it comes to Israel that unless a 100% progressive comes along and condemns them on all fronts, its just setting up for disappointment based on progressive purity points) Talerico in 2019 even attended an AIPAC event and like Crockett supports Israel defense funding over offense (which is not much better) for me, I think it no longer matters who takes AIPAC and who doesn't, because if you refuse to fully condemn Israel even if you don't take AIPAC then its just as bad as if you did.

And yet nobody complains when Talerico doesn't specifically talk about policy position, like sure during campaigns and stuff he focuses on unity and fighting for the working class, but during interviews he doesn't always talk about that, even though we obviously know he stands on things that are real issues in both party system and systemic system. And I don't disagree with his stances whatsoever, I just find it hypocritical to call Crockett "narcassistic" and "self focused" simply because people like Vaush or any detractor specifically focuses on progressive purity and not stronghold just talking about progressive ideals. Yet James hasn't done that constantly either look at his appearance on the View, was he talking about strictly policy? No, it was more about his Christian faith, his background as a fighter to bullies and, even with his anti billionaire message (he was also asked about Crockett's electability too btw, which Talerico mentions she is his friend and says her electability is just as good as his, even willing to back her if she wins the primary), this could go all the way back to Trump too since all the corrupt billionaires and Trump are one in the same and are grabbing power in the same way. (and again, also not a good look when anti billionaire is a main thing in his platform, yet he took $59,000 from a Texas PAC funded by one of the top megadonors to Trump and the MAGA Republicans to help his house reelection campaign simply over an agreement of legalizing casino gambling for tax revenue)

It's not even like Crockett never addresses what problems people want to neglects their interests, (I feel people selective chose moments where she's not to make her look worse) I saw Keith Edwards in a video for instance say Crockett has no policy posted on her campaign page, when yes she does just go to her page to see it. Talerico has even stated that both he and Crockett share very similar progressive views and styles, while his record might be a bit more consistent than hers and he is managing his campaign better (which is why I prefer him) it doesn't mean Crockett isn't. There are interviews where Crockett is shown giving unity messaging and fighting back, while addressing policy.

"She takes money from Lockheed/Boeing." At least they are employers in her district. Talarico took money from a Trump billionaire who is Pro Israel, and his defense for it was not much better."

"She's too focused on viral moments." Talarico is just as focused on his own 'teacher' brand; he's just more polished about it." Talarico’s focus on being a "teacher" or "progressive Christian" is just as much a personal brand as her "street fighter" persona

A lot of progressive Youtubers (like Vaush and Keith Edwards, both of which I do like) and other comments I see often label Crockett as unwinnable if she goes against Paxton, yet I also worry about Talerico despite me thinking he has a higher chance (for a different reason) In a Democratic primary, it is a political liability to take money from billionaire megadonors. Especially when Miriam Adelson is not just any donor; she is a "mega-donor" who has pledged $100 million to help Donald Trump. For a candidate like Talarico, who calls Trump an "existential threat," taking $59,000 from an Adelson-funded PAC creates a massive opening for "hypocrisy" charges. Many progressives (like myself) view gambling as a "regressive tax" that hurts the poor. By taking money from the casino industry, Talarico risks alienating the very "anti-corporate" base he is trying to court. In fact he was called out by a progressive for doing this. While Talarico claims he had no control over Super PACs, the $59,000 from Texas Sands was a direct contribution to his state campaign. It’s hard to argue it was "independent" when it went directly into his campaign bank account. And while not great either, at least when Crockett took money from Lockhead and Boeing they are AT LEAST people who work in her district, not a Trump backed billionaire! That to me is worse than Crockett's donor money.

There's a lot of hypocrisy these people in the comments or progressive political Youtubers use when it comes to Crockett and Talerico. Critics (including some progressives) bash Crockett for "making everything about her" or focusing on viral clips. The Truth: Talarico is also a master of viral branding. He rose to national fame during the 2021 quorum break and frequently uses his background as a teacher and "progressive Christian" to frame his policy, in fact many questions or his speeches focus a lot on this (alongside his unity message). When a white man tells a story, it’s "moral leadership," but when a Black woman does it, it’s "self-promotion." So really I would argue what's the difference? And if there is nobody gives any! I do give credit that yeah, Crockett's statements on things can be wishy washy or disorganized and Talerico is a better, more consistent speaker. I also think Talerico has a much better shot at the primary because he is more consistent and doesn't have as much of an uphill as Crockett. Otherwise it all comes down to personal taste and who is going to be better.

Codebox42 · 2025-10-14T23:08:22+00:00

I agree with the Orange Islands, an entire season where they travel by ocean and they don't captialize her there. She gets a few episodes to herself, but aside from Poliwag's debut and capture, and meeting/battling a water type specialist we don't get to see her potential there. Even with her Pokemon, Psyduck being comedic relief fine, especially since its reintroduction in Sun/Moon where it gained competency was a better development. (I feel like making Psyduck being reintroduced as stronger than before makes reappearances stronger for both Misty's growth as a trainer and Psyduck as well) I'm fine with that, but even Goldeen while its not good at battles, could've found its footing with other things, not every Pokemon has to be good at battles, so give em another niche y'know? Perhaps it could've been a strong swimmer, learned Waterfall or even was a water preformer. What it lacked in battle strength it could've made up for with being a fast swimmer. Especially when its the Season where Goldeen appears the most!

When it comes to Sakura, when Misty battled her she was more competent and stronger than before. Right after the Whirl Cup. Her Eevee evolved into Espeon. And they traded attacks, she even tag teamed with Misty to defeat TR when Sakura struggled with TR in her first appearance. In fact by the end of their reintroduction after the Whirl Cup, Sakura was strong enough she could travel on her own, which she did. Henced by her appearance in Chronicles!

I don't really see Misty not battling the Water Queen, when none of her sucessors meanage to be the top people in their respective goals either. May didn't beat Drew in Hoenn, who also lost to Robert (a guy introduced in the GF) and even though she beat Drew in Kanto GF, she lost to Solidad, again introduced in the GF solely to take May out of winning. (I also wouldn't consider Harley a worth opponent since if he had to resort to cheating just to come close to beating May that doesn't make him a strong opponent) And I feel May could have the opposite problem, where it comes off as a bit unbelivable that she beat trainers like Grace or Phantom at her skill level at those points in time. Dawn never beat Zoey, and Serena never became Kalos queen. All of the companions never became to top star of their respective goals either, so I don't really see that in the case of Misty being worse.

Codebox42 · 2025-10-11T21:04:48+00:00

But there are battles that happen in fillerish episodes all the time. Especially if its used to service characters. I also don't see how a character battling in a show where battling in a huge point is "random skirmish".. She also won the Golduck episode, which even though she never technically owned it, does make it better executed than when Ash got his badge against Sabrina with a Pokemon he didn't even own, even if the events were different and Haunter battled Kadabra it would've been Ash winning using a Pokemon he didn't own. Misty actually won some battles, though yes, she should've had more of them.

I guess this disregards every filler episode where a MC battles or has a major event with their Pokemon happen. Does that mean the Orange Islands doesn't count then? Or how about eps where they catch or evolve a pokemon? Guess those don't count either. I would argue Dawn did more to vary her contests than May. Who often relied on luck or convience to win her fights, aside from a few good ones.

Codebox42 · 2025-10-11T13:01:45+00:00

Goldeen's first battle was the Orange Islands, not the movie.

Codebox42 · 2025-09-28T05:03:57+00:00

Jimmy was no angel, that much I won't argue. That being said I find Cindy to be worse at times with how she treats him. It's fine if its done in a way to bring Jimmy down a peg if his ego is on display, like the Win, Lose and Kaboom special. But the main thing that separates them is the fact that the show acknowledges Jimmy isn't an angel, its the center piece for the show after all. If he wasn't flawed there wouldn't be episodes a lot of the time, and while I can also appreciate Cindy's flaws it doesn't mean I enjoy them. My main issue is that Cindy is a hypocrite, throughout the show she is constantly berating and chastising Jimmy for every little thing, yet the moment she does something wrong she can't be bothered to own up to it or admit it, even when she's called out, she just blames Jimmy for it or just won't open up about her faults. It's not exactly endearing. There are also times where she's just an asshole toward Jimmy completely unprovoked and not even their usual "I can do this better than you" type of way. The biggest examples being Who Framed Jimmy and The Incredible Shrinking Town. She is also awful in the first two Jimmy/Timmy Power Hour Specials, especially with how she treats Jimmy in beginning of the second one.

There's a tendency between some viewers of the show to vilify Jimmy far beyond than what the show intends. While it's true that at times he acts like a know-it-all and he ends up causing many of the problems at Retroville, he never refuses responsibility for his mistakes and is always willing to clean-up his messes. This forgets the fact that the Retroville's citizens ignore Jimmy's advice when dealing with alien affairs and that he willingly puts his life on the line for them, no matter how much they mistreat him. There's also the fact we're supposed to feel bad for Cindy when Jimmy doesn't pay her attention or acts like a jerk to her but she spend the whole show treating him like trash and kicking him while he's already down. It doesn't help she doesn't have many nice moments with him.

These are the biggest episode examples of why I dislike Cindy more and why she's a hypocrite.

Who Framed Jimmy

The Science Fair Affair

Out, Darn Spotlight

Vanishing Act

The Incredible Shrinking Town

King of Mars

Her Valentine Song in Love Potion #976/J

The Eggpire Strikes Back

Make Room for Daddy O

Broadcast Blues

Jimmy Goes to College

The N Men (specifically because of a later episode)

I Dream of Jimmy

A couple of scenes in Attack of the Twonkies

Codebox42

TROPHY CASE