Hazbin Hotel / Helluva Boss Thread - Now a Griefing Thread

[Kid Named Rocket]

maintaining the agenda... is our top priority

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

The typical LOOK SHE'S MEXICAN SHE USES WORDS AND SHIT flavour was horrible

And they made her dip in and out of specifically spic Spanish too, as opposed to actual Spanish which has a nice, pleasant accent. And that's completely discounting that it'd be way more fun to have her slip in and out of Latin or Roman (maybe Hebrew but NOT Yiddish)

 

[TheJelqster]

Look, I'm retarded and I don't really follow Indie animation like I used to. But is there really a second season to HH? There's hardly any promotion this time around compared to Invincible. Is it still ass?

 

[FK009]

Look, I'm retarded and I don't really follow Indie animation like I used to. But is there really a second season to HH? There's hardly any promotion this time around compared to Invincible. Is it still ass?

yes, though the general consensus is that Vox hard carried the season. Charlie is still the Cameron on the series so she’s not doing much.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

But is there really a second season to HH?

Yes.

There's hardly any promotion this time around compared to Invincible.

It's a far less successful show, generally streaming services will push shows they think will bring in new subscribers.

Is it still ass?

S2 is significantly better than S1 but it still isn't a good show, it's just that it doesn't make you want to throw shit at the TV anymore.

 

[invisibult plus+]

And they made her dip in and out of specifically spic Spanish too, as opposed to actual Spanish which has a nice, pleasant accent. And that's completely discounting that it'd be way more fun to have her slip in and out of Latin or Roman (maybe Hebrew but NOT Yiddish)

From when she was a Salvadoran sinner that died in the 80's 2014. If the show was actually thought out, she'd hide behind Spanish to make herself look like a sinner, then slip into Latin in some circumstances. Or Hebrew, but Latin is more associated with Christianity and Spanish's direct ancestor.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Or Hebrew, but Latin is more associated with Christianity and Spanish's direct ancestor.

Which is why I brought up Latin, Hebrew, and Roman since she's an angel. You'd think that Heaven would at least keep alive the language of the Catholic church, the original Israelites, and the empire which brought Christianity to prominence.

 

[Castoreum]

Is it still ass?

S2 is significantly better than S1

Imo s1 is better than s2 story-wise, but s2 has infinitely better musical numbers

Sera's Confession living in my head rent free. It blew me away.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Sera's Confession living in my head rent free. It blew me away.

Well yeah, that's what happens when you get Liz Calloway to sing on your track. That woman possesses magic in her vocal chords.

Imo s1 is better than s2 story-wise, but s2 has infinitely better musical numbers

Disagree man, S1's story is super slapdash and all over the place. It's generally unfocused and very poorly paced. S2's story is still really badly paced and not spectacular but it's more focused and holistic despite the fact that it's still focusing primarily on side characters.

As for the musical numbers it's definitely better in S2 by a long shot. There's still some serious stinkers but the average quality has made a drastic improvement even though I still stand by the idea that the musical numbers should all be axed for pacing and time management and the fact that most of them still aren't great.

 

[TheJelqster]

Alright, next question:

Spoiler: The big 50K question

Did VerbalAse finally get a Cameo? I am willing to submit myself to watching this show if my nigga got a spot, even as a gag

 

[Re(Runner)48]

Honestly her strengths are really in how she can at least know how to choreograph a scene or make animated music videos. Thats probably why a lot of the musical numbers work well because Vivziepop has years of experience making music videos.

As for other strengths, she can sometimes be funny and she can make decent action sequences. It's also clear she can make interesting ideas, just not execute them well.

Vivziepop is the type of creator who can only really work well when someone is there to balance off her which sometimes it is Brandon Rogers given the better episodes of Helluva boss were joint efforts between the two.

However Vivziepop doesn't really play to her strengths most of the time as she wants to create drama which doesn't work since the drama she writes is still often juvenile (like all of Stolitz which is objectively the worst thing Vivziepop has ever written)

I would argue against ths Music Video stuff. I get she has years of experience and is able to know WHAT makes a music video good. But doesn't actually know what shes doing. From her show to her old content there has been alot of stolen choreography (she got in hot water for stealing a fans dance for the Blitzo and Stolas dance on the balcony)

https://youtu.be/utI4EuhAcms?si=ctYQ42prlAm90jwP

"Die Young" had some stolen uncredited animations from disney and or other animation companies. Her thesis had some stolen dance from Cats can't dance.

Its hard to know whats hers and not at this point as she is an amalgamation of all her hyperfocused slop she produces. So you never really know whats creatively hers anymore and whats just an uncredited trace over. Much like the show the longer it goes on the less creative it is.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Its hard to know whats hers and not at this point as she is an amalgamation of all her hyperfocused slop she produces. So you never really know whats creatively hers anymore and whats just an uncredited trace over. Much like the show the longer it goes on the less creative it is.

And on top of that her entire style itself (along with most of her OG OCs) was ripped off of Creepdoll. So she's built a foundation of plagiarism and then built a house of plagiarism on top of it.

 

[InJailOutSoon]

poor and nonsensical use of anthropomorphism:
the biggest case of this has to be that of angel dust and valentino, even setting aside how ridiculous their dynamic is to the point of parodying what they are trying to show its clear that there was a theme going with the animals they portray. angel dust being a spider, caught in a web. and valentino, a moth spinning a web to catch a spider? it makes no sense infact its reversed, its typical that moths or butterflys get caught in spider webs, yet viv either didnt remember or chose specifically to switch around this common relationship. i could believe this if the show had good writing but unless this is leading up to some reversal of roles when angel dusts arc is finished or just to show that due to power imbalances the moth is the one in control, however angel dust is already such a pathetic character that i dont think you need to use this relationship to emphasize it. this is just the biggest example of characters being designed so haphazardly as to not make any sense in combination with their actual character, its part of a larger issue across the whole show of characters not fitting who they are. the arms dealer not wanting to get her hands dirty but supplying weapons to all of hell could be an interesting conflict of interest if they did not try to portray her as a master duelist or if they made her character grow instead of just repeating her arc from season 1 in season 2, she learns nothing and as such her character doesnt make sense since the writers dont know what direction they want to take her in.
on occasion they do have some interesting concepts of anthropomorphisizing characters in ways that makes sense to the character like with alastor representing radio and vox representing new age media which is then supported by their backstorys thus giving reason for why they look the way they do. alastor being shot while mistaken for a deer is a bit out there in relation to vox whos backstory is very tailored to his character in hell but alastors character in hell isnt really about his radio show in the first place so it makes sense. pentious being a snake is a little on the nose with how we are first introduced to him but is a good way of subverting the audiences expectations by having him become the first sinner to be redeemed, this unlike angel dust actually makes sense and gives the character more reason to be.

There's the fact that for many of the main cast designs were not originally for Hazbin Hotel, but for a comic arc in Zoophobia that focused on demons and angels. Angel Dust was a character Viv made early on where the spider motif for him was based on the phrase "a web of crimes". Valentino came way later after, being mixed with two ocs made by two different past friends of her, with one being Angel's boyfriend at the time. Then you got Husk who was a gift from Viv's sister and he the only thing that changed about him was adding poker themes to his design.

Viv's character designs are very much hit or miss. And a lot of the reasons for why they are designed the way they are is more on the fact of what she finds cool, and less on what is fitting to said character.

 

[peachlover669]

Viv's character designs are very much hit or miss. And a lot of the reasons for why they are designed the way they are is more on the fact of what she finds cool, and less on what is fitting to said character.

i could probably respect that (even though its pretty lame) if they did that for every character but with vox and alastor their designs are tied so closely to their characters that when you see characters whos design doesnt fit their character at all it just feels off. angel dust having a mobster theme to him mixed with what his actual "character" is (if you can call teen novel tier shipping a character) creates such a disconnect that makes him more unbearable than he already is. (how did his voice actor get worse from the pilot to the actual show?)

 

[Gladly]

"The core problem with Hazbin Hotel is that it presents a theme you can only agree with but not believe in. By "theme", I mean the thesis of a story: a claim about how the world is or should be. Hazbin Hotel has a clear thesis: "Redemption is still possible, even for the already damned." Let me be explicit: I don't disagree with this thesis. On the contrary, as a devout Christian I deeply agree with it. I believe in infinite grace. My issue is not what the show believes, but how it tries to prove it.

A thesis without a true antithesis

A thesis only reveals its strength when it is meaningfully opposed. That opposition is the antithesis. A counter-claim that threatens the thesis and forces it to justify itself. The natural antithesis of Hazbin Hotel would be: "Redemption is not possible for the damned." This is a powerful and necessary counter-position. If taken seriously, it could sharpen the show's thesis through contrast. But Hazbin Hotel is not written in a narrative environment where the antithesis is allowed real weight. What I mean is: The thesis is never placed in genuine danger.

The antithesis has no philosophical weight

Opposition to redemption exists, but it is shallow, instrumental, trivial and never ideological.

Adam (Cruelty without conviction)

Adam rejects redemption out of arrogance, sadism, and amusement. He is a caricature designed to be hated, not a worldview to be confronted. He provides no serious argument, only cruelty in an already violent show. Adam turns the antithesis into a straw man.

The citizens of Hell (Pragmatic skeptism without depth)

The sinners opposing redemption because it is impossible is fine. It makes sense in-universe. What is not fine is that their opposition is only predictive, not ethical. They aren't morally engaged with the show's thesis at all, and this is a problem. The sinners don't believe in redemption, not because it would make their suffering unjust, erase responsibility, insult their victims, have limits depending on sin, or undermine justice. They simply don't believe in it because "It won’t work." But once their prediction fails and redemption does work, their resistance collapses and vanishes without consequence. When opposition is rooted only in impossibility, then the moment possibility is proven, there will be nothing left to argue, repent or rethink, only to agree. Their acceptance of Charlie's project becomes passive, not transformative because they don't have to face their inner demons (lol) that wanted redemption to remain impossible. They don't have to wrestle with moral complicity, collective guilt or the temptation to stay broken because it is familar and worked out for them all these years. This is a real loss for the narrative because narratives demand introspection first, and agreement later. Redemption isn't just individual but systemic because the disbelief of redemption shaped their ethics, normalized cruelty and rewarded nihilism. But the citizens of Hell don't have to reckon with any of this. They don't have to admit their wrongness, grieve the harm or confront the corruption that they caused with their disbelief. Only Heaven has to face its flaws and bear responsibility, but not Hell. This makes the success of Charlie's project only external, not internal which makes it feel informational, not spiritual. The citizens of Hell have skepticism without any depth and this makes Hell feel as shallow as Heaven. Maybe even more. What I trying to say is: By not giving the citizens of Hell deeper reasons for their disbelief, the payoff of them believing it after, felt weak and unsatisfying.

Heaven (Institutional ignorance without logic)

The problem with Heaven is not ignorance, but unintelligible ignorance. Heaven has tradition without any philosophy and ignorance without any logic.

Heaven rejected redemption on the grounds that “This is simply how things are and have always been: Good people go to Heaven, bad people go to Hell.” But the show itself undermines and collapses this logic through Adam. He is demonstrably cruel and immoral, yet he resided in Heaven. His mere existence should have triggered a theological crisis. At minimum, it should have raised questions. I could accept Heaven not knowing how the system works (even if that is questionable and strains credibility). What I cannot accept is that they apparently never asked. You are seriously asking me to believe that a society built entirely around justice, judgment, and moral order has never produced or had philosophers, theologians, or moral thinkers who questioned the mechanics of the afterlife? Important distinction: questioned, not solved. The issue is not that Heaven lacks answers, but that it lacks inquiry. And this is also where the writing collapses completely, because apparently, Charlie is the first person to raise the question. You know? Charlie! A childish, 200-year-old demon princess who understands and knows the system no better than anyone else. Yes, she is framed as the first being in eternity to ask the most obvious moral question imaginable. Is this supposed to be a joke! This does not make Charlie look insightful. It makes everyone else look unbelievably incompetent. What the show presents as ignorance is not a meaningful absence of knowledge, but rather narrative absurdity. No one in Heaven has ever debated, argued, investigated, or struggled with this issue ever before. This question only exists so Charlie can ask it and immediately appear morally superior. It doesn't exist to make the world feel dynamic and alive, but to validate Charlie. Vivziepop's intent was probably to show that injustice is caused by ignorance. But here emerges a paradox: "Ignorance still requires logic". In the real world, injustice is never sustained by pure thoughtlessness. Racism, sexism, and classism all relied on elaborate internal reasoning systems. Flawed, immoral, and self-serving, yes, but still coherent. Whether they are/were right or wrong has nothing to do with logic. Logic is just a system of reasoning. It is neutral as a concept. Heaven has no such structure. There is no logic, philosophy, debate or history of thought. Basically, everyone is an NPC that just waits to be disproven or challenged by Charlie. As a result, Charlie never has to struggle intellectually. The world is designed so that she wins by default. All of this makes Heaven feel less like a flawed moral institution and more like a non-sentient backdrop. It is not wrong in an interesting way but in a stupid and empty way. And a world without thinking moral agents cannot meaningfully oppose a moral thesis. What I'm trying to say is: A believable lie still requires intelligent people asking intelligent questions about it. Hazbin Hotel removes those people entirely. Heaven is not portrayed as tragically ignorant, but as disinterested. And that is far worse, because it strips the story of intellectual and philosophical tension and makes the universe itself feel shallow and fake.

Lucifer (Trauma instead of philosophy)

Lucifer could have been the strongest antithesis in the story. But instead, his worldview is framed as bitterness, depression and cynicism. It is basically emotional damage. The story doesn’t imply he might be right because he is hurt and might therefore understand something true. No! It just implies he doesn’t believe in redemption because he is hurt and therefore wrong. This trivializes his trauma and removes him as a serious challenger.

Vox (The clearest example of the problem)

Vox's opposition to redemption is purely instrumental. He does not oppose redemption because it is unjust, philosophically incoherent, morally dangerous or metaphysically impossible. He opposes it because it threatens his power structure. A true antithesis challenges the idea but Vox only exploits and weaponizes the perception of the idea. Again, Vox basically says: "Redemption is inconvinient for my power structure." That tells us nothing about redemption itself, but only about Vox. The conflict basically boils down to Charlie = Moral Truthteller and Vox = Cynical Manipulator. The story doesn’t ask if redemption is right, it asks if redemption can beat the wrong guy. An inevitable outcome. I will admit: Vox has fine villain traits, but unfortunately, none of them generate philosophical tension. So when he loses, nothing about the thesis as a concept has truly been tested. He creates the illusion of debate, but without the substance. He is strong as an obstacle, but weak as a challenger. Basically, Vox is just a parasite that feeds on controversy, not a "philosopher" that argues against anything that Charlie stands for. And the fact that people act like he is one drives me genuinely insane.

Alastor (The same problem with Vox but mirrored)

If Vox represents instrumental opposition, Alastor would be instrumental support. Just like Vox, he doesn’t make any moral argument towards redemption because he disagrees or agrees with it. He supports it not because it is morally right, but because it is environmentally convenient for him. Alastor only supports it because its failures and collapse would threaten his survival and the system he benefits from. Charlie's project gives him chaos and cover. Redemption doesn’t need to earn Alastor's belief. Al is just forced into supporting this belief for pragmatic reasons. He is basically Vox but mirrored. And this is narratively tragic because in the pilot he did articulate a genuine antithesis: "Sinners already had their chance. Now they have to live with the consequences." This carries real philosophical weight because it invokes responsibility, defends finality, and challenges endless mercy. But no, instead, this worldview is partially abandoned. Alastor should have made redemption morally earn and defend its existence, instead it just feels pre-approved again. Al could have been right and dangerous and wrong in a meaningful way. But just like Vox, he is irrelevant to the topic and debate of redemption.

Lute (Everything wrong with the antithesis)

I don't believe Lute will break out of this trend. Yes, she will be the villain of a future season, but I think it's still appropriate to speculate about what kind of antithesis she will embody. The show has a recurring pattern with its villains, and Lute already fits it as a character. Lute's opposition against redemption began as predictive ("Redemption is impossible for the damned") and ethical ("Sinners had their chances and now deserve damnation"), but after Adam's death, she is now driven by a thirst for vengeance ("Redemption took someone from me"). This isn't a moral argument against redemption, but rather grievance and personal anger at its success and its proponents. Her stance hasn't evolved philosophically, only shifted emotionally. Her objection has changed from upholding cosmic order, accountability, and justice to seeking vengeance. Vengeance is a powerful motive, but a weak worldview. A vengeful antagonist can only intensify a conflict, not deepen it, unless their anger is based on an idea that might be true. However, I doubt that Lute's worldview will be given any merit or truth, as she is portrayed as seeking blood rather than answers. Charlie will have to survive her attacks, but not engage with her arguments, if Lute even has those anymore. My predictions for Lute are: She is going to be as shallow as Hell and Heaven with her motive, as irrelevant as Vox and Alastor to the thesis, her trauma will replace philosophy just like with Lucifer and she won't provide any serious argument against the thesis like Adam. Basically, she is going to embody everything wrong and disappointing about the show as a whole.

Charlie never faces an intellectual opponent

This is the heart of the problem. No one ever seriously asks, or allows the audience to ask whether Charlie's belief in redemption might be inclompete, naïve, dangerous or morally costly. Her belief is not tested but staged. It never presents itself as something dangerous that needs to survive reality, but as a moral fact the universe already accepts.

The universe already agrees with her

A protagonist starting with the correct thesis is not a problem. The problem comes when the universe confirms it immediately, resistance is superficial, and victory feels pre-approved. Charlie believes in redemption without understanding it, defining its limits, designing its mechanism and without suffering because of that belief. Yet the universe rewards her anyway. This turns her arc from a moral dilemma into a moral crusade. As a result, Charlie never has to defend redemption as a concept, she only has to defeat those who benefit from its failure.

Why this weakens the theme itself

A truth that is never endangered appears fragile, even if it isn't. That is why stories like the one of Jesus Christ work so powerfully well. Yes, the thesis is correct from the start but it only gets validated in a synthesis (both the thesis and the antithesis are correct) after immense resistance, suffering and apparent failure. Themes bleed before they live again. In Hazbin Hotel, themes never bleed but are protected. And because of that any victory Charlie achieves will feel hollow. Not because her ideas are wrong, but because we are never given a chance to ask if they are wrong.

Conclusion: A thesis that is right but weak cannot be believed because belief is not produced by correctness, but by survival. We don’t just believe ideas because they are stated. We believe them because we see them endure pressure and survive being nearly destroyed. Basically, agreement is intellectual, but belief is existential. And stories are not fact-delivery systems, but belief-machines!

Important! About Lucifer: I'm not arguing that opposition rooted in trauma is illegitimate. I'm just arguing that trauma cannot be the entire argument. Trauma can explain why a character holds a belief, but it on its own, cannot justify what that belief claims about reality. In Lucifer's case, trauma isn't a source for philosophy but a replacement. The narrative treats his wounds as proof that his worldview is wrong, not as the context from which it emerges. Lucifer's argument against redemption has no merit because his objection is framed as being in need of healing not answers. The story basically says that if he were healthier, he would agree with his daughter and this kills philosophical tension. In a better-written story, his pain would sharpen his argument, not invalidate it. What I'm trying to say is: Trauma can explain why someone believes something, but it cannot replace the need for that belief to be tested, answered or taken seriously.

Recommendation: If you're interested in a work that offers a compelling thesis, a great main character, and even motivational redemption arcs, then just read the Bible, bruh."

How is this critique? What should I change or improve on? I'm happy to hear your opinions or thoughts, K-Farmers.

 

[Strangolapreti]

Viv's character designs are very much hit or miss. And a lot of the reasons for why they are designed the way they are is more on the fact of what she finds cool, and less on what is fitting to said character.

For me, its exactly 3 hits (loona, the 2 imp couple) and just as many misses as the number water droplets that fell in Great Flood.

 

[The Saltening]

updated val one. plus a banner

 

[Gladly]

Thank you for the medal. It was difficult to write, especially on like three different platforms, but it was still worth it.

 

[The Saltening]

i tried so fucking hard to make this work. but the way its animated just fucks it. vox holds one expression too long while the background moves. so cutting it down or extending it causes issues making it look bad either way.

this is the best i got after way too fucking long.

 

[GeorgeSmarty]

Heaven rejected redemption on the grounds that “This is simply how things are and have always been: Good people go to Heaven, bad people go to Hell.” But the show itself undermines and collapses this logic through Adam. He is demonstrably cruel and immoral, yet he resided in Heaven. His mere existence should have triggered a theological crisis. At minimum, it should have raised questions. I could accept Heaven not knowing how the system works (even if that is questionable and strains credibility). What I cannot accept is that they apparently never asked. You are seriously asking me to believe that a society built entirely around justice, judgment, and moral order has never produced or had philosophers, theologians, or moral thinkers who questioned the mechanics of the afterlife? Important distinction: questioned, not solved.

What I always wondered:

Didn't the show tell show tell us that angels created the universe and going from that presumably also hell?

Then why don't they know how the afterlife works?

And why are they beholden to silly rules like that redeemed people can't use portals?
Didn't they make them in the first place?

That also raises the question how Vox even wanted to go to heaven when not even the people that should be in charge of governing existence can break those weird laws and he shouldn't be even able to leave pride ring in the first place. (Why ever that even is the case in the first place.)