|
Regy Rusty posted:Neither Sony nor Marvel would want to introduce one of the most famous characters they have during Agents of SHIELD. Oh god not this again.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
And the cycle begins anew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
The point is moot, they confirmed in the press release that he will be introduced in a film first. With the Inhumans they hinted at an early appearance. However, the characters Sony had access to in the Spider-Man universe make up a big chunk of the New York Marvel characters - I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Oscorp Tower or a copy of The Daily Bugle next time the MCU hits modern New York.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
And I'm pretty sure "introduced" means in the after-credits thing they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:And I'm pretty sure "introduced" means in the after-credits thing they do. Given that Spider-Man is a major part of the Civil War comics story, it seems more likely they'll make him an actual part of the story. I wouldn't be surprised if Civil War is one of the major reasons why this whole partnership went through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Don't forget, Sony is still in charge of Spider-Man movies, so it's more likely that what we get, if anything, for at least the near future is references to the Bugle and stuff like that. Once "New Spidey" (Spider-Man the 3rd) is introduced (which is too bad, I liked Andrew Garfield as Spidey, his characterization was pretty spot-on) we may see, depending on how much money various parts want, anything from Peter Parker as a guest star, to Spider-Man handling poo poo as a Deus Ex Machina device... something like a webbed villain with a little note from the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Look, Peter Parker wears/wore glasses, right? So does Clark Kent. It's a flawless disguise. My gut tells me there won't be any heavy focus on Spidey in SHIELD. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:And I'm pretty sure "introduced" means in the after-credits thing they do. Nah, we'll probably see a hint of Spidey in an after-credit thing for the movie before the one he actually shows up in. At this point in the character's lifetime, no one needs to see Uncle Ben die again or get told that with great power comes great blah blah blah. Just a quick scene of Coulson going "you hear about this spiderman guy?" and then in the next movie he can be swinging around with the rest of the crew. Twitter is blowing up wanting Donald Glover/Childish Gambino to be Spiderman again, just like they did before Garfield was cast. Can't say I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:Look, Peter Parker wears/wore glasses, right? So does Clark Kent. It's a flawless disguise. Hmm, you might be on to something here. Spider-man wears red and blue. Superman wears red and blue. Can Spidy get his speed up to blur status? Someone get the CW on the line!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
They have already stated that Spidey's first MCU appearance in going to be in a movie, not a TV series. Narcissus1916 posted:Agents of SHIELD doesn't function as a TV show - it functions as a weekly one hour advertisement for Marvel's movies and brand awareness. I don't think it does. Because if it does that all but guarantees its cancellation, since last year's films proved that the MCU doesn't need AoS for help. AoS is an attempt to spin the massive success of the MCU onto Disney's Broadcast TV network and to diversify the audience there, since it was leaning heavily toward women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:They have already stated that Spidey's first MCU appearance in going to be in a movie, not a TV series. Nonsense, people would forget the MCU existed if there weren't new material in that universe every week, and Studios desperately needs it to fill in crucial backstory in the films, and Kevin Feige has a huge, hands-on creative role which he mysteriously keeps a secret for SHIELD but not Agent Carter. Does that cover everything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Nonsense, people would forget the MCU existed if there weren't new material in that universe every week, and Studios desperately needs it to fill in crucial backstory in the films, and Kevin Feige has a huge, hands-on creative role which he mysteriously keeps a secret for SHIELD but not Agent Carter. I think you are swinging too hard and keep in mind that I completely disagreed with you on the Inhumans thing. I just think that the whole "AoS is marketing for the movies" thing is completely wrong. I don't think that there is zero potential for AoS to be meaningful within the MCU (Inhumans), but I will say that they are definitely purposefully choosing to be as meaningless as they can get away with most of the time. The remainder of this season, and the bulk of next season will likely reveal whether or not Disney wants AoS to actually stand with the rest of the MCU or not, since the plots of the films going forward will have more unavoidable implications and SHIELD isn't going to be able to remain a secret forever. If SHIELD isn't outted by Civil War, then yes, the show is a meaningless cash in that is everything you said it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I think you are swinging too hard and keep in mind that I completely disagreed with you on the Inhumans thing. Fair enough. Anyway, as wrong as I was about the Inhumans being introduced as a concept, that's really not that comparable to using SHIELD to introduce the lead character(s) of an upcoming film and I have no qualms about dismissing the latter as a possibility. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
You guys are vastly underestimating how much money companies want to make. “Well we're already successful, guess we'll stop advertising” is not a sentence anyone has ever said. By this logic I guess I must have hallucinated all those Coca Cola Superbowl commercials. It's not just enough for some to have not forgotten about your brand. That's, like, bare minimum. You want every single human on earth to not just be aware of your product, not just thinking about it, but have it be at the utter forefront of their mind at every waking moment of their lives. When someone goes to Wal-Mart, you don't just want them to think your product is cool and but it if they happen to see it. You want them to remember to go buy it on their own. You want that purchase to be the reason they got off the couch to go to the store to begin with. For that, you need a constant deluge of advertising. You want your consumer so absorbed in your brand that they start to take it as part of their identity. That's how AoS furthers the brand. But there's still no way they're gonna have Spider Man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Fair enough. I don't think Blackbolt will debut on AoS because whoever plays him will probably be too expensive. But it also isn't an impossibility because there is no business reason against it. People are going to see an Inhumans movie regardless of whether or not a character from it showed up on TV first. Outside of potential cost, there is no reason not to. If Disney didn't care about the cost, or could negotiate a good deal, there would be no reason for them not to do it. Do I think the origin of the Inhumans main cast will debut on TV first? Not really. But I can see the backstory of the Inhumans being explained on TV first as a possiblity, since Marvel already stated they don't want to do origin stories anymore on film. XboxPants posted:You guys are vastly underestimating how much money companies want to make. “Well we're already successful, guess we'll stop advertising” is not a sentence anyone has ever said. By this logic I guess I must have hallucinated all those Coca Cola Superbowl commercials. You maybe misunderstanding how advertising works. Coke runs expensive commercials because otherwise you are only going to see Coke if you are somewhere that soda is present. Marvel already advertises its films heavily, with marketing specifically for its films. It also has merchandising, and a web presence. Marvel doesn't need to blow money on a TV show relatively few people watch to advertise movies that get 100x the number of viewers or more. That would be bad business. Ads are targeted. Coke advertises to people that they want to drink Coke. If barely anyone is watching AoS, and those that do are not watching it to the degree that they watch the films, then AoS is objectively an advertising failure. Disney wants to make money, which is why they are trying to spread Marvel into its TV operations. Because they make money from TV too, and want to make more. TV is an outlet for additional revenue and profit in of itself. They want its movie audience to watch its TV shows, which have a smaller audience. They want to grow that audience because that means more money. They already know that the people who watch AoS are probably already watching the films. They want the rest of the people who watch the films to watch the shows. That's why they've thrown ads for the show in front of the movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You maybe misunderstanding how advertising works. Coke runs expensive commercials because otherwise you are only going to see Coke if you are somewhere that soda is present. Marvel already advertises its films heavily, with marketing specifically for its films. It also has merchandising, and a web presence. Marvel doesn't need to blow money on a TV show relatively few people watch to advertise movies that get 100x the number of viewers or more. That would be bad business. Blow money? That makes it sound like Agents of SHIELD is losing money, is that the case? If that was true then I would agree with you, but I was under the assumption that it was successful enough that it was making them money. Which makes for a totally different scenario. Instead of blowing money for slightly effectively advertising - which would be a waste - they're getting paid for slightly effective advertising, which would make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:You guys are vastly underestimating how much money companies want to make. “Well we're already successful, guess we'll stop advertising” is not a sentence anyone has ever said. By this logic I guess I must have hallucinated all those Coca Cola Superbowl commercials. Maybe it's different in America, but in the UK the only time you see adverts for normal basic Coke on TV is over the Christmas period and that is becuase it has become a sort of tradition. The spin off types of coke (diet and zero) are advertised a bit more but no where near as much as other products. Pepsi just don't bother at all. Everyone knows about Coke and Pepsi, they don't need to spend silly money on adverts. If SHEILD really was an advert for their movies (I don't think they were) there would be more blatant tie ins and references. Right now there is the odd bald guy that was in the early movies for a couple of mins and then died in the Avengers and the fact that it has Marvel in the title.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:If SHEILD really was an advert for their movies (I don't think they were) there would be more blatant tie ins and references. Right now there is the odd bald guy that was in the early movies for a couple of mins and then died in the Avengers and the fact that it has Marvel in the title. To be clear, it's not like I think it's 100% only made as a commercial and nothing else. It doesn't have to be in such black and white terms - I just think every single time Marvel & Disney makes someone think about their franchise, they gain something from that, and that they're aware of that and it's at least part of why they think MCU tv shows are a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Blow money? That makes it sound like Agents of SHIELD is losing money, is that the case? If that was true then I would agree with you, but I was under the assumption that it was successful enough that it was making them money. Which makes for a totally different scenario. Instead of blowing money for slightly effectively advertising - which would be a waste - they're getting paid for slightly effective advertising, which would make sense. You're gonna have to provide some information that indicates that AoS is successful advertising for the brand. I don't have numbers that state AoS is hemorrhaging money, but based on their own mentioning of the average budget for an episode, and the average ratings, and considering that other shows have been cancelled with similar ratings, it is safe to say that AoS is not some cash cow for them. AoS isn't being saved from cancellation because it is making tons of money. It is being saved because being cancelled tarnishes the brand, and since Disney completely owns the brand, the network and the show, they are in a position to let its lackluster performance slide, where in many cases it wouldn't. And making "some" money is absolutely not good enough in big business. Maximizing profits is a priority and big corporations usually have little interest in making "some money" when they could be making more money doing something else. But like I said, AoS is part of a larger brand that they own, so cancelling it is admitting failure, in a brand that has basically had zero failures so far. They will prop up the shows corpse as long as they can, until it starts actively losing them money, or, of course, they could turn it all around and make the show a hit, which isn't impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You're gonna have to provide some information that indicates that AoS is successful advertising for the brand. Exactly. Agent Carter is exactly the same. It is a small run show intended to be shown in the gap where most other shows just close down due to the predictable ratings slump. It can't be assessed the way other shows are with regards to it getting renewed etc. Internally Disney/Marvel/ABC will decide if this experiment is a success or a failure based on a different set of metrics. A bit off tangent, but I think it's still relevent: I watch a lot of US TV shows but I do get annoyed with the "must be 22 episodes per season, then have random breaks all over the place. And becasue there are 22 episodes there has to be filler episodes as there is not enough compelling content, or bottle episodes to save money for the finale" poo poo. Most UK shows are 6 - 10 episodes a season, as are the new wave of quality non network shows and I think they are better for it. I would much prefer there to be 10 outstanding high quality episodes of AoS unbroken, then some time after the Christmas break there were 10 outstanding high quality episodes of Agent Carter, then a break for the summer, rinse and repeat. The actors and writers get room to breathe as an added bonus. The reason the non network shows are attracting big name talent into their shows is that they don't have to commit to 40+ weeks out of the year just for the one show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:Exactly. I think everyone agrees with this. Netflix shows are increasing in popularity, and Game of Thrones is a massive hit. In both cases, seasons are only 10 episodes long, more or less. The traditional 20+ episode season is becoming a chore for me personally, since you inevitably end up with a bunch of bad episodes meant to draw things out. Personally I think they should just make as many episodes as they thing they would need to tell the best story. Be it 8, 10, 12, 16, or 20, etc. Season 1 of SHIELD could have told the same story in 10 episodes and it would have been better for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You're gonna have to provide some information that indicates that AoS is successful advertising for the brand. I'm honestly not sure what numbers you expect me to have access to. My general idea is that the more you see Agents of SHIELD, the more likely you are to be someone who thinks about the Marvel franchise a lot; basically, a fan. I guess the general success of Agents of SHIELD Comic-Con panels would be an indicator of that? ToastyPotato posted:And making "some" money is absolutely not good enough in big business. Maximizing profits is a priority and big corporations usually have little interest in making "some money" when they could be making more money doing something else. Yeah that's absolutely true. But other posters have indicated that it's unlikely ABC would actually be able to get any higher ratings at that timeslot than what SHIELD is pulling in, and I kinda took their word for it. (maybe I shouldn't?) So again, that changes the situation, because they actually couldn't be making more money doing something else. Sure, they could do a reality show or whatever, but then we get into the issue you brought up about tarnishing the brand by cancelling SHIELD and replacing it with The Fattest Bachelor Champion or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I'm honestly not sure what numbers you expect me to have access to. My general idea is that the more you see Agents of SHIELD, the more likely you are to be someone who thinks about the Marvel franchise a lot; basically, a fan. I guess the general success of Agents of SHIELD Comic-Con panels would be an indicator of that? They could make more money by running a cheaper show that gets the same ratings and that would cause the problem, but money is the key thing. And if they don't want to cancel it because of tarnishing the brand, then that means AoS is less an advertisement for anything, and more a legit part of the brand. Also, again, with regards to your first statement, there is no indication that the people who watch AoS don't already watch the movies. Disney makes zero dollars because someone thinks about Marvel. The only make money if people watch the show and buy/rent the movies, etc. It doesn't work like Coke, which is consumable. Thinking about Coke makes you want a Coke. So you drink Coke, probably more than you should, which makes money for Coke. Thinking about Marvel doesn't make money for Disney, because you either watch the show or you don't. You either watch the movies or you don't. It's not consumable in the same way in that once they got your money, they have it, since most people aren't going to continuously rewatch a ticketed movie or a PPV or Hulu episodes. Cartoons worked as ads for toys because thinking about toys made kids want toys. Wanting toys means buying toys, and there was always multiple toys per toyline, with multiple sets of toys being added over time. The movies don't work that way. You go to see the movie ,and then you've seen it, and the next one is months away. Disney already most likely spends more money marketing the movies than they do on an entire season of AoS. To bring it back to soda. AoS isn't a commercial for Coke. It's a new flavor of Coke or a different Coke product. It is an expansion of the brand. It doesn't exist to make people want to drink more regular Coke or some other flavor, it exists to tap a different market. This isn't exactly the same again, but it is a lot closer, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:They could make more money by running a cheaper show that gets the same ratings and that would cause the problem, but money is the key thing. And if they don't want to cancel it because of tarnishing the brand, then that means AoS is less an advertisement for anything, and more a legit part of the brand. AoS made me go watch Winter Soldier in theaters when otherwise I would have waited for it to get on TV. So...anecdotally you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Pander posted:AoS made me go watch Winter Soldier in theaters when otherwise I would have waited for it to get on TV. It's not a good sign when the one movie most heavily tied to AoS performed less than the movie that had nothing to do with the series later that year (Guardians) and less than Avengers before it. Also, way more people saw Winter Soldier than watch AoS anyway, so empirically, there is no evidence that AoS helped Winter Soldier in anyway. If anything, you could poorly argue that it hurt it! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Cartoons worked as ads for toys because thinking about toys made kids want toys. Wanting toys means buying toys, and there was always multiple toys per toyline, with multiple sets of toys being added over time. The movies don't work that way. You go to see the movie ,and then you've seen it, and the next one is months away. This is completely contrary to everything I've heard and experienced about how important merchandising rights are to these movies. For instance, over the past 5+ years, Marvel has massively scaled down their comics-centric toylines (i.e. the Marvel Universe figures) and replaced them with rotating lines of whatever movie is currently in the theaters. Iron Man toys when there's a new Iron Man movie, when it's Thor you get Thor toys, etc. I'm pretty sure you're wrong when you say that merchandising isn't a major factor. (correct me if that's not what you're saying, it sure sounds like it is)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Regarding Black Bolt on TV - the cost isn't necessarily an issue. Actors are paid much less for non-speaking roles and Vin Diesel, heavily rumored to be playing him, got paid a ton to say "Groot" in Guardians of the Galaxy. Rumor has it the Groot role was part of an overall deal for him to play two characters. Considering how long ago the deal was struck and how far off The Inhumans movie now is, I'd be more surprised if we didn't see him on Agents of Shield. Though, with the Inhumans plotline, the eventual Avengers 2 tie-in, and RDJ likely making a cameo before the end of the season, the second half of Season 2 seems like it's going to be very busy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Emerson Cod posted:RDJ likely making a cameo before the end of the season, the second half of Season 2 seems like it's going to be very busy. Where are you getting this from other than RDJ one time saying he would like to appear on the show?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:It's not a good sign when the one movie most heavily tied to AoS performed less than the movie that had nothing to do with the series later that year (Guardians) and less than Avengers before it. Also, way more people saw Winter Soldier than watch AoS anyway, so empirically, there is no evidence that AoS helped Winter Soldier in anyway. If anything, you could poorly argue that it hurt it! I paid Marvel money because of AoS. The rest of your post is drivel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:This is completely contrary to everything I've heard and experienced about how important merchandising rights are to these movies. For instance, over the past 5+ years, Marvel has massively scaled down their comics-centric toylines (i.e. the Marvel Universe figures) and replaced them with rotating lines of whatever movie is currently in the theaters. Iron Man toys when there's a new Iron Man movie, when it's Thor you get Thor toys, etc. You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying merchandising isn't a major factor, it completely is a major source of revenue. I was referencing the way cartoon shows have worked as ads for toylines in comparison to how AoS doesn't work as an ad for anything, really. AoS IS the product. Also, there IS a key difference to how toylines for MCU and a classic toyline is situated in the grand scheme of things. In the past, some cartoons only existed to sell toylines. The toylines were main source of revenue. With the MCU, there are toylines, but they aren't the main product. The movies are very significant in of themselves in terms of generating revenue, merchandising follows naturally, but it isn't the reason these movies are being made. The MCU merch is being made because the movies are A) marketable in such a way, and B)actually successful enough to warrant merchandise. If the movies did more poorly, there would be far less merch. This is the opposite of the classic cartoon model, where the toys were often made first, and the cartoon was made to sell it. Pander posted:I paid Marvel money because of AoS. The rest of your post is drivel. I didn't, therefore your opinion is pointless. See how that works?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Also, way more people saw Winter Soldier than watch AoS anyway, so empirically, there is no evidence that AoS helped Winter Soldier in anyway. Given that S1 ratings stayed pretty much level before and after TWS, the reverse is also true. Honestly, I think most people have made their minds up about whether the show is worth watching, fairly or not, and thus there's no real hope for audience growth. I wouldn't mind being wrong, though. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:They have already stated that Spidey's first MCU appearance in going to be in a movie, not a TV series. Yes, you're right. Spidey will probably not feature heavily if at all, ever, on SHIELD unless they find out some way to make lots of money off of it. So, something in passing if at all. Emerson Cod posted:Regarding Black Bolt on TV - the cost isn't necessarily an issue. Actors are paid much less for non-speaking roles and Vin Diesel, heavily rumored to be playing him, got paid a ton to say "Groot" in Guardians of the Galaxy. Rumor has it the Groot role was part of an overall deal for him to play two characters. Considering how long ago the deal was struck and how far off The Inhumans movie now is, I'd be more surprised if we didn't see him on Agents of Shield. I came to post something like this. Black Bolt's whole deal being not talking because he will destroy whatever the plot demands his whispers destroy or whatever means the actor playing Black Bolt won't be in the same league as an A or B list actor, at least in the price range. The problem with Black Bolt is that for his character to work you need Medusa or another member of the Royal Family to be the Threepio to his Artoo. There's where the money problem is, those Royal Family douches all roll as a posse and that whole situation is better handled in a movie, with references to them at best on the show. There's no reason Agent Poots needs to meet the king of her subrace, no matter how much of a Mary Sue she is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying merchandising isn't a major factor, it completely is a major source of revenue. Gotcha, that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:If SHIELD isn't outted by Civil War, then yes, the show is a meaningless cash in that is everything you said it was. Neglected to respond to this part earlier, but: this sort of implies that you think that this show needs a big-screen payoff to justify itself, which in turn implies you don't think it's worth watching on its own merits, in which case... why watch? Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but surely there can be a middle ground between "crucial piece of the overall MCU canon" and "meaningless cash-in". If you want an example of the latter, just look at the first half of last season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
I fail to understand how anyone can think that anything put on network television ISN'T a cash-in of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Neglected to respond to this part earlier, but: this sort of implies that you think that this show needs a big-screen payoff to justify itself, which in turn implies you don't think it's worth watching on its own merits, in which case... why watch? Well I would probably watch either way, as long as the quality didn't dip too bad. I've seen all of Smallville as it aired. I have a thick skin. What I meant is that it would be almost confirmed as just some show with Marvel slapped on it in a cheap attempt to make "easy" money. I don't really believe that is the case, but if by Civil War they have managed to completely dodge having the show be more properly integrated into the MCU despite being about an organization central to it, then that would probably be the case. Pander posted:I fail to understand how anyone can think that anything put on network television ISN'T a cash-in of some sort. Yeah, man, like isn't everything a cash-in when you think about it.. like .whoa man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Given that Spider-Man is a major part of the Civil War comics story, it seems more likely they'll make him an actual part of the story. I wouldn't be surprised if Civil War is one of the major reasons why this whole partnership went through. Yes, but he'll be introduced in a sneak peak thing. EC posted:Nah, we'll probably see a hint of Spidey in an after-credit thing for the movie before the one he actually shows up in. That's exactly what I said in the thing you quoted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
If AoS was completely isolated from the MCU I'd still enjoy the hell out of it. Season 2 has been killing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That's exactly what I said in the thing you quoted. Oops, that's what I get for posting before having coffee I guess.  I think AoS is good and Peggy Carter is great and if they decide to cancel AoS, I hope they do so in a way that allows the creators to write an actual conclusion to the show (which would hopefully be the official disbandment of SHIELD during Civil War).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Well I would probably watch either way, as long as the quality didn't dip too bad. I've seen all of Smallville as it aired. I have a thick skin. What I meant is that it would be almost confirmed as just some show with Marvel slapped on it in a cheap attempt to make "easy" money. It has HYDRA, Mockingbird, Quake, Mister Hyde, Absorbing Man, Inhumans... how exactly does that translate into "just some show with Marvel slapped on it?" Again, we all saw the first half of S1. I know exactly what that would actually look like, and SHIELD thankfully isn't that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
I just caught up to the current episode after being behind, looking forward to tonight's. I gotta say they're pulling no punches with the proto-Red Room stuff and making my feel really sorry for Dottie the Psycho. "I can never finish a whole one" took my by surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:58
|
|
