|
I would actually unironically be totally okay with a show that's entirely about Skye and inhuman poo poo. It's sort of funny because I thought she was an annoying shoehorned in character for most of season 1, and now she's pretty much the main character.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
She was always the main character, just they either didn't know what to do with her, or didn't have the OK to do the reveal that gave her an actual charactr arc until this season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
I can see them overdoing and getting burnt out on the Inhumans stuff. To be honest it's kind of got the same plot and tone as all the rest of the plots and tones. Something something conspiracy yada yada betrayal, two hours of "your gift is a gift and not a curse because it's a gift," reload and replay. That the plot is currently "good" doesn't mean it doesn't fall into the same pratfalls that a lot of the show does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:That the plot is currently "good" doesn't mean it doesn't fall into the same pratfalls that a lot of the show does. I don't know if you did that on purpose, but it really does fit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
A lot of people focus on Skye's improvement as a character but they've also done a much better job with Ward. He was pretty boring to begin with but now he's such a smirking jackass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Also Fitz and Simmons aren't interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Wolpertinger posted:I would actually unironically be totally okay with a show that's entirely about Skye and inhuman poo poo. It's sort of funny because I thought she was an annoying shoehorned in character for most of season 1, and now she's pretty much the main character. I have yet to be convinced that there's enough story mileage in the Inhumans (at least, what's available for the TV folks to use) for an entire series to work, but there are still four episodes left this season, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:I have yet to be convinced that there's enough story mileage in the Inhumans (at least, what's available for the TV folks to use) for an entire series to work, but there are still four episodes left this season, I suppose. The general adventures of people with powers carried Heroes through multiple seasons. Also The 4400. It is a generic enough premise that they could slog through multiple seasons without ever touching the royal family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
To be fair nothing carried Heroes through it's later seasons, it just went so high early on that it took awhile for it to crash land again. The 4400 was legitimately good though, and skipped right to "People with powers and the world knows about it" pretty drat quick, for which it deserves all the credit in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The general adventures of people with powers carried Heroes through multiple seasons. Also The 4400. It is a generic enough premise that they could slog through multiple seasons without ever touching the royal family. Well, I see the generic premise as kind of the problem. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything, just skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
So, in Joss Whedon's opinion, AOS has no real effect on the MCU:quote:"A lot of people come back in The Winter Soldier. It’s a grand Marvel tradition. Bucky was supposed to die. And the Coulson thing was, I think, a little anomalous just because that really came from the television division, which is sort of considered to be its own subsection of the Marvel universe. As far as the fiction of the movies, Coulson is dead." http://moviepilot.com/posts/2882938?lt_source=external,manual The article goes on to state however, that there maybe a reason related to his "vision" for the MCU that may explain why he isn't working on anymore MCU films. Ultimately, he has no say on the direction of the MCU, but it seemed like he used the last bit of control he had to completely exclude AoS from Age of Ultron in anyway, in other words, no closure or progress on SHIELD or Coulson within the MCU during this film. Honestly, if he was ultimately let go because of that, then the MCU is better for it. I get his point about wanting dead characters to stay dead, but this is comic books and that is pretty rare, and if you can come up with a decent way for someone to come back (Winter Soldier) then why not? Also AoS was a show he produced and helped create so I am confused as to why he takes issue with its main character. http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2015/04/joss-whedon-agents-of-shield-marvel-trouble/ This article he talks about how the show caused some issues with the movie folks, but again, he was partially responsible for that? But it does really take the wind out of the sails of the show, in my opinion. He kind of buries it, which is pretty messed up. And again, Whedon isn't in charge of the MCU, and he isn't a Marvel employee or representative, but it does shed light on what not to expect from from Avengers 2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
The show stands on its own two feet at this point, it doesn't take the wind out of anything. I love crazy Ward, Quake, Cal, the Cavalry, etc., and you don't need some affirmation that it matters to make it good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I'm more confused about what he means by that Bucky comment? Like, it's pretty obvious that from even the first Cap movie, they were going to do the Winter Soldier, so is he mad that he had to have Falcon show up in AoU to address that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
It's kind of difficult to parse what he's really saying when these are articles quoting other articles twice over with interviewers throwing their own words and opinions in, but it doesn't sound like he's saying saying AoS is literally not part of the MCU or something, just that it's better for both things to treat their storylines separately.ToastyPotato posted:Ultimately, he has no say on the direction of the MCU, but it seemed like he used the last bit of control he had to completely exclude AoS from Age of Ultron in anyway, in other words, no closure or progress on SHIELD or Coulson within the MCU during this film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:The show stands on its own two feet at this point, it doesn't take the wind out of anything. I love crazy Ward, Quake, Cal, the Cavalry, etc., and you don't need some affirmation that it matters to make it good. Daredevil stands on its own two feet, because nothing that happened in it had anything to do with anything that would be discussed in any movie so far. It, as a narrative, makes sense on its own. It isn't currently part of the greater story The issue with AoS is that it is based on things that are at the epicenter of the movie universe, so when it seems as if nothing that happens on the show matters within the realm of things the show is dealing with, that absolutely takes wind away because it means that plot developments in the movies will have more effect on the show then that damned show itself, which is pretty bad story telling. The problem is that it really doesn't stand alone because it chooses to be involved in things that the movies are involved in, but will be directly effected by what happens in the movies, while contributing nothing to the greater story. Coulson is buddies with Fury! Fury trusts him like no other! Except that he doesn't trust him enough to be involved in anything important when it matters, like a new threat to the Avengers? And none of that data in that toolbox will matter? Kind of makes the whole "what's in the box?!" plot thread kind of pointless if it is so unimportant that Fury has zero interest in it and no use for it. Nothing too big or too game changing can ever happen on the show because it will be ignored by the films, which means it might as well never have happened. Daredevil, again, does it right. It is ultimately a fight about corruption in the local PD and businesses, as well as a bit of a fight over some local real estate. No world domination. No killing millions. It was a good localized story. Right now the SHIELD team is chasing after Strucker, who is a villain in Age of Ultron, except, Whedon basically tells us that SHIELD isn't going to do jack poo poo. Nothing they do on the show will acknowledged, so this hunt for Strucker is a waste, because there is a good chance nothing will happen. And whatever they accomplish is not likely to have any effect on what Strucker will do in the movie, which means nothing may as well have happened at all. Like I said, going forward we have no idea what role, if any AoS may play in the greater MCU, but if they really are planning on keeping it separated from the greater storyline going on, I can only predict that people will grow tired of the show BrianWilly posted:
If Fury and Maria are barely in A2 than sure, it really wouldn't make sense to shoe horn Coulson into the movie. But I don't think most people want the movie to hit pause midway through to address Coulson and company. If Fury and Hill are important to the story in any way at all, then it would stand to reason that at the very least mentioning Coulson and SHIELD would make sense, since it is supposed to be kind of a big deal. Also, the show has begun directly tying itself to A2 with the search for Strucker and what he's been up to. The problem isn't that people want two separate things to be smushed together, it is that the show keeps insisting it is an integral part of the overall story by injecting itself into some fairly important story lines, and if what Whedon says is true, it means none of the things that come to pass on the show will ever matter to those stories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Or they'll matter in movies after Age of Ultron. Civil War, maybe. Or maybe something else, at some point when people in charge of the films think it would make sense and serve their films. Alternatively: Who cares? Who cares if Fury's box has nothing to do with Ultron or Thanos or something? If it does, great, but things on AoS should matter to AoS first and foremost. That storyline should pay off on the show, not in a film. It looks like that's what they're doing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
They are never going to matter in movies, that point is irrelevant. The idea that they are tethering themselves to the films and making their show meaningless by saying the name Strucker is absurd. AoS has its own villains and conflicts that are going to be played out over the remainder of this season. There will be emotional and physical consequences for the characters of the show. This is all completely independent of AoU, as the show stands on its own. Honestly if you don't like the characters and care enough about the main plotlines that you want to argue Fury not calling Coulson somehow diminishes the show just stop watching. ToastyPotato posted:Nothing too big or too game changing can ever happen on the show because it will be ignored by the films, which means it might as well never have happened. This is just ridiculous, because its clear that to you only something that affects every single movie and show is "game changing" when that is just not the case. Things like Skye's transformation in the mid-season finale are big, game changing, and powerful moments from, and for, the show. That's why I watch, I don't need a Coulson namedrop in AoU to keep me going. mikeraskol fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:This is just ridiculous, because its clear that to you only something that affects every single movie and show is "game changing" when that is just not the case. Things like Skye's transformation in the mid-season finale are big, game changing, and powerful moments from, and for, the show. That's why I watch, I don't need a Coulson namedrop in AoU to keep me going. I really like Daredevil though. A lot. And it has nothing to do with the MCU as a whole. It doesn't pretend to either. Pretty much every movie, outside of Guardians (for now) has had some direct effect on other movies in the MCU. If AoS is part of the MCU (in the way it tries to be), it would stand to reason that it should have similar effect, unless it were telling more localized, smaller scale stories, but it isn't. They are globe trotting, fighting HYDRA, dealing with people with alien blood, dealing with Fury's secrets, fighting over the control of SHIELD itself, the agency responsible for creating the Avengers to begin with, so yeah, from a story standpoint, its kind of weird to not expect the story line to continue developing the way everything else in the MCU has. Saying "shhh, none of it matters, and that's ok!" doesn't really address bad story telling. If Thor's mom shows up in Age of Ultron and they act like Dark World never happened, that would be really weird and no one would bat an eye at anyone criticizing it. The same with the events of IM3 and Tony destroying his suits, or Cap 2 and the events of Winter Soldier. It would be really, REALLY weird, if all of those things were ignored or even contradicted in some way. Whedon's statements kind of devalue the show. Of course, perhaps Feige and dudes behind Cap and the next 2 Avengers films have different ideas, and I really hope they do. Because the alternative is saying that the show will never be able to effect the status quo in the way that the movies can, which means what ever happens on the show, not counting directly effecting the characters on the show, will have no effect on the greater world. Strucker and HYDRA are in Ultron? Then SHIELD will have no effect on their plans, which means anything they try between now and the film will fail or perfectly resolve itself in some way as to not require anyone who watches the film to know what happened, because it wouldn't have mattered. Whatever happens on the show will be minimal enough to the point where it can safely be ignored. It lowers the stakes. I wasn't expecting Coulson to drive through Strucker's window on a motorcycle, shirtless, with a cigar in his mouth, saving the day, and stopping his evil schemes, but saying what happens on the show doesn't matter, when the show concerns itself with things involving the films, sucks. It's practically a spoiler. If Whedon had said what he said prior to the mid season break, that would have sucked tremendously. Not knowing what was going to happen with that underground city raised the tension pretty high. There was no telling what effect that episode was going to have on the rest of the series, nor the rest of the MCU, what so ever. Revealing Inhumans felt BIG. It was big. That being said, I guess its better my expectations be lowered now, than to be disappointed by surprise later. TL;DR: AoS was literally born from the movies. It's major plot lines have been born from the movies. It continues, even now, to attempt to remain some what attached to the movies, even though it finally struck out on its own with the big mid season finale. So yes, since it has been related to the films from the beginning and is still tying itself to the films, I kind of want to see the overall story continue to develop when certain key, central characters from both the films and the show appear to have a role in the next movie. It is disappointing when it doesn't, and kind of deflates the show when someone like Whedon forcibly removes it from the narrative. But I fully acknowledge, as I already have before, that I do not know the extent to which Fury (or Hill) play a role in AoU. So maybe it doesn't come up for more sensible reasons, the same way the kidnapping of the POTUS was of no interest to anyone in Winter Soldier. And also, we don't know if Feige and co have different plans. ToastyPotato fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:So, in Joss Whedon's opinion, AOS has no real effect on the MCU:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Can't thy just do poo poo on the show that's like the grunt work investigation stuff and then in the movie it's like "we lost the villain we'll call you when we find him" "ok a shield team sent us the info here you go"? I guess the problem is that you don't want someone popping up in a movie going "hey here's a new weapon/device you need" because it would feel out of nowhere in the movie but it took a whole season on TV. They could also potentially use Coulson's death and reanimation as a thing in Civil War, like maybe that's what makes Iron Man go "oh hey maybe the government ARE being dicks after all" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Toasty, I think you're being pretty silly to pin this all on Whedon and not Feige or anyone else on the Studios side of things. And as I've more or less said before, if you think the show needs a big-screen payoff to justify its existence, you're saying not only that it hasn't justified its existence on its own merits, but that it can't possibly do so. In which case, why bother watching at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I agree with Barry Convex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Oh, also, Moviepilot is a loving awful site that no one should ever link to. Everything on it is horribly sourced rumors or inane speculation stated as fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Toasty, I think you're being pretty silly to pin this all on Whedon and not Feige or anyone else on the Studios side of things. I never said it couldn't. Daredevil did, and I like that show. But Daredevil didn't insist on constantly dropping references to the films in an attempt to go "look guys! We're totally connected!" The Inhuman stuff has been the most interesting and best part of the entire series, and it has little or nothing to do with the MCU as a whole so far. Hell, it's had little to do with Coulson, outside of giving him something interesting to do with the alien writing. Basically, I am not a fan of half assing things. If they want the show to be in the MCU, then it should be in the MCU. If they didn't want their TV and movies touching together on the plate, then they should have done what Daredevil did and not have Coulson of all people be so central to the show. Also, if you guys seriously think its impossible to watch and get entertainment from a show while being able to seriously criticize the creative decisions behind it, then you guys are the ones being silly. TV police aren't going to strike me down because I am watching a show I have some complaints about, so stop worrying about why I am watching it. If you want to address my criticisms, then go for it, this is a place of discussion, but asking me why I am watching is pretty silly considering I never said the show was unwatchable or that I hated it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I never said it couldn't. Daredevil did, and I like that show. But Daredevil didn't insist on constantly dropping references to the films in an attempt to go "look guys! We're totally connected!" No, you're just saying that you shouldn't be reading Ms Marvel because "It doesn't even affect Secret Wars you guys, nothing she does will matter in the event itself!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Toasty, I think you're being pretty silly to pin this all on Whedon and not Feige or anyone else on the Studios side of things. Imagine you have a series of movies about a man who's story is that he's always trying to find his true love. Then they make a TV series about the same guy, with the same premise, but that while the TV show must never contradict the films, none of the events of the TV series are ever going to be acknowledged by the movie series. Not only would that mean that there are zero stakes in any of the man's romances on the TV show, but that there can never be any character development, no important characters introduced, nothing fleshed out about his past for fear that the films would later want to talk about that area. That's what people mean when they say none of it can "matter". In this case, instead of a shared character it's an entire shared world. That's the fear some people have - that although Agents of SHIELD is a very global show, it can never actually do anything to said globe. Its hands are always tied. This stuff from Whedon sounded very AoU specific to me, but other people are construing it be to applicable to the entire MCU, and I can see why they'd be upset about that. Marvel would be saying that, basically, nothing can ever happen on the show. To see why this is a problem you only have to look at the first season of the series, where they weren't allowed to progress their story until the movie did it. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Except the world's never going actually be destroyed in the show anyway, but you can totally have the baddies threaten it, and then Coulson and Quake and their buddies stop them. Just like every show/movie/comic ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Except the world's never going actually be destroyed in the show anyway, but you can totally have the baddies threaten it, and then Coulson and Quake and their buddies stop them. Just like every show/movie/comic ever. Yeah honestly I think it's fine. It's a limitation, but there are always limitations, good writers make the limitations work for them. I just understand why other people are worried that the show is always gonna have to tiptoe around the movies, given we've already seen it harm the show. (the HYDRA reveal) But, like I said, even that was the show's fault too. If the writers were as good back then as they are now they could have done a much better job of that, to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:No, you're just saying that you shouldn't be reading Ms Marvel because "It doesn't even affect Secret Wars you guys, nothing she does will matter in the event itself!" Not really though. Like I said, Daredevil was awesome. Also, that is a weird comparison to make since during huge events, the core books usually have the main plot in them. Tie-ins usually just fill in the blanks for those characters, or show what happened in the core books from a different perspective, in some cases. It would be kind of weird to expect a tie in book to do something major that wouldn't be shown in a core book anyway. If anything, I, and others with similar complaints, would LOVE for AOS to be treated like a Tie-in. It'd be more included that way. Gaz-L posted:Except the world's never going actually be destroyed in the show anyway, but you can totally have the baddies threaten it, and then Coulson and Quake and their buddies stop them. Just like every show/movie/comic ever. Great. Cool. Awesome. I wouldn't mind a well done self contained comic book show. But we just ended an episode that within five minutes dropped a Maria Hill cameo, brought up the scepter from Avengers and a subplot of AOU, made reference to Ultron, and had Coulson tell Hill to bring in the Avengers all for a film that Whedon says Coulson is dead in. I mean it's cool that they tried to drop that into the show, but from a story telling standpoint, what does that even mean? Coulson did all this poo poo to set up stuff for AOU that won't matter because if you hadn't seen the show it would make perfect sense anyway. So the movie will change the status quo again, and not acknowledge any plot points from the show. It's a very weird one sided story telling that I don't think I have ever seen before where everything that happens in the films matters, ultimately, to future films, and to the show, but nothing that happens on the show matters anywhere but on the show itself, until a movie shakes things up so much that the show is forced to change drastically again. That's why I am so glad the Inhumans movie is so far away. They have room to tell that story on the show and since the MCU isn't concerned with that, then it at least has its own agency and can go places and do things. Again, it comes down to not being forced to half rear end a story. XboxPants posted:This stuff from Whedon sounded very AoU specific to me, but other people are construing it be to applicable to the entire MCU, and I can see why they'd be upset about that. Marvel would be saying that, basically, nothing can ever happen on the show. To see why this is a problem you only have to look at the first season of the series, where they weren't allowed to progress their story until the movie did it. Yeah, my personal hope is that it is pretty AoU specific, and that it is one of the reasons why he's not doing any more MCU work. Perhaps Marvel wanted stuff to be more connected going forward and he was resistant to that. Perhaps that might have also caused Edgar Wright to quit Ant-Man? Who knows but the people involved. It's pretty much all speculation until after we all see AoU, and more importantly, until Civil War and next season happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I get his point about wanting dead characters to stay dead, ... Buffy Angel Giles Anyone else get resurrected in Buffy that I'm forgetting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:Buffy Fred  Oh look, but of course this exists redbackground fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:Buffy The idea of people coming back from the dead is literally in the title of the show, it's not exactly a fair comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Spike. Warren. Whedon didn't write the playbook on this but he sure does play the game. The Bucky one really is a weird example for him to bring up because literally everyone knew that Bucky wouldn't really die in Cap 1 from the moment Sebastian Stan was cast, looking exactly the way that adult Bucky would look as the Winter Soldier. Must've been some kind of exhausting press tour. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Also, if you guys seriously think its impossible to watch and get entertainment from a show while being able to seriously criticize the creative decisions behind it, then you guys are the ones being silly. TV police aren't going to strike me down because I am watching a show I have some complaints about, so stop worrying about why I am watching it. If you want to address my criticisms, then go for it, this is a place of discussion, but asking me why I am watching is pretty silly considering I never said the show was unwatchable or that I hated it. Well, you did say at one point that the show would be a "worthless cash-in" or something to that effect if it didn't pay off in a film. If that was just hyperbole, I stand corrected. XboxPants posted:Imagine you have a series of movies about a man who's story is that he's always trying to find his true love. Then they make a TV series about the same guy, with the same premise, but that while the TV show must never contradict the films, none of the events of the TV series are ever going to be acknowledged by the movie series. Not only would that mean that there are zero stakes in any of the man's romances on the TV show, but that there can never be any character development, no important characters introduced, nothing fleshed out about his past for fear that the films would later want to talk about that area. You're saying things that have been obvious for a while, really. I'm fully cognizant that the show does have a fundamental limitation baked into its premise: namely, that it's deeply intertwined with the MCU film canon, yet can never actually impact that canon itself. But good writing can work around that, and the best parts of S2 have managed that quite well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Imagine you have a series of movies about a man who's story is that he's always trying to find his true love. Then they make a TV series about the same guy, with the same premise, but that while the TV show must never contradict the films, none of the events of the TV series are ever going to be acknowledged by the movie series. Not only would that mean that there are zero stakes in any of the man's romances on the TV show, but that there can never be any character development, no important characters introduced, nothing fleshed out about his past for fear that the films would later want to talk about that area. Sort of like the Highlander TV series, except with decapitation instead of finding true love.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Sort of like the Highlander TV series, except with decapitation instead of finding true love. ...New Amsterdam?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Alan Sepinwall posted:A year ago, if an episode had ended with Coulson giving Maria Hill intel to pass on to the Avengers, I might have been excited, if only because I was more interested in the Avengers than I was in anyone on the TV show. Now, though, having so many recent developments turn out to be set-up for "Age of Ultron" is just frustrating. It says that "Agents of SHIELD" can never really have its own identity or tell its own stories, because it always has to be operating on some level in service to the movies, whether that's introducing characters and concepts that can be used in the films, or having to reset its own status quo to accommodate what's happened in the latest movie. From this review: http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/is-agents-of-shield-going-back-to-being-a-puppet-of-the-marvel-movies
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
It's not though. Theta Protocol can't only be calling in the Avengers. Unless Tony needed a bed for each of his suits, there's more to what Coulson has been doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Longbaugh01 posted:From this review: http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/is-agents-of-shield-going-back-to-being-a-puppet-of-the-marvel-movies Doesn't really make much sense to me unless you project these weird requirements regarding the MCU into the show. It's allowed to tell parallel stories to the movies as long as it stands on its own, which that episode did extremely well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
If Theta Protocol turns out to be something that is only Avengers related, that would be kind of bad. Because that would mean a minor subplot of the show was just a set up for the movie, and won't even have a normal resolution if the movie doesn't reference the show and doesn't actually cross over in any way. Same with the staff. Same with Raina's vision. If none of that is dealt with directly on the show, that would be a pretty bad move on their part, most specifically if the movie deals with it and ignores the show 100%, despite literally taking the plot ball from Maria Hill and running with it. There's nothing weird about it. It's not parallel story telling if you are picking up plots from movies and continuing them and then leading plot threads into movies. Were you one of the people who wanted AoS to have nothing to do with the movies back in S1? There were many people arguing for that point. Lot's of people disliked a shared universe in general. I definitely wasn't one of them. But my gripe now is that if the show is going to keep trying to be a part of the story, then it should probably actually be part of the story, in the way that any movie might be. Otherwise, I'd prefer they take the Daredevil or even Agent Carter approach. Barry Convex posted:Well, you did say at one point that the show would be a "worthless cash-in" or something to that effect if it didn't pay off in a film. If that was just hyperbole, I stand corrected. Well, yeah I would say 99% of the time "worthless" is used when criticizing something as subjective as entertainment, it is pretty much hyperbole. That's why I avoid using words like unwatchable. I've mentioned it plenty of times in the past, I watched every episode of Smallville when it aired. I'm not super snobby when it comes the quality of a TV show. Smallville was pretty bad in a lot of ways, but even that wasn't unwatchable. On your last point, we completely agree, and I have said almost exactly that in the past. Especially in reference to season 1. I am not a believer that S1 was as weak as it was because of limitations alone. They could have done better. S2 is definitely better by a long shot, but it still has some flaws. I'm just disappointed that Whedon kind of came down on the show he helped create in the first place, and that, at least for this upcoming film, he's pretending the show doesn't exist. It's not much different that a movie coming out that ignores one or more of its sequels, in a lot of ways. If you are a fan of that series of movies, and like all of them to a degree, a new movie coming out that says, forget the last one or two, that kind of sucks. Of course, I can't think of a time that happened with movies in a series that I actually cared about, though (Superman Returns, X-men kinda).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:08
|
|