|
Hakkesshu posted:It's not bad, but it almost immediately squandered its own potential in favour of being as safe and inoffensive as possible. It hasn't even had time to reach its own potential. You want the show to do big things immediately, but big things don't have much impact when you barely know the characters involved. Whedon shows, as mentioned before, tend to be a slow burn at the start but the later payoffs are much better for it. Also, how is the show being 'safe and inoffensive'? It isn't supposed to be Law and Order: SVU.
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The most disappointing thing about the show is the fact that the show isn't the slightest bit interested in portraying a post alien invasion world. Shield doesn't seem to be operating much different than it was prior to Avengers. Because SHIELD was already operating with the knowledge that poo poo like the Chitauri, Asgardians, and the Tesseract exist. The Battle of New York was a surprise not because of who was involved, but because of the scale of the event itself which was the first major superhuman/alien event in the MCU. The big change post-Avengers is that the public is now very much aware that the world is a lot more interesting than they previously though, even if SHIELD tries its best to cover up the specifics of these sort of events.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Yeah but during the Avengers, Shield found itself under direct attack twice and basically got its rear end kicked twice. Considering the subplot in Avengers was Shield trying to arm itself with HYDRA tech, it's kind of boring that they decided to make a show about a rag tag group of misfit agents who go around and occasionally do a thing, with no real reference or establishment of the repercussions of an alien invasion that nearly destroyed half of Manhattan in broad day light. Except The Avengers are SHIELD's answer to the problem they faced in The Avengers. In the MCU there aren't a huge amount of known superhumans yet, so what is SHIELD expected to do? They aren't evil, which is why they aren't forcing the superhumans they do know to work for them (unlike the mysterious enemy in this show). They already chase down advanced tech, so that hasn't really changed. SHIELD still does what it was doing before the battle because really, outside of hiring more Avengers they can't counter something of that scale by conventional means, so they act to prevent situations like that from popping up. Thus, Agents of SHIELD. And that said, we're just five episodes in. I highly doubt the show is going to ignore the events in The Avengers, and I have zero doubts we'll get some stories that deal with the repercussions of that event (we've already had bits and pieces of this). Having a show focused solely on the fallout would be ridiculously overfocused, especially considering big events are still happening in the movies. It'd suck to set up the premise of your show to constantly have to chase the fallout of events happening in the movies after they one-up each other every year. And honestly, once they start bringing in bits of Cosmic Marvel, the Battle of New York is going to seem like a nostalgic afterthought. Error 404 posted:Well, as long as we're speculating based off of some nebulous idea of 'realism' then there's a whole lot of varied responses. The great thing is that this very show, with its broader premise, can actually address that sort of stuff at times. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:AoS is also good, but let's be real, it's a network show aimed at the kids who like the movies and comics, it is entirely "safe" Define 'safe'. In five episodes we've already had women prancing around in their underwear, Ward beating the poo poo out of people, corpses in just about every episode, a woman being immolated, fairly liberal use of firearms, and a bomb going off in someone's head. The "show is aimed at kids" argument doesn't really hold up if you actually watch the show. It sure sounds great to say, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:When compared to a lot of things in the same timeslot, yeah it is safe, and it's the kind of stuff that shows up in exciting actiony shows that kids watch, the only example of yours that actually holds water is the lady getting immolated in terms of graphic poo poo shown on screen. You realize that kids can actually enjoy shows that aren't targeted at them, right? AoS is clearly targeting the 18-35 group, just like every Whedon show ever created, but it has appeal outside of that age bracket. Just because kids can watch and enjoy something, doesn't mean that something is clearly targeted at them. EDIT: Also, in general, shows can be 'safe' and still not targeted at kids. Although 'safe' is a really terrible and subjective metric to judge a show by, since it could mean entirely different things to different people. AoS is clearly 'safe' if you are comparing it to Law and Order: SVU, but not if you actually compare it to the source material. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:They sure can! But you're sidestepping the fact that this show, and the movies they come from are targetted at kids, they're PG-13 at most, and refusing to engage them as such is ridiculous. I don't agree that the movies and AoS are written for and targeted at kids. However, they are very accessible to kids, which in turn allows Marvel/Disney/Fox/whoever is producing super hero movies to use those franchises to specifically target kids in the toy market.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:And not even mentioning the popularity of a lot of shounen anime that are very explicitly very long running series. Yeah, execs worrying about multi-episode story arcs when popular poo poo like Naruto and Bleach have arcs that last for dozens of episodes is amusing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:This is awful advice. It's always awful advice for any series, book or TV, that has any sort of serialization or actual character development. Especially with a show like this where the first season isn't bad. A couple characters suck, but the ultimate payoff is well worth just watching it. Skipping it just lets you walk into the middle of a storyline with no real investment into any of the plots or characters. Deadpool posted:I know that season two is better then the first in most ways, but if you legitimately can't make it through the first season because you don't enjoy it I don't think the second season is going to do much to change your mind. It's still the same show. And this. Part of what makes the second season so great is how it builds on stuff the first season established. It's not like it's suddenly become something different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Behold! Deathlok!!! Ugh. I've seen cosplayers do work that makes that look absolutely amateurish in comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:I'm still convinced that Gotham was never intended to be a batman show in the first place, and they are just awkwardly trying to make it into one. I'm still convinced making shows about a superhero without wanting to actually use the superhero is a loving terrible idea that should have died with Smallville. Gotham is just Smallville with an even less interesting concept. I expect it to have something akin the early Smallville's 'Clark and Lana talk about secrets in the barn at the end of every episode' schtick. Instead of talking about secrets, Gordon will probably fantasize about a hero rising to defend Gotham, and the viewers will collectively roll their eyes in unison.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 22:15
|
|