Agent Carter in the Media

[kennyab]

One possibility is a syndication package with AoS, where AoS could be on daily rotation and Agent Carter shown as a marathon. But I'm really wondering if ABC is experimenting with shows like Agent Carter and Galavant to see how they do in streaming syndication on Netflix and/or Hulu. These models are obviously changing, and we're transitioning to the point that people do their channel surfing via Netflix recommendations and social media instead of pressing the Up/Down buttons on their remotes.

 

TV syndication is in a weird place right now. If you're not a blockbuster show like NCIS, Modern Family, or Friends, you're more than likely going to end up a niche station like SyFy. My guess is that the magic syndication number is going to mean less and less as networks depend on streaming services to extend the lifetimes of their shows. I think that's why Disney is willing to experiment with the Marvel franchise a bit. Each new movie is a chance for new audience members, as we have a very constant stream of kids reaching PG-13 viewing age. And they're putting together a back catalog to keep those new consumers in the family in an on-demand fashion.

 

It's what they've done with the princesses, and why they purchased Marvel in the first place, as they've never been able to build a "for boys" franchise themselves (and while I'm not one for enforcing gender constructs, I have to be honest about the demographics game). They just got lucky with Marvel in that it touches more demographics than the princesses. But the goal is the same, and they're in inventory-building mode right now.

[Lokiberry]

I do wonder though what Marvel's long term plans for the show are. Is it meant to be a limited release series - like a miniseries to fill this hiatus - or do they want to expand this into a full 22 episodes next season? I can't imagine them renewing it for too many years as these mini-seasons, if only because it's going to take forever to get to syndication that way.

Things aren't the way they used to be though. None of the Netflix series are going to run 22 episodes per season.  Shorter seasons are the reality everywhere but broadcast network. If Agent Carter is adjusted up, and Galavant continues to do well, ABC might feel that it's found a winning strategy of having new programming during the winter hiatus.

 

If that happens, the producer might have next season deal with the founding of SHIELD, the Hydra moles, more Howard Stark, and other things that might appeal to a broader audience. I mean, I like what I'm seeing now, but those are the things I'm really interested in.

[FurryFury]

Is it meant to be a limited release series - like a miniseries to fill this hiatus - or do they want to expand this into a full 22 episodes next season?

 

I can't find the quote, but the showrunners (who, I've gathered, are the writing team of Fazekas and Butters, who sound familiar, but I'm not sure from where) said this isn't a miniseries and they do hope for a continuation.

[Kromm]

Also, we don't have a ratings topic, so  I'll post them here: 1.9 18-49, which is honestly pretty bad for a premiere.

Even worse given how soft the competition was that particular night (the usual big Monday night threats weren't airing).

And the bad news is that its going to be blamed on having a female lead in an action show. And that might even be correct--not that female leads, this one particularly, are inferior, but just that insecure men who fear their penises shrinking back into their bodies often won't watch a female led show, and many women won't watch if they don't think they'll like an action genre or "comic book" show.

[FurryFury]

I'm not sure. This show really reminds me of Alias, and Alias was plenty popular in its heyday. Of course, maybe comic book affiliation makes it different somehow, I dunno.

 

Anyway, the real test is 2nd week. I doubt it will improve, but who knows.

Edited January 7, 2015 by FurryFury

[Kromm]

I'm not sure. This show really reminds me of Alias, and Alias was plenty popular in its heyday.

It's also about competition in the timeslot.

At 8pm it would have had to deal with The Flash... and it would have lost. At 9pm it's going to have to deal with Supernatural--which still covers a lot of the same viewer base, if not as closely.

The NCIS show on CBS is trouble. Those damn shows draw people like honey for some damn reason.

New Girl/Mindy Project skew young, I think, so that's a problem too.

NBC and it's shit-coms on that night are probably the only "easy" thing for them to beat.

Also... Alias could also play it's lead as very sexy and draw in male viewers as voyeurs. That's a bit more difficult with a period piece.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Kromm

[FurryFury]

New Girl/Mindy Project skew young, I think, so that's a problem too.

 

Eh, it's a pretty different demo. Plus, they are aging and not that good (well, at least, Mindy isn't, haven't watched New Girl since the pilot).

 

Supernatural has a very dedicated, if not big, following, so yeah, it could suck some eyeballs away.

 

Totally with you on NCIS. Well, at least it's pretty much the last big crime procedural out there. All others are barely holding on.

 

Also... Alias could also play it's lead as very sexy and draw in male viewers as voyeurs. That's a bit more difficult with a period piece.

 

Well, that scene with Peggy in an evening dress demonstrated plenty of cleavage, so it may have this kind of appeal, too.

Edited January 7, 2015 by FurryFury

[Leia1979]

It looks like while this is winter hiatus time for SHIELD, much of the competition is back with new episodes. New Girl/Mindy and NCIS are new next week. CW has a repeat of Arrow (doing the Flash crossover back-to-back). NBC has sitcoms I've never heard of.

 

The lead in is listed as a Modern Family repeat, which doesn't sound like the right audience. Is that what normally leads in to SHIELD? I record everything, so I don't pay attention.

[HistoryGirl]

I do wonder though what Marvel's long term plans for the show are. Is it meant to be a limited release series - like a miniseries to fill this hiatus - or do they want to expand this into a full 22 episodes next season? I can't imagine them renewing it for too many years as these mini-seasons, if only because it's going to take forever to get to syndication that way.

 

It seems this was meant as a one-off, with a potential (if it's hugely successful) to return for another limited run.  

 

My theory, based on an offhanded remark made in the After Buzz:AOS podcast is that Marvel/ABC will be doing a "Marvel's......" series on TV every year as a filler for AOS.  I would even suspect that next up will be "Marvel's Howard Stark" with a back story on Howard Stark. I could see them doing this for a variety of characters that may or may not cross over with Peggy Carter. 

[Tiger]

Ratings dropped 25% week to week in the metered markets.  Based on the continued promotional support, positive critical buzz, and strong support on social media, I am genuinely shocked.  I was shocked at the low debut numbers and find a 25% drop to be absolutely unbelievable.   

 

All the while, according to Nielsen gobs of people continue to watch the inane NCIS.  No wonder broadcast in general sucks.  A network tries something different and comes up with an amazing show like Agent Carter, and it gets pummeled by a show and its spinoffs that have been repeating the same episode over and over again and almost 20 years combined.  

[Minneapple]

TVLine:

ABC | Leading out of a Shark Tank rerun (7.3 mil/1.8), Agent Carter (5.1 mil/1.5) slipped 26 and 21 percent from its premiere. Forever (4.6 mil/1.0) dipped a tenth to tie its series low.

Ouch, the ratings blow. Well at least we know it's only an eight-episode series and don't have to light candles for renewal.

No wonder networks don't like to take chances.

[Malbec]

Dammit, that sucks.  TV viewing public, I am disappoint.

[kennyab]

Dammit, that sucks.  TV viewing public, I am disappoint.

 

I'm not, unfortunately. After the premiere, I was telling some of my friends (who are female MCU fans, mind you), that they needed to watch it, and the response was, "but doesn't it take place in the 40's or something." Based on my anecdotal findings, that's a larger hurdle to gaining interest than I expected.

[Goldmoon]

While AC is significantly better than USA's standard fare, perhaps a second limited series could move to another network such as USA with its "characters."  I think it belongs on SciFi actually, but I think there is a lot of interference in the stories from the suits on the SciFi network.  In any case, I would like to see future series/seasons made up of no more than 12/13 eps, so they don't dilute the quality with filler episodes.  Eight is actually perfect.  And what I wouldn't give to see Marvel's Howard Stark!

[kennyab]

While AC is significantly better than USA's standard fare, perhaps a second limited series could move to another network such as USA with its "characters."  I think it belongs on SciFi actually, but I think there is a lot of interference in the stories from the suits on the SciFi network.  In any case, I would like to see future series/seasons made up of no more than 12/13 eps, so they don't dilute the quality with filler episodes.  Eight is actually perfect.  And what I wouldn't give to see Marvel's Howard Stark!

 

USA and SyFy are both in the NBCUniversal family, so unlikely to happen. The closest ABC has is its CW analogue ABC Family, but Agent Carter is a complete mismatch for that station. If they don't do more seasons on ABC proper, Netflix and Hulu are the only real options.

 

The L+3s were really good, actually getting a higher percentage bump than AoS, and it's been one of the highest trending shows in social media. While I know those don't matter for the ad rates on the show's first-run showings, they do point towards a strong long-tail for the series, where it's value comes from DVD sales and streaming rights. I've harped plenty before about changes in viewing habits and long-term monetization strategies, so I'll not repeat myself, but it's way too early to consider this experiment a success or a failure.

Edited January 14, 2015 by kennyab

[tarotx]

This show is fabulous. I'm sad but not shocked for the ratings. I knew the viewers would be mostly AOS viewers and that not all of them would watch or stay. It's a period piece with a female lead. Oh well I'm going to enjoy this run. Hope we get more on Netflix.

[Minneapple]

What I wanted out of this series was for ABC to continue doing Marvel-character based miniseries during AoS breaks. One summer, one winter. I still want that and I hope the low ratings won't deter ABC from doing future projects like this. It's just very well-done, particularly for a network show.

[Cranberry]

ABC doesn't seem too worried about it, at least.

[tv echo]

After a great show like Firefly was cancelled due to low ratings, nothing surprises me about popular viewing habits.

[FurryFury]

Network's attitude played a big role in Firefly's cancellation, too. Nowadays, evenif it got canceled, I'm sure Netflix or somebody else would swoop in for the rescue. But I doubt Agent Carter is going to be such a cult hit. I feel like its possible failure would continue to discourage networks and movie studios to have female leads in action stories. I mean, I'm 90% sure Supergirl would fail on CBS, too (everything about it screams potential disaster at this point - the focus on crime solving, the description of the main characters, hell, the network itself is such an odd choice).

I'm also afraid that skipping the next Tuesday would affect the ratings even stronger.

[ottoDbusdriver]

After a great show like Firefly was canceled due to low ratings, nothing surprises me about popular viewing habits.

 

Mind you, Firefly was on Fox -- and Fox cancels a lot of stuff, both good and bad.  Which gives me an excuse for a very relevant Family Guy quote from the first new episode that was shown 3 years after it was initially canceled:

 

Peter: Everybody, I got bad news - we've been cancelled.

Lois: Oh, no. Peter, how can they do that?

Peter: Well, unfortunately, Lois, there's just no room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that Fox has to make room for terrific shows like:

 

Dark Angel

Titus

Undeclared

Action

That 80's Show

Wonderfalls

Fastlane

Andy Richter Controls The Universe

Skin

Girls Club

Cracking Up

The Pits

Firefly

Get Real

Freaky Links

Wanda At Large

Costello

The Lone Gunmen

A Minute With Stan Hooper

Normal Ohio

Pasadena

Harsh Realm

Keen Eddy

The Street

American Embassy

Cedric The Entertainer

The Tick

Louis

and Greg The Bunny.

 

Lois: Is there no hope?

Peter: Well, I supposed if ALL those shows go down the tubes we might have a shot.

[Rick Kitchen]

Hey, don't be dissin' "The Tick"!

[ottoDbusdriver]

Hey, don't be dissin' "The Tick"!

 

Believe me, I liked 'The Tick' as well -- it just happened to be included in that Family Guy quote (seriously, all those shows were cancelled by Fox in a span of just 3 years)

[tv echo]

This is really interesting (not really spoilery, so I'm putting it here)...

What's in store for 'Marvel's Agent Carter'? Press Tour Live-Blog
HAYLEY ATWELL, CHAD MICHAEL MURRAY AND COMPANY HIT PRESS TOUR
By Daniel Fienberg @HitFixDaniel | WEDNESDAY, JAN 14, 2015 7:16 PM
http://www.hitfix.com/the-fien-print/whats-in-store-for-marvels-agent-carter-press-tour-live-blog

[Llywela]

I'm not, unfortunately. After the premiere, I was telling some of my friends (who are female MCU fans, mind you), that they needed to watch it, and the response was, "but doesn't it take place in the 40's or something." Based on my anecdotal findings, that's a larger hurdle to gaining interest than I expected.

Is that a typical reaction to period drama in the US? Because here in the UK, a period setting would be a big draw for a new show, especially a one-off mini-series like this.

[Danny Franks]

All the while, according to Nielsen gobs of people continue to watch the inane NCIS.  No wonder broadcast in general sucks.  A network tries something different and comes up with an amazing show like Agent Carter, and it gets pummeled by a show and its spinoffs that have been repeating the same episode over and over again and almost 20 years combined.  

 

I'm not sure what annoys me more, the attitudes of American audiences to watching formulaic, repetitive inanity, or the archaic way that the ratings systems continue to be unable to accurately gauge a show's popularity and the lack of weight put on alternative viewing platforms.

 

So many good shows, with intelligent writing and intriguing premises, get canned while CSI/NCIS churn out yet more copycat shows and more new sitcoms about fat guys with hot wives or wisecracking womanisers get made. Because people will watch things that don't challenge them in any way at all, but will turn their noses up at anything even slightly original. Sigh.

 

I do take it as a perverse sort of pride that nearly every single show I've ever liked has been precariously low in the ratings for almost its entire existence. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Danny Franks

[funkopop]

I was so excited about the Agent Carter show I dug out my digital antenna from the closet just so I could watch the show live. I'm glad to hear that ABC isn't worried about the ratings, though.

[Kromm]

Is that a typical reaction to period drama in the US? Because here in the UK, a period setting would be a big draw for a new show, especially a one-off mini-series like this.

There's a complex split, in my opinion.  The people who watch network TV to the exclusion of all else likely will hate period dramas.  The people who watch basic cable, probably ditto.  The ones who watch PREMIUM cable may like them, but only with a big budget.  The people who watch public broadcasting (PBS) will love them.

[kennyab]

Is that a typical reaction to period drama in the US? Because here in the UK, a period setting would be a big draw for a new show, especially a one-off mini-series like this.

 

Sadly, the differences between management of US and UK TV have made it so that US audiences were delivered a steady diet of sameness for a long period of time, and we're having some growing pains dealing with this new golden age of TV.

 

My theory is that is that the BBC charter has made all of the difference in consumption habits of our two countries. Because the BBC isn't advertiser-driven and the charter pretty much requires diversity in programming while putting less of an emphasis on ratings, y'all are used to having a greater variety of shows and more open to different types of shows. Meanwhile, we were limited for the longest time to three commercial networks that were furiously competing for the greatest number of eyeballs, and therefore would stick to tried-and-true formulas that would pull in viewers. And those habits are slow to change. We are lucky now to have more outlets producing more varied and higher quality programming, which is awesome. But it still has to be monetized, and they're still trying to figure out that one.

That's why something like Agent Carter is currently a bit of a puzzle to the networks. By many metrics it's a successful show. Critical reaction has been quite positive, as has viewer reaction. People are time-shifiting it to a higher degree than many other shows, so its L3s and L7s actually have it much higher in the rankings than the same day viewings. People are talking about it very heavily in social media, so it does have a good deal of mindshare among the general public. But people aren't watching it live when it first airs, and that can be worrisome to the network, as it's harder for them to make money on advertising for the initial airing.

 

So there are plenty of viewers out there who like something different, but that population also seems to have different viewing habits from those who watch more "comfort" TV, such as your CSI and NCIS procedurals, which I don't think is totally surprising. If you're not a creature of habit in the shows you watch and like to try different things, you're probably not going to be ritually tied to your TV set at an appointed hour. Plus, ABC is trying to court the younger male demo, an area in which they're pretty weak, with Agents of Shield and Agent Carter. And that's the generation of cable cutters who are growing up with TV as an on-demand exercise, with event TV exclusively meaning sports.

 

The short version is that our Nielson ratings don't actually measure the actual popularity of a show amongst the general public, only the popularity of a show by the portion of the population that watches TV in one specific way. But that one specific way is important to advertisers. That's why a show like Agent Carter has a leg up. It's run on ABC and is produced by ABC Studios. While not the same entity, they do have profits eventually feeding into the same place, so with some creative bookkeeping, ABC Studios can give a low enough license fee to ABC so that ABC still makes money airing the show even though they aren't pulling in as many advertising dollars as NCIS, and ABC Studios can look at the longer picture, which includes syndication, DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes/etc sales, and streaming rights.

 

Oh, how I wish PBS had the power of the BBC.

Edited January 15, 2015 by kennyab

[Sakura12]

I'm American and love Period pieces. That's probably why I love BBC America.

 

Agent Carter taking places in the 40's is a big reason I wanted to watch this show. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Sakura12

[that one guy]

My theory is that is that the BBC charter has made all of the difference in consumption habits of our two countries.

 

The BBC's model really is the precursor for what's starting to happen in the US, isn't it? In Britain you pay a license fee for having a TV, and the money goes to the BBC to make shows. Today we have services as diverse as Neftlix and HBO who rely on your subscription for income rather than ads. It should not be terribly surprising that the quality of the content in cases where the viewer is the paying customer tends to by higher than the quality of the content in cases where the advertiser is the paying customer. Basic cable is somewhere between the two models, with some income from ads and some from subscription fees.

 

If we had a pure "pay a buck to watch an episode" model, I'm not sure it would improve quality exactly - more likely every week would be like sweeps week.

[kennyab]

Dear Mods: I realize this convo is a bit off-topic, but I couldn't find a place to discuss the business of TV in general to redirect it, and seeing as how you have to be something of a TV nerd in the first place (raising both hands) to be on this site, I figure there are others that enjoy analyzing and philosophizing on the topic. If I missed a spot, please point me to it, and I'll very happily move this to the correct thread.

 

The BBC's model really is the precursor for what's starting to happen in the US, isn't it?

 

In many ways, yes, but there are two key differences. The first is that British residents are required to pay the license fee. You can opt out, but that means that you're not supposed to watch any live TV, even if it's live streaming over the Internet. Fines for watching live TV without having paid the license are hefty, and there's possibility (although probably small) of incurring a criminal record. And that applies to any channel, not just the BBC. More people are opting out now, and it's starting to be seen an unenforceable, but historically that's meant that everyone has to support BBC programming without choice. That's still quite a bit different from HBO and Netflix, who still have to make sure they're getting enough viewers to pay for the programming. If audience drops low enough, they can still lose revenue. They have more freedom in providing niche programming and giving a series a chance to grow, but they are still commercial.

 

The second difference is that the BBC charter specifically states that they are supposed to provide challenging, innovative programming as a public service. That doesn't mean that every show has to be groundbreaking, and it allows them to continue airing old stalwarts like Doctor Who, but it gives them the ability to completely divorce a show from its ratings. If they deem a work to be of important cultural or artistic merit, that's the only criteria they need to go ahead with it. We have PBS to fill that niche, but it has nowhere near the monetary backing of the Beeb. And then there's the fact that the charter gives this non-commercial entity complete editorial autonomy of its news, safe from government intervention, which is why the quality of BBC News is way beyond any TV news station in the US (and that's why support of NPR is so important, because the rest of news radio is completely dreadful, regardless of your political leanings).

 

We're definitely following British television in the sense of shorter seasons and limited series, which is wonderful. Pumping out 22 episodes of scripted TV year after year is incredibly difficult, and I've not seen a show yet that hasn't benefited from a downgrade in the number of episodes per order. Not only does it keep from totally sapping the creative energy of everyone involved, it allows you to pull in talent that would usually be averse to committing themselves to multi-year contracts that don't allow much freedom for other projects. So that's a huge win. But where the UK has the charter to guarantee a wide range of viewing choices, the US is depending on the explosion of the sheer number of media outlets to deliver more niche content. But because our model of providing programming diversity is so different and relatively young, there are many people wondering just how sustainable a model it really is.

Edited January 15, 2015 by kennyab

[Cranberry]

It's fine; I find it interesting and it is somewhat on topic. If you guys want a Ratings and Scheduling topic for this show, you can go ahead and start one and I can move any posts you like over there, but it's not necessary as the ratings and scheduling stuff can fit in the media thread.

[Minneapple]

We're definitely following British television in the sense of shorter seasons and limited series,

Well, there's no way American TV will be all shorter seasons and limited runs. There's an insatiable need for content on American TV, which just doesn't compute with limited runs. You have the broadcast nets. There are hundreds of cable channels. Netflix and Amazon are producing shows. There is literally an endless supply of content being produced. And people consume it. In fact the US studios are often able to cover up low ratings in the US by selling international rights to their shows. British TV fills out its programming holes with American shows.

American broadcast nets have moved away from programming all their big shows around sweeps, though. They're doing things like ABC is with SHIELD -- a fall season and a spring season, and during breaks, filling the schedule out with miniseries like Galavant and Agent Carter, awards shows and sports. The way they were scheduling for awhile there, with two- and three-week breaks, was just insane.

Another thing to note is that the money when talking about British TV vs. American TV is on two completely different scales. There's no way a British studio could back a show like Game of Thrones. Downton Abbey costs less than $2 million million per episode, and that's really high for British TV. Game of Thrones coste $6 million per episode. Mad Men costs over $3 million per episode. The pilot for SHIELD cost like $12 million (though I imagine the production costs for that show have gone down since then). Hell, just your run of the mill NCIS episode costs like $2 million to produce.

In the case of Agent Carter, regardless of the production costs (and I imagine they're expensive), the show is another way to promote Marvel movies, aka the real moneymaker for Disney. It's essentially pure advertising for its next big Marvel movie coming out soon. Regardless of the viewers, DVD sales, etc., shows like Agent Carter and SHIELD are probably money losers for Disney. But the studio barely feels it because the next Avengers movie will make like a billion dollars.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Minneapple

[tv echo]

This is somewhat comforting...

 

Why Agent Carter's Ratings Drop Matters Less Than You'd Think
by Kit Simpson Browne ⋅ Posted on January 15th, 2015 at 1:41pm
http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/01/15/why-agent-carter-s-ratings-drop-matters-less-than-you-d-think-2589866?lt_source=external,manual

[alias1]

This is somewhat comforting...

 

Why Agent Carter's Ratings Drop Matters Less Than You'd Think

by Kit Simpson Browne ⋅ Posted on January 15th, 2015 at 1:41pm

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/01/15/why-agent-carter-s-ratings-drop-matters-less-than-you-d-think-2589866?lt_source=external,manual

I hope they're right. 

[Hanahope]

Agreed that this show is great and I definitely hope we see it again, even in limited format.  I love both the period aspect, the strong and smart female lead, the great writing and cast.  I like that even though its a mystery, you actually have characters talking to each other, figuring things out, unlike so many other shows where I swear the mystery would be solved in 3 episodes if the characters actually communicated.

[Bruinsfan]

 I think it belongs on SciFi actually, but I think there is a lot of interference in the stories from the suits on the SciFi network.

Yeah, I don't see that working out too well since Burma Shave and Lucky Strike cigarettes wouldn't be in the market to advertise via egregious product placement.

[Danny Franks]

Yeah, I don't see that working out too well since Burma Shave and Lucky Strike cigarettes wouldn't be in the market to advertise via egregious product placement.

 

I don't understand this criticism. I may have it wrong, because I never noticed any brands on this show, so you might be talking about something else. But why not have product placement? From a production standpoint, it nets them a bit of cash and perhaps gives them a tiny bit more leeway with the ratings. From a show standpoint, people smoked Lucky Strike in the 1940s, so why bother making up some silly 'Happy Strike' or 'Laos Shave' brands when you don't have to? Just use the real ones and get some money for it. It's not like you wouldn't advertise the shit out of these products (well, not cigarettes, now) during the ad breaks anyway.

[Bruinsfan]

My point is that Eureka and Warehouse 13 were infamous for clunky product placement for things like cars and anti-perspirant to help underwrite their budgets, and most of the brands of consumer goods that would be appropriate for a 1940s period piece are long gone or no longer able to advertise on television. Seen many dancing cigarettes or tooth powder commercials lately?

[Danny Franks]

My point remains, I do not see what's wrong with clunky product placement. So what if the characters drive the new Lexus Thingamajig and show lingering shots of its sleek lines every once in a while? If they didn't, then Lexus could just buy an ad slot anyway, and still shill their car to viewers. If it helps underwrite the budget, making the show cheaper and thus likely to last longer, and if the in-show advertising makes them less reliant on Nielsen ratings, then how could it possibly be considered a bad thing?

 

Granted, they'd struggle to find such instantly recognisable products in Agent Carter, but I'm pretty sure people still used recognised brands of soap and toothpaste and cars, and all manner of things that are still freely advertised today. People lived on more than just cigarettes and other products that are now considered harmful.

[shapeshifter]

My point remains, I do not see what's wrong with clunky product placement. So what if the characters drive the new Lexus Thingamajig and show lingering shots of its sleek lines every once in a while? If they didn't, then Lexus could just buy an ad slot anyway, and still shill their car to viewers. If it helps underwrite the budget, making the show cheaper and thus likely to last longer, and if the in-show advertising makes them less reliant on Nielsen ratings, then how could it possibly be considered a bad thing?...

I wouldn't mind having them introduce "a prototype of The Car From The Future" for the characters to drive around in--but then my sense of humor seems to be a little different than most viewers.

[Trini]

(Because I notice these things...)There were a few recognizable brands name products in the first episode. When Peggy is in her apartment gathering ingredients to diffuse the bomb thingy, there's a lovely row of vintage products on her shelf. Props to the prop stylist!

[HistoryGirl]

This might land more in the speculation category, but a great article on which Marvel villains would be a good fit for AC. 

[Danny Franks]

This might land more in the speculation category, but a great article on which Marvel villains would be a good fit for AC. 

 

No need to go any further than Zemo, really. He's a fairly iconic villain, if you know the comics at all, and would be a natural fit for this time period, with a little bit of tweaking. Make him an ex-Nazi industrialist who turned himself and his resources over to the Americans to escape the Russians, and he becomes nigh on untouchable for Peggy and SSR.

 

But I do think a female big bad would be a cool way to go too, because this show doesn't really need any dudes when it's got Peggy and Angie.

[tv echo]

Dominic Cooper Supplies Stark's Strut on Marvel's Agent Carter
Patrick Cavanaugh @TheWolfman  Published Jan 20, 2015  Updated Jan 20, 2015
http://marvel.com/news/tv/23952/dominic_cooper_supplies_starks_strut_on_marvels_agent_carter

[Ottis]

And the bad news is that its going to be blamed on having a female lead in an action show. And that might even be correct--not that female leads, this one particularly, are inferior, but just that insecure men who fear their penises shrinking back into their bodies often won't watch a female led show, and many women won't watch if they don't think they'll like an action genre or "comic book" show.

 

 

Or ... maybe many potential male fans don't understand what this show is about. I almost didn't watch it, because ... why? It's a Marvel superhero show with no superheroes. Set in the past, before events that we are already familiar with. It's like going back in time to better understand who built the USS Enterprise and why it is shaped the way it is. That's a limited audience, regardless of gender.

 

I did DVR it, and got around to watching the first three hours of it over the weekend, and it's OK. Fairly slow pacing. I like the atmosphere. But the main message seems to be along the lines of "women kicked ass in the 40s, and men were too stupid to realize it." Not sure how appealing that is. Its secondary message is, I think, the beginnings of Hydra and SHIELD, which I guess is OK. Since I know where that ends up 60+ years later, it isn't something that is holding my interest.

[Julia]

I can't believe that there's an audience for the molasses-like development of Agents of Shield (a superhero show very light on superheroes which has put a huge amount of energy into telling us how awesome a female character significantly less awesome than Carter is) and there's no audience for this. I think it's far more likely that they put it in a really bad time slot.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Julia

[Shanna]

Or ... maybe many potential male fans don't understand what this show is about. I almost didn't watch it, because ... why? It's a Marvel superhero show with no superheroes. Set in the past, before events that we are already familiar with. It's like going back in time to better understand who built the USS Enterprise and why it is shaped the way it is. That's a limited audience, regardless of gender.

I did DVR it, and got around to watching the first three hours of it over the weekend, and it's OK. Fairly slow pacing. I like the atmosphere. But the main message seems to be along the lines of "women kicked ass in the 40s, and men were too stupid to realize it." Not sure how appealing that is. Its secondary message is, I think, the beginnings of Hydra and SHIELD, which I guess is OK. Since I know where that ends up 60+ years later, it isn't something that is holding my interest.

I wonder if they shouldn't have marketed this one at non comic book fans a bit more? It's a period piece spy show, really. I dumped agents of shield but I adore this show.

[FurryFury]

It's a Marvel superhero show with no superheroes. Set in the past, before events that we are already familiar with. It's like going back in time to better understand who built the USS Enterprise and why it is shaped the way it is. That's a limited audience, regardless of gender.

 

Yet a lot of people watch Gotham, also a prequel, although it is a much inferior show. At least, with Agent Carter, you still don't know many things about its characters - the only certain thing is that Peggy doesn't die and founds SHIELD, and that Howard lives long enough to sire Tony. Anything else is up in the air, really. 

 

I can't believe that there's an audience for the molasses-like development of Agents of Shield (a superhero show very light on superheroes which has put a huge amount of energy into telling us how awesome a female character significantly less awesome than Carter is) and there's no audience for this. I think it's far more likely that they put it in a really bad time slot.

 

AoS has the same time slot, it was heavily promoted before its launch and it's running concurrently with the rest of MCU, thus making crossovers (direct and undirect) possible. I think it's a huge factor. Also, their rating aren't that different at this point.

 

I do wish this team of writers has done AoS, because it would have likely been a much different show then. It doesn't really suck right now, but it could have so much better with more talented people in charge of it. Jed Whedon is no Joss.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FurryFury