Daisy Johnson: That IS her name!

[Lady Calypso]

34 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

This. Skye/Daisy's character has been very inconsistently written on this show, as has most of the plot/character "development." I get that the show didn't want to change from "Agents of SHIELD" to "Agents of Nothing" after Cap2, but their explanation as to why SHIELD had to rebuilt and go into the extra super duper secret shadows, away from any and all accountability, was weak. And I certainly think that Skye/Daisy going from "freedom of information" to "protect SHIELD at all costs" made no sense at all.

 

I almost feel like I'm watching a new character and a new show with each season.

I so agree with this. It's sad because I don't mind Daisy as a character. It's other characters' reactions to her that make her less than an ideal favourite for me. I'm so sick of Coulson's Special Interest in Daisy. It's clear that he cares about her over everyone else, to the point where I have to wonder what would happen if he had to choose the life of Daisy over the life of May if it ever came to it. 

[TVSpectator]

19 hours ago, teenj12 said:

• I don't see how you can keep saying that "they've amped up Daisy's screentime" and that "Daisy has been getting too much attention", but yet say she's not the Main Lead. You're essentially contradicting yourself. 
• All superhero shows are practically ensembles. In Daredevil, Karen/Foggy/Punisher/Electra have just as much importance to the narrative that May/Fitzsimmons/Mac have in AOS, but it's clear who the main star is: Matt in Daredevil, and Daisy in Agents Of Shield. 
• This discussion isn't about the criticisms about Daisy. Most of them that I've seen here are NOT warranted, and are born out of people's refusal to accept Daisy's role on the show. Her show.
• If you're looking for Daisy to get less screen time, you're gonna be disappointed, because she is the leading protagonist.

• I feel like you're attempting to reduce Skye's role in the pilot. She was the one who found Mike first and warned him about SHIELD. After Coulson arrested her, she was the one who gave his team the insight about Centipede and Mike. Not to mention that after Mike kidnapped her, she used her tech skills to tip Coulson's team off about where she and Mike were so that they could diffuse the situation. She was essentially the hero of the pilot. 
• Daisy's alien heritage was hinted at as early as 1X07 where we discovered that she was born in the Hunan Province in China, and that 'monsters attacked her entire village', and that she was an 0-8-4. By 1X14 it was discovered that she had alien blood in her body.  All of this largely sets up the story for Season 2.
• Also, 'Tremors' was just an affectionate term between Mac and Daisy. It was never a codename for her. 
• 'I don't buy that Coulson was a smokescreen'..........but, he literally was??? I mean you just admitted that they 'switched from Coulson to Skye/Daisy', when in reality, that was happening all along as Daisy's origin flushed out more and more leading up to 'What They Become'. Since then it has been absolutely clear who this show was about all along - Daisy. And after Season 3, it should be clear that there will not be 'less Daisy'. Once again, she is the main lead.

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, Skye/Daisy is just one part of the main cast. It's great that they cast a Woman POC as a superhero but this show was billed and promised to us, before it was even on the air, that it was going to be an ensemble spy show about non-superpowered people. Now, I will grant you this- IMO, part of the anger that some people have towards this show probably does have to do with the fact that they never delivered on what they promised us, in the first place, and some of the anger towards Skye/Daisy is the fact that one of the main characters have superpowers. Although, the criticism against her I think is valid and that this show went back on what they promised us. Instead, we are getting more Skye/Daisy (for whatever reason. Maybe she is the writers' favorite female character and their favorite male character is probably Fitz since he gets everything he wanted and had a  recovery from irreversible brain damage but I am not starting to rant)

Edited August 28, 2016 by TVSpectator

[kitlee625]

One problem that I have with the show and the writing is that the writers seem to know where they want to end up, but they don't know how to get there. So like with the Daisy & Coulson relationship. They want them to have a close father-daughter relationship, but the writing to build up to that is very shaky and doesn't explain why they picked each other to be their surrogate father-daughter. They rely heavily on time jumps to say "hey, so and so is different now because of reasons," but I'd much rather see why Daisy makes these huge changes to her life rather than just hearing that she did after the fact.

Edited August 28, 2016 by kitlee625

[teenj12]

1 minute ago, TVSpectator said:

 

Overall, Skye/Daisy is just one part of the main cast. It's great that they cast a Woman POC as a superhero but this show was billed and promised to us, before it was even on the air, that it was going to be an ensemble spy show about non-superpowered people. Now, I will grant you this- IMO, part of the anger that some people have towards this show probably does have to do with the fact that they never delivered on what they promised us, in the first place, and some of the anger towards Skye/Daisy is the fact that one of the main characters have superpowers. Although, the criticism against her I think is valid and that this show went back on what they promised us. Instead, we are getting more Skye/Daisy (for whatever reason. Maybe she is the writers' favorite female character and their favorite male character is probably Fitz since he gets everything he wanted and had a  recovery from irreversible brain damage but I am not starting to rant)

 

I agree, the show was billed as something different, which is strongly because it was a smokescreen all along for Daisy. That's where me and you (and most ppl on this board) disagree, but I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree at this point. But overall, I don't think that is a reason to take frustration out on Daisy, especially considering what she represents for many viewers.  From what I've witnessed on this forum, Daisy gets a lot of unreasonable hate here. 

Anger over one of the main characters getting superpowers? I mean, come on, that was hinted at about Daisy since the first half of S1. Yet it's still hard for you to accept what I've been saying about Daisy's role on the show. 

[TVSpectator]

5 hours ago, teenj12 said:

 

I agree, the show was billed as something different, which is strongly because it was a smokescreen all along for Daisy. That's where me and you (and most ppl on this board) disagree, but I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree at this point. But overall, I don't think that is a reason to take frustration out on Daisy, especially considering what she represents for many viewers.  From what I've witnessed on this forum, Daisy gets a lot of unreasonable hate here. 

Anger over one of the main characters getting superpowers? I mean, come on, that was hinted at about Daisy since the first half of S1. Yet it's still hard for you to accept what

I've been saying about Daisy's role on the show. 

 

3

 

YMMV but I do not think that Coulson was a smokescreen of any sort. It's just that the show changed course and morphed into a generic superhero show. As with the hate, I do think that a lot of it is reasonable and valid. The problem, in my opinion, is the writing, and I feel like if the writing is better, Daisy would be a better character. Also, I really don't think that this version of Daisy is anything like the version found in the comics. 

The anger is more or less from the fact that many people thought that she was an original character but she then morphed into Daisy Johnson (yes, there are people upset that they didn't get what they were promised from the original show's premise but I don't think that anyone here is mad that Skye/Daisy is superpowered). Although, personally, I do want to see superpowered individuals- its Marvel and a Marvel Universe where superpower individuals do exist. Although, I should point out that there's  way more crazy stuff than just the Inhumans-who were first introduced in an FF comic book back in the 1960s and were overshadowed by the popularity of the Mutants. There are aliens (yes, this show has covered some of it), there is magic, there is the supernatural/paranormal stuff, super soldiers, magical items, Infinity Stones/Gauntlet, other artifacts, living gods, other dimensions, other universes, etc... 

Also, some fans are tired of the Inhuman storyline and they want to move on to other things. 

 

5 hours ago, kitlee625 said:

One problem that I have with the show and the writing is that the writers seem to know where they want to end up, but they don't know how to get there. So like with the Daisy & Coulson relationship. They want them to have a close father-daughter relationship, but the writing to build up to that is very shaky and doesn't explain why they picked each other to be their surrogate father-daughter. They rely heavily on time jumps to say "hey, so and so is different now because of reasons," but I'd much rather see why Daisy makes these huge changes to her life rather than just hearing that she did after the fact.

 

 

Yeah, the writing is weak and it does seem the writers really do have an end game but the journey (which according to the saying, is the most important part) is written pretty badly. Sometimes it does feel like a WTF moment where you can't figure out what happen. As with the time jumps, in my opinion, they suck and they bring down the story and/or the character. Take Season 3, there was a six-months time jump and we are supposed to accept that Daisy is this person who is very gun-hoe about being Inhuman where the last we saw her she wasn't and was scared of how powerful she became. That kind of character development, in my opinion, needs to happen on the screen and not off the screen (and it's something, if written good could actually make the Daisy critics like her more or at least give the audience an understanding of why she would be doing something instead of guessing and going, "well something might have happened over those missing months...). Now, take the ending of Season 3, Daisy is living on the streets and running from SHIELD! How the hell did that happen and why (overall it seems that everyone here assumes its because of Lincoln's death but do we know if she blames SHIELD for not at least trying to rescue him)? 

Edited August 29, 2016 by TVSpectator

[teenj12]

30 minutes ago, TVSpectator said:

YMMV but I do not think that Coulson was a smokescreen of any sort. It's just that the show changed course and morphed into a generic superhero show. As with the hate, I do think that a lot of it is reasonable and valid. The problem, in my opinion, is the writing, and I feel like if the writing is better, Daisy would be a better character. Also, I really don't think that this version of Daisy is anything like the version found in the comics. 

The anger is more or less from the fact that many people thought that she was an original character but she then morphed into Daisy Johnson (yes, there are people upset that they didn't get what they were promised from the original show's premise but I don't think that anyone here is mad that Skye/Daisy is superpowered). Although, personally, I do want to see superpowered individuals- its Marvel and a Marvel Universe where superpower individuals do exist. Although, I should point out that there's  way more crazy stuff than just the Inhumans-who were first introduced in an FF comic book back in the 1960s and were overshadowed by the popularity of the Mutants. There are aliens (yes, this show has covered some of it), there is magic, there is the supernatural/paranormal stuff, super soldiers, magical items, Infinity Stones/Gauntlet, other artifacts, living gods, other dimensions, other universes, etc... 

Also, some fans are tired of the Inhuman storyline and they want to move on to other things. 

 

Yeah, the writing is weak and it does seem the writers really do have an end game but the journey (which according to the saying, is the most important part) is written pretty badly. Sometimes it does feel like a WTF moment where you can't figure out what happen. As with the time jumps, in my opinion, they suck and they bring down the story and/or the character. Take Season 3, there was a six-months time jump and we are supposed to accept that Daisy is this person who is very gun-hoe about being Inhuman where the last we saw her she wasn't and was scared of how powerful she became. That kind of character development, in my opinion, needs to happen on the screen and not off the screen (and it's something, if written good could actually make the Daisy critics like her more or at least give the audience an understanding of why she would be doing something instead of guessing and going, "well something might have happened over those missing months...). Now, take the ending of Season 3, Daisy is living on the streets and running from SHIELD! How the hell did that happen and why (overall it seems that everyone here assumes its because of Lincoln's death but do we know if she blames SHIELD for not at least trying to rescue him)? 

I think you're so blinded by your Daisy-hate that you're not even reading her narrative right (or rather, not allowing yourself too). 

Daisy does not 'hate shield now'

Daisy does not 'blame shield for Lincoln's death'

Daisy is not going 'Dark!Daisy' .

Everything she's been through, and especially with the Hive enslavement and losing Lincoln to the entire ordeal has convinced Daisy that she needs to leave as to not 'hurt anyone else' that she loves (her SHIELD family). So now she's out there (alone) using her powers to continue to fulfill her mission to protect Inhumans. Ya know, being the superhero that the show has been building up to for three seasons.

Edited August 29, 2016 by teenj12

[TVSpectator]

2 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

I think you're so blinded by your Daisy-hate that you're not even reading her narrative right (or rather, not allowing yourself too). 

Daisy does not 'hate shield now'

Daisy does not 'blame shield for Lincoln's death'

Daisy is not going 'Dark!Daisy' .

Everything she's been through, and especially with the Hive enslavement and losing Lincoln to the entire ordeal has convinced Daisy that she needs to leave as to not 'hurt anyone else' that she loves (her SHIELD family). So now she's out there (alone) using her powers to continue to fulfill her mission to protect Inhumans. Ya know, being the superhero that the show has been building up to for three seasons.

 

Your opinions are different on the matter but we really don't know what happen in the six months that we never saw on screen (maybe there will be a flashback episode). Although, in my opinion, Lincoln's death affected Daisy and made her go rogue and now SHIELD is trying to reel her in. I doubt that the writers will make her evil but it might be interesting to see if she does blame them for Lincoln's death. After all, one of the last scenes we see her in, was her  begging anyone to try to rescue Lincoln before his Quinjet exploded. 

[teenj12]

Just now, TVSpectator said:

Your opinions are different on the matter but we really don't know what happen in the six months that we never saw on screen (maybe there will be a flashback episode). Although, in my opinion, Lincoln's death affected Daisy and made her go rogue and now SHIELD is trying to reel her in. I doubt that the writers will make her evil but it might be interesting to see if she does blame them for Lincoln's death. After all, one of the last scenes we see her in, was her  begging anyone to try to rescue Lincoln before his Quinjet exploded. 

But it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Chloe Bennet has already stated such in a recent interview. 

[kitlee625]

3 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

But it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Chloe Bennet has already stated such in a recent interview. 

IMHO the show relies way too heavily on interviews with cast/writers to tell the viewers what is going on, and what people's motivations are. Another symptom of shoddy writing. Everyone we need to know should be on the screen.

[Raja]

9 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

But it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Chloe Bennet has already stated such in a recent interview. 

Trekker rules, if it hasn't aired it ain't canon.

[TVSpectator]

22 hours ago, Raja said:

Trekker rules, if it hasn't aired it ain't canon.

Yeah, as a Star Trek fan I carry that rule with me. If it wasn't shown, or weren't told, or was deleted then it's not canon.

Edited August 29, 2016 by TVSpectator

[teenj12]

Ignorance is bliss. I get it.

[kieyra]

As a final note, I'll say that if this becomes the Daisy show, I'm out. I'm halfway out already due to the loss of Bobbi/Hunter. Too much other good TV and comic TV out there.

[Raja]

13 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

Ignorance is bliss. I get it.

No we have long experience with show runners discarding what their predecessors did. So for discussions the if it aired rule was adopted. Especially in this case where you have a shared universe, but then source material which the MCU has deviated from. It keeps you away from "but Hellfire is a mutant not an Inhuman" rabbit holes

[teenj12]

Just now, Raja said:

No we have long experience with show runners discarding what their predecessors did. So for discussions the if it aired rule was adopted. Especially in this case where you have a shared universe, but then source material which the MCU has deviated from. It keeps you away from "but Hellfire is a mutant not an Inhuman" rabbit holes

Okay, I can understand that. 

[kitlee625]

Just now, Raja said:

No we have long experience with show runners discarding what their predecessors did. So for discussions the if it aired rule was adopted. Especially in this case where you have a shared universe, but then source material which the MCU has deviated from. It keeps you away from "but Hellfire is a mutant not an Inhuman" rabbit holes

Also, interviews can be deceiving. I can't even count how many interviews where Brett Dalton said that he was going to rejoin SHIELD after the season 1 Hydra reveal.

[Raja]

Just now, kitlee625 said:

Also, interviews can be deceiving. I can't even count how many interviews where Brett Dalton said that he was going to rejoin SHIELD after the season 1 Hydra reveal.

Having just re-watched season  two there was the" great the gang is back together" scene ;)

[teenj12]

1 minute ago, kitlee625 said:

Also, interviews can be deceiving. I can't even count how many interviews where Brett Dalton said that he was going to rejoin SHIELD after the season 1 Hydra reveal.

Lol, doesn't Brett usually have a kind of 'joking manner' in interviews? At least from what I've seen xD.

[TVSpectator]

18 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

Also, interviews can be deceiving. I can't even count how many interviews where Brett Dalton said that he was going to rejoin SHIELD after the season 1 Hydra reveal.

 

Yeah, sometimes actors will lie (sometimes to keep the real spoilers hidden away or times they are just trying to joke) in interviews or they are given not what the writers are writing/interpreting but what they feel is going on to their character (and that may or may not align with what the producers/showrunners want). 

20 minutes ago, Raja said:

No we have long experience with show runners discarding what their predecessors did. So for discussions the if it aired rule was adopted. Especially in this case where you have a shared universe, but then source material which the MCU has deviated from. It keeps you away from "but Hellfire is a mutant not an Inhuman" rabbit holes

 

 

Okay, in the comics Hellfire wasn't a mutant but the grandson of one of the original Ghost Riders, which was called, The Phantom Rider. Somehow he inherited some powers  (and he isn't the only one in his family to have these powers) from his ancestor, Carter Slade. Sorry, but I had to go down that rabbit hole because I kind of wanted this show to do more than just the Inhumans and also acknowledge that supernatural stuff exists as well. Making him an Inhumans kind of ruined both expectations for me. So for the upcoming Fourth Season, I am kind of bracing myself for the reveal that Robbie is just another Inhuman.

21 minutes ago, kieyra said:

As a final note, I'll say that if this becomes the Daisy show, I'm out. I'm halfway out already due to the loss of Bobbi/Hunter. Too much other good TV and comic TV out there.

 

You won't be the only one. I have seen others on Reddit claiming the same thing. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by TVSpectator

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, teenj12 said:

But it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Chloe Bennet has already stated such in a recent interview. 

To echo what others have said, claiming what an actor says in an interview to be a "fact" about the show is incredibly short sighted.  Actors do not normally have a total view of what is going on with their character--they only know what the writers/show runners tell them.  And it isn't uncommon for show runners to change direction, which is their decision and usually made without any input from the actor.  I personally subscribe even to the "if it didn't air, it isn't canon" theory with a grain of salt.  I've seen shows that have dismissed things that DID air.

Also, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that we all hate Daisy.  There are people who don't like her character, and that's fine.  There are people who like the character and just have concerns about the direction of the character and/or show, and that's fine.  There are people (and I fall in this group) who really don't have any strong Daisy feelings either way--I'm just not emotionally invested in her, but I don't mind her presence (although I do feel the show needs to focus more on the ensemble as a whole), and that's fine.  And you have said that you think Daisy is the center of the show, and that's fine too.  However, as with all subjective matters, claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is blind, for whatever reason, isn't cool.

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

 

Also, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that we all hate Daisy.  There are people who don't like her character, and that's fine.  There are people who like the character and just have concerns about the direction of the character and/or show, and that's fine.  There are people (and I fall in this group) who really don't have any strong Daisy feelings either way--I'm just not emotionally invested in her, but I don't mind her presence (although I do feel the show needs to focus more on the ensemble as a whole), and that's fine.  And you have said that you think Daisy is the center of the show, and that's fine too.  However, as with all subjective matters, claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is blind, for whatever reason, isn't cool.

I can see were the OP is coming from but there is also the claim about the Person Of Color female superhero so there is the socio-political filter going on with the postings,

[OtterMommy]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

I can see were the OP is coming from but there is also the claim about the Person Of Color female superhero so there is the socio-political filter going on with the postings,

Just curious but could you elaborate on this?  (I'm not trying to pick a fight...I'm genuinely interested in how you see this).  From my own point, Daisy being a POC doesn't factor in for me.  AoS is, well, at least more diverse than some shows currently on TV.  As I said, I'm not very emotionally invested in Daisy and her ethnicity doesn't come into play with my feelings (or lack therof) of her feelings.  I guess, from where I'm sitting, I don't see the socio-political filter, but I can understand how that might come into play for others who have stronger feelings about the character.

[TVSpectator]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

I can see were the OP is coming from but there is also the claim about the Person Of Color female superhero so there is the socio-political filter going on with the postings,

In all honestly, the criticism that I am seeing about Daisy is mostly about the character and not because of the actress' Asian background. In my opinion, it's the writing of the show that does the character and the actress a disservice. 

[Raja]

6 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

Just curious but could you elaborate on this?  (I'm not trying to pick a fight...I'm genuinely interested in how you see this).  From my own point, Daisy being a POC doesn't factor in for me.  AoS is, well, at least more diverse than some shows currently on TV.  As I said, I'm not very emotionally invested in Daisy and her ethnicity doesn't come into play with my feelings (or lack therof) of her feelings.  I guess, from where I'm sitting, I don't see the socio-political filter, but I can understand how that might come into play for others who have stronger feelings about the character.

Reading the bullet point  post making the case of Daisy as the protagonist of the story if not the lead actor keep coming back to female POC lead of a show. To the point it seems like post on the Race & Ethnicity and Gender threads in the Everything Else forum.

[teenj12]

14 minutes ago, TVSpectator said:

In all honestly, the criticism that I am seeing about Daisy is mostly about the character and not because of the actress' Asian background. In my opinion, it's the writing of the show that does the character and the actress a disservice. 

14 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

Just curious but could you elaborate on this?  (I'm not trying to pick a fight...I'm genuinely interested in how you see this).  From my own point, Daisy being a POC doesn't factor in for me.  AoS is, well, at least more diverse than some shows currently on TV.  As I said, I'm not very emotionally invested in Daisy and her ethnicity doesn't come into play with my feelings (or lack therof) of her feelings.  I guess, from where I'm sitting, I don't see the socio-political filter, but I can understand how that might come into play for others who have stronger feelings about the character.

But Daisy's race is important in this. People of color very rarely get leading roles, especially in superhero media. So when some of you invalidate Daisy/Chloe Bennet's status as the Main Lead, you are also discrediting how revolutionary this is for fans of color, and for the actress. A little fun fact, Chloe Bennet had to change her Asian sounding last name (Wang) to a white sounding name in order to get roles. 

Also, you can claim that the criticism Daisy receives here has nothing to do with her race (and hey, maybe that's true), but there are such things as 'microaggressions', and  POC characters are often criticized more harshly than their white counterparts. 

[TVSpectator]

3 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

But Daisy's race is important in this. People of color very rarely get leading roles, especially in superhero media. So when some of you invalidate Daisy/Chloe Bennet's status as the Main Lead, you are also discrediting how revolutionary this is for fans of color, and for the actress. A little fun fact, Chloe Bennet had to change her Asian sounding last name (Wang) to a white sounding name in order to get roles. 

Also, you can claim that the criticism Daisy receives here has nothing to do with her race (and hey, maybe that's true), but there are such things as 'microaggressions', and  POC characters are often criticized more harshly than their white counterparts. 

 

You know I would argue that Ming-Na Wen (another female Asian actress) also, plays a lead character on this show. So, no. It's not about the actress' race/background but the way the character is written. 

[teenj12]

2 minutes ago, TVSpectator said:

You know I would argue that Ming-Na Wen (another female Asian actress) also, plays a lead character on this show. So, no. It's not about the actress' race/background but the way the character is written. 

Once again. Yes, Ming Na Wen is a lead. Chloe Bennet however, is the Main Protagonist in the way that Matt, Jessica, and Peggy are on their shows. Honestly, it's very telling that some are more willing to accept that Coulson, a white man, is the Main Protagonist, but heaven forbid I say the same for the MCU's first Asian superhero. 

[Kromm]

8 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

Once again. Yes, Ming Na Wen is a lead. Chloe Bennet however, is the Main Protagonist in the way that Matt, Jessica, and Peggy are on their shows. Honestly, it's very telling that some are more willing to accept that Coulson, a white man, is the Main Protagonist, but heaven forbid I say the same for the MCU's first Asian superhero. 

Yeah, they sell this as an ensemble show, but they very clearly produce it in such a way that Gregg and Bennet are both "first among equals". Ming Na Wen arguably was more famous than either of them before this show (even with Gregg being in Avengers movies, remember she was also on ER for years and was freaking MULAN), but May is a second tier character. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Kromm

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, teenj12 said:

Once again. Yes, Ming Na Wen is a lead. Chloe Bennet however, is the Main Protagonist in the way that Matt, Jessica, and Peggy are on their shows. Honestly, it's very telling that some are more willing to accept that Coulson, a white man, is the Main Protagonist, but heaven forbid I say the same for the MCU's first Asian superhero. 

You might want to re-read this thread.  I don't recall anyone saying that Coulson was the Main Protagonist.  I did mention, that if you had to have one, he would be a more logical choice (by the way, that is because Coulson is actually the leader--director--of SHIELD) but that the show is an ensemble piece.  It has nothing to do with Coulson being a caucasian male.  

From what I've read here, and my own feelings, it doesn't seem like people are "accepting" Coulson as the main lead either.  It seems, from the comments here, that many just want an ensemble show.

I also find this idea of "main protagonist" to be misleading.  Daisy has been the main protagonist--of her own story lines.  Just as Coulson has been of his story lines, May has been of hers (and, frankly, I've found the May story lines to be the most intriguing of the series).  However, this is a show that has had shifting loyalties and alliances--I don't think it is possible for any one character to be the "main protagonist"--nor should they be.

[teenj12]

11 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

You might want to re-read this thread.  I don't recall anyone saying that Coulson was the Main Protagonist.  I did mention, that if you had to have one, he would be a more logical choice (by the way, that is because Coulson is actually the leader--director--of SHIELD) but that the show is an ensemble piece.  It has nothing to do with Coulson being a caucasian male.  

From what I've read here, and my own feelings, it doesn't seem like people are "accepting" Coulson as the main lead either.  It seems, from the comments here, that many just want an ensemble show.

I also find this idea of "main protagonist" to be misleading.  Daisy has been the main protagonist--of her own story lines.  Just as Coulson has been of his story lines, May has been of hers (and, frankly, I've found the May story lines to be the most intriguing of the series).  However, this is a show that has had shifting loyalties and alliances--I don't think it is possible for any one character to be the "main protagonist"--nor should they be.

• People want the show to be more of an ensemble? That's cool - but don't ignore that the show is, as it stands, centered around Daisy, A WOC, which is incredibly important.
• 90% of the plotlines on this show center around Daisy's narrative, the same way all the plotlines in Daredevil center around Matt's narrative, and all of the plotlines in Jessica Jones centers around Jessica's narrative. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by teenj12

[Kromm]

45 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

• People want the show to be more of an ensemble? That's cool - but don't ignore that the show is, as it stands, centered around Daisy, A WOC, which is incredibly important.
• 90% of the plotlines on this show center around Daisy's narrative, the same way all the plotlines in Daredevil center around Matt's narrative, and all of the plotlines in Jessica Jones centers around Jessica's narrative. 

I don't subscribe to either the notion that this is a 100% ensemble (as I said it's more a "first among equals" situation), or that people are somehow unjustly making Coulson the "main lead" over Daisy. I think that 90% figure is pretty dubious, no matter what though. I think Coulson's plots often are in service of something about Daisy, but they're still his narrative.  As a net result I'd say more of the show still centers around her, but only marginally more, because getting a knock-on effect of someone else's plot doesn't count quite the same. I wouldn't dare put an actual percentage to it, but I suspect Daisy and Coulson's narratives are about equal (thus my notion that they are both "first among equals" in this pseudo-ensemble, and then the rest of the cast follow behind at a considerable distance (the more established S1 characters perhaps somewhat ahead of the ones who joined later). 

[teenj12]

7 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I don't subscribe to either the notion that this is a 100% ensemble (as I said it's more a "first among equals" situation), or that people are somehow unjustly making Coulson the "main lead" over Daisy. I think that 90% figure is pretty dubious, no matter what though. I think Coulson's plots often are in service of something about Daisy, but they're still his narrative.  As a net result I'd say more of the show still centers around her, but only marginally more, because getting a knock-on effect of someone else's plot doesn't count quite the same. I wouldn't dare put an actual percentage to it, but I suspect Daisy and Coulson's narratives are about equal (thus my notion that they are both "first among equals" in this pseudo-ensemble, and then the rest of the cast follow behind at a considerable distance (the more established S1 characters perhaps somewhat ahead of the ones who joined later). 

My main gripe was people here invalidating Daisy as the main lead in the first place. I've never denied Coulson's importance as her co-lead. You're absolutely right. Daisy and Coulson are 'first among among equals'. When it comes down to it, AOS is their show first and foremost.

Edited August 29, 2016 by teenj12

[kitlee625]

I would say that the character arrangement on the show is similar to Star Trek - ostensibly this is an ensemble show, but there are primary ensemble members and secondary ones.  My problem with the show has nothing to do with who is in the spotlight, but rather how they and the show are written. I think that there are a lot of flaws in how both Coulson and Daisy are written, and how the story is written overall, which is bringing down the show.

Edited August 29, 2016 by kitlee625

[kieyra]

Believe me that I hesitate to mention this, but until this thread I had no idea Chloe Bennett was considered a POC. I'm not sophisticated enough to draw meaningful sociological conclusions from this, but she's always read as 'cute generic anglo TV actress' to me. I know canonically the character on this show has an Asian mother, but even that didn't tip me off to anything about the actress or her look; I thought they just wanted to give Dichen Lachmann some work. 

If it's meant as a victory for actors of color, then yeah that's not nothing.

If it's meant as a victory regarding visual representation of POC on television, I suspect there are a lot of casual viewers like me who had never looked at Chloe Bennett's wikipedia page and just have no clue. 

[teenj12]

1 hour ago, kieyra said:

Believe me that I hesitate to mention this, but until this thread I had no idea Chloe Bennett was considered a POC. I'm not sophisticated enough to draw meaningful sociological conclusions from this, but she's always read as 'cute generic anglo TV actress' to me. I know canonically the character on this show has an Asian mother, but even that didn't tip me off to anything about the actress or her look; I thought they just wanted to give Dichen Lachmann some work. 

If it's meant as a victory for actors of color, then yeah that's not nothing.

If it's meant as a victory regarding visual representation of POC on television, I suspect there are a lot of casual viewers like me who had never looked at Chloe Bennett's wikipedia page and just have no clue. 

When I first started watching the show, I didn't exactly know either (even with the mention in S1 that the character was born in China), But the fact is, her being a POC is incredibly important in certain conversations like this, especially considering Chloe's struggle to find work because of her race before she was casted on SHIELD. Like you said, that's not nothing. AOS isn't perfect by any means, but I think what can be championed is the diversity of this show in relative to half the movies in the MCU, and the fact that there is a POC main lead when that has not happened in any of their other/previous works. There is Luke Cage coming up, and Black Panther is about a year or so away. 

[SocaShoe]

21 hours ago, teenj12 said:

Ignorance is bliss. I get it.

Not really ignorant. I've read the same interviews and it comes across more as Chloe defending Daisy's actions, in a sense trying to make sure everyone doesn't start to hate the character because she's left SHIELD and dressing differently. It's totally fine and right for her to defend her character. But a lot of the interviews were done around the time of SDCC when they had just started filming the season. So Chloe had seen one, maybe two scripts. I don't think Daisy will go bad...but darker, more likely to choose harsher actions towards those she sees as doing wrong...that's a possibility. 

 

I also agree with Kitlee..the show seems to want to have the Star Trek arrangement, but they don't do a good job of achieving it in writing the stories. I do think it's helped create a lot of the hostility towards the character of Daisy. Heck, it's made me grumpy about Coulson because he's willing to toss aside any relationship, including a years long friendship with May, to go running after Daisy. And they haven't earned the Phil/Daisy bond by showing us why very often.  Phil is one of my favorite characters in the Marvel universe, but I'm tired of Daisy and Phil only stories. I really liked that Elizabeth Henstridge got featured last year. I like Mack. I want more Yo-Yo. I like Fitz. If they want a show entirely about Daisy then they should be bold and do a spinoff. Otherwise, I want this to be about the Agents of SHIELD. 

[TVSpectator]

6 hours ago, kieyra said:

Believe me that I hesitate to mention this, but until this thread I had no idea Chloe Bennett was considered a POC. I'm not sophisticated enough to draw meaningful sociological conclusions from this, but she's always read as 'cute generic anglo TV actress' to me. I know canonically the character on this show has an Asian mother, but even that didn't tip me off to anything about the actress or her look; I thought they just wanted to give Dichen Lachmann some work. 

If it's meant as a victory for actors of color, then yeah that's not nothing.

If it's meant as a victory regarding visual representation of POC on television, I suspect there are a lot of casual viewers like me who had never looked at Chloe Bennett's wikipedia page and just have no clue. 

 

 

4 hours ago, teenj12 said:

When I first started watching the show, I didn't exactly know either (even with the mention in S1 that the character was born in China), But the fact is, her being a POC is incredibly important in certain conversations like this, especially considering Chloe's struggle to find work because of her race before she was casted on SHIELD. Like you said, that's not nothing. AOS isn't perfect by any means, but I think what can be championed is the diversity of this show in relative to half the movies in the MCU, and the fact that there is a POC main lead when that has not happened in any of their other/previous works. There is Luke Cage coming up, and Black Panther is about a year or so away. 

 

Like the both of you, I also didn't know anything about Chloe Bennett's background. In the pilot, I thought her character was another generic white hacker that just happens to be female (and in all honestly even being a white female hacker is still generic). Even when they said that her character was born/found in China I still didn't know that the character was supposed to be half-Asian (although, I did know that this show does an amazing casting. With bringing so many of different backgrounds playing different characters). Personally, I didn't know until I found it on Reddit, a while ago. Although, that brings me back to the idea that the actress' ethnic background shouldn't be an issue here. We should be judging this character on the writing of the writers and they have done a crappy, uneven job. 

[kieyra]

Exactly. I'm in favor of diverse casting. (Actually, I rarely think about a character or actor's race these days unless it's part of the text, or something ugly blows up on Twitter.) 

But I'm also in favor of television shows that don't suck.

Any message you want to send will be heard more clearly when it's shouted from a quality product in the first place.

[teenj12]

51 minutes ago, TVSpectator said:

 

Like the both of you, I also didn't know anything about Chloe Bennett's background. In the pilot, I thought her character was another generic white hacker that just happens to be female (and in all honestly even being a white female hacker is still generic). Even when they said that her character was born/found in China I still didn't know that the character was supposed to be half-Asian (although, I did know that this show does an amazing casting. With bringing so many of different backgrounds playing different characters). Personally, I didn't know until I found it on Reddit, a while ago. Although, that brings me back to the idea that the actress' ethnic background shouldn't be an issue here. We should be judging this character on the writing of the writers and they have done a crappy, uneven job. 

 

45 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Exactly. I'm in favor of diverse casting. (Actually, I rarely think about a character or actor's race these days unless it's part of the text, or something ugly blows up on Twitter.) 

But I'm also in favor of television shows that don't suck.

Any message you want to send will be heard more clearly when it's shouted from a quality product in the first place.

In an ideal world, Daisy's ethnic background wouldn't be an issue here. But that's not the world we live in. Too often, POC characters are invalidated or criticized more harshly than white characters. I get that a lot of you have problems with AOS's writing, but I'm wondering what's really the root here. To me it sounds like refusal to accept Daisy as the show's lead (and thus, confusion over what her role is to the show). I think the show works better when you come to the realization that it was never the perfect ensemble that you expected it to be, and that Daisy has intentionally been the center the entire time.

[kitlee625]

1 hour ago, teenj12 said:

 

In an ideal world, Daisy's ethnic background wouldn't be an issue here. But that's not the world we live in. Too often, POC characters are invalidated or criticized more harshly than white characters. I get that a lot of you have problems with AOS's writing, but I'm wondering what's really the root here. To me it sounds like refusal to accept Daisy as the show's lead (and thus, confusion over what her role is to the show). I think the show works better when you come to the realization that it was never the perfect ensemble that you expected it to be, and that Daisy has intentionally been the center the entire time.

So I would argue that if she is the lead, then it makes her inconsistent writing even more problematic. If the focus is on her hero's journey, then let's see it instead of having so much of it occur off screen or show up only in Coulson's monologues to someone else about how awesome she is. To say nothing of the fact that the writers really seem to love having her be kidnapped / needing to be rescued.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kitlee625
clarity

[teenj12]

3 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

So I would argue that if she is the lead, then it makes her inconsistent writing even more problematic. To say nothing of the fact that the writers really seem to love having her be kidnapped / needing to be rescued.

Even when she does get kidnapped/in trouble, she always finds a way to contribute to her own rescuing. So that argument is pretty invalid, especially when you consider the multiple examples over the series of her being a 'Big Damn Hero' so to speak.

Edited August 30, 2016 by teenj12

[kitlee625]

10 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

Even when she does get kidnapped, she always finds a way to contribute to her own rescuing. So that argument is pretty invalid, especially when you consider the multiple examples over the series of her being a 'Big Damn Hero' so to speak.

I really don't see it that way. In season 3, she had to be rescued from Hive three times. She's been kidnapped by Ward/Hive in every single season and had to be rescued by Coulson twice and Lash/May+Fitz/Lincoln. To be clear, I'm not criticizing her (she's a fictional character after all), but I'm criticizing the writers. Why couldn't they let her have the Big Damn Hero moment and kill Hive, rather than letting Lincoln do the honors.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kitlee625

[teenj12]

14 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

I really don't see it that way. In season 3 alone, she had to be rescued from Hive three times. To be clear, I'm not criticizing her (she's a fictional character after all), but I'm criticizing the writers. Why couldn't they let her have a Big Damn Hero moment and kill Hive rather than letting Lincoln do the honors.

• Yes, Daisy became one of Hive's victims, after heroically uniting her super-hero team, and  leading the rescuing of the entire SHIELD agency from him/Hydra.
• True, Daisy did not get to kill Hive. But she was the one who had the big Superhero vs Supervillain battle with him. She was also going to sacrifice herself until her love interest decided to die in her place by forcefully shooting her out of the quinjet. 
• The ending of the episode also features Daisy out there fulfilling her mission of helping Inhumans. Ya know, being a big damn hero. I mean, she didn't get this shot for nothing:

And that's the moment the entire series was leading up to.

Edited August 30, 2016 by teenj12

[kitlee625]

In my book, special effects don't trump the narrative. They can put as many special effects on her as they want, but I'm still going to disappointed with the way that the writers choose to resolve their big conflicts - by having Cal (season 2) and Lincoln (season 3) swoop in and save the day for Daisy.

 

And I'll be very clear, but I was really rooting for Daisy to save the day. They built up her special destiny, they built up the Daisy/Ward and Daisy/Hive conflict. But in the end, the writers chose to let Lincoln be the hero sacrificing himself for the greater good, and Daisy to be the sobbing girlfriend begging for him to come back.

Edited August 30, 2016 by kitlee625

[teenj12]

30 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

In my book, special effects don't trump the narrative. They can put as many special effects on her as they want, but I'm still going to disappointed with the way that the writers choose to resolve their big conflicts - by having Cal (season 2) and Lincoln (season 3) swoop in and save the day for Daisy.

 

And I'll be very clear, but I was really rooting for Daisy to save the day. They built up her special destiny, they built up the Daisy/Ward and Daisy/Hive conflict. But in the end, the writers chose to let Lincoln be the hero sacrificing himself for the greater good, and Daisy to be the sobbing girlfriend begging for him to come back.

Lol, she's not the 'sobbing girlfriend begging for him to come back'. She's now a vigilante who is fulfilling her mission of protecting her people. And Lincoln is....dead. 

[SocaShoe]

If an entire series was leading up to a character jumping really, really high... well,  I'd say they really should have aimed for more. Gaining skill with one's  powers doesn't necessarily character development. 

[teenj12]

33 minutes ago, SocaShoe said:

If an entire series was leading up to a character jumping really, really high... well,  I'd say they really should have aimed for more. Gaining skill with one's  powers doesn't necessarily character development. 

No, but slowly becoming a superhero does. 

Daisy becoming Quake is what the entire show thus far was leading up to.

[SocaShoe]

Having powers doesn't make you a superhero. It can make you a super villain, or even a just a super jerk. Getting powers can create the opportunity for character development which could lead to someone being a superhero.  But what we're seeing is Daisy returning to her Season 1 Skye days  - running around on her own, deciding what's justice all by herself. That doesn't show emotional growth to me. It's just Daisy taking her new skills on the road. Character development has to include some sort of emotional change whether it's good or bad. Can gaining skills lead to emotional change? Yes. But in television you really need to see it happen. And the thing is, Daisy is really not being allowed to SHOW she's changed emotionally. We're being told she's changed when all we really get to see is her shoving things around, crying and jumping, while still needing to be saved by the people around her. 

[OtterMommy]

36 minutes ago, SocaShoe said:

Having powers doesn't make you a superhero. It can make you a super villain, or even a just a super jerk. Getting powers can create the opportunity for character development which could lead to someone being a superhero.  But what we're seeing is Daisy returning to her Season 1 Skye days  - running around on her own, deciding what's justice all by herself. That doesn't show emotional growth to me. It's just Daisy taking her new skills on the road. Character development has to include some sort of emotional change whether it's good or bad. Can gaining skills lead to emotional change? Yes. But in television you really need to see it happen. And the thing is, Daisy is really not being allowed to SHOW she's changed emotionally. We're being told she's changed when all we really get to see is her shoving things around, crying and jumping, while still needing to be saved by the people around her. 

I never thought about it before your posts, but you're right.  Daisy has gained powers...but she really hasn't evolved as a character.  To be fair, I don't think Coulson has either (although arguments could be made for May, Fitz and Simmons and, for better or worse, Ward).  But, I think a character who has gone through such a fundamental change really should mature--or even regress--and Daisy has just sort of...stood there.

[teenj12]

Daisy's been the most developed character on this show.  She went from being freaking homeless, to being a freaking superhero. She went from not knowing how to defend herself to being able to take down anyone in her path.  You're just denying her development because it means you'll have to admit that she's the central protagonist. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by teenj12