Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Media

[Kromm]

7 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:

Interesting. wonder if being later will affect viewship.

It will affect conventional ratings, sure, but it's a show that I believe has tended towards a lot of DVR & streamed delay viewing.

[Cranberry]

Agents of SHIELD Star Says Marvel Doesn't Care Enough About Its Own TV Show

I don’t know. People who make movies for Marvel, why don’t you acknowledge what happens on our show? Why don’t you guys go ask them that? Cause they don’t seem to care!

...

The Marvel Cinematic Universe loves to pretend that everything is connected, but then they don’t acknowledge our show at all. So, I would love to do that, but they don’t seem to keen on that idea.

[Kel Varnsen]

Is she just realizing that now or is her contract coming up or something? Since it seemed pretty obvious to me. I mean Marvel has been pretty notorious for taking a super hard line with their actors when it comes to contract negotiation. I have read that it is said that anyone not named Robert Downey Jr. is considered replaceable. So the fact that they haven't forced the issue with say Mark Ruffalo or Chris Evans or Anthony Mackie is pretty telling. Hell Don Cheadle has a show so it is not like he is too good for TV. Not to mention several of the Avengers have hosted SNL which I imagine would be a lot more work than a guest spot on Agents of SHIELD. The fact that this has never happened should be a pretty obvious flag that the studio doesn't really care.

[SocaShoe]

I'll jump in and say I've even read articles that said Downey almost got taken out of Civil War, because he felt if he was going to be in it, it needed to be a significant role and Perlmutter didn't want to pay him to be in a significant role. Robert also supposedly stood up for the other actors in the Avengers when they were negotiating deals for better compensation.  Perlmutter supposedly hates Downey and it was one of the things that pushed Kevin Feige to move the reporting of the movies division directly to Disney because he didn't even have the freedom, as head of Marvel Studios, to pick and negotiate with the talent he wanted. Honestly, the tv division needs to report to Disney as well. This current separation will probably only cause more problems. I appreciate Chloe speaking up but if her contract is up (and she's not scheduled to die,) she might want to put things a bit more diplomatically. If Perlmutter was ready to kick Robert Downey Jr  - a proven actor that's made Marvel billions - out of a movie, he'll have no problem demanding someone in a tv show be fired. 

[ProudMary]

Interview with Brett Dalton on that Hive ending.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/18/agents-shield-hive-ward-death-brett-dalton

[romantic idiot]

This article gave me (Chloe's one i mean) hope that she was bitter as the one axed. But no joy. Otherwise don't care. Don't think the studio will care either. And if they do, upside for me. 

I will say that Marvel are definitely lying when they say it's one connected continuing story, when it clearly isn't. But a big company lying to its customers is no new thing. 

[Kel Varnsen]

Marvel really kind of screwed themselves making their show about SHIELD.so much more connected to the movies than say Jessica Jones is. Because the director of shield should cross paths with the movie heroes. But at the same time you can't expect someone who wants to go see Captain America to watch 3 seasons of AoS just to understand  the movie plot. And I am not sure the show writers are good enough for a subtle cross over.

Plus they really shot themselves in the foot by bringing Coulson back to life but it somehow being a secret from the Avengers.

[Raja]

I think the viewers want to see some sort of emotional Fury lied to us scene over Coulson, but in the universe half of SHIELD were Nazi type Hydra while the spies Fury and Maria Hill were just doing what spies do. So many people know about Coulson it would be surprising if the Avengers did not know, just the movie watchers who wouldn't care, about a comic relief guy, if they did they would have been watching Agents of SHIELD anyway.

[Chyromaniac]

Quote

Agents of SHIELD Star Says Marvel Doesn't Care Enough About Its Own TV Show

I was at this panel last weekend - personally, I would characterize Chloe's comments as "playing to the crowd."  I think she's smart enough to realize that if fans says they are frustrated about the lack of interconnection with the films, she's going to say she wants it too - but that it's out of her hands.  She also spent a lot of time joking about Daisy being dead, so I don't think she was being completely serious about any show related stuff.

[TVSpectator]

So I found this while on Reddit. IMO, I have to agree with the article that there were a lot of wrong things in this season but overall, IMO, it didn't point out the biggest flaw- that Daisy is a Special Snowflake:

Here are the first two paragraphs:

This week, Agents of SHIELD had a huge season three finale that allowed the series to close off a ton of its lingering plot threads and open up a whole new storyline for its next season. It went out with a literal bang in outer space, and it didn’t leave fans with any soul crushing cliffhangers to obsess about until it returns in the fall. In short, it did a great job for a season ender. But that doesn’t mean the season as a whole didn’t have a few problems that need to be addressed.

Before I get criticisms for hating the show or anything like that, I’d like to preface my “everything that’s wrong" by pointing out that I do, in fact, love Agents of SHIELD, and have since the pilot episode. The show has really grown into its own and has an impressively talented cast that can make even the most ridiculous storylines compelling because of their performances alone. But throughout season three, despite it’s interesting growth in mythology, there were a lot of issues that could have been avoided to make the storytelling tighter and the season as a whole more enjoyable. This is not meant to hate on the show, just to point out a few flaws that need to be recognized by the team behind the show to make season four even better.

http://www.themovienetwork.com/article/everything-wrong-agents-shield-season-3#.V0IyW70f4k4.tumblr

 

[Cranberry]

I only ever see the "Special Snowflake" talk here, to be honest. On Facebook I recently saw people saying that Daisy should get her own movie, which was so far in the opposite direction from this forum -- and of course a near-impossibility considering that the movie people won't even acknowledge the show's existence -- that I had to laugh when I read it.

"Special Snowflake" is still a meaningless term to me, really... I'd always prefer that people explain why they dislike a character instead of using a term that means different things to everyone who reads it. It seems like it's usually used to describe only women (saw a lot of it with Rey in the new Star Wars movie, too, because apparently it was unbelievable that she could be good at anything, when no one ever questioned Luke Skywalker's talents), so it's not a term I enjoy in general.

[vibeology]

I struggle with Special Snowflake too. Daisy is important to Coulson and May and was important to Ward, plus she was the pov character for the first season, introducing the audience to SHIELD and the larger world. It makes sense that she plays an important role in the mythology of the show. I would, now that we're moving into the fourth season, like to see her less at the center of everything (every season has ended with her needing rescuing and an event happening that changes her) and focus on some new dynamics within the team, but I get why she was the focal point of the action so far and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. In the MCU, where white men are almost always the most important people in a story, it was nice to have the show avoid that and make a woc the central character. I'm someone who would like more balance now (and I think given the way the season ended its a very good time to shift the focus a little), but I understand why the show used Daisy as the entry point for so long.

[romantic idiot]

I believe I have stated in multiple places why I couldn't stand Skye, and why I don't like Daisy. My dislike is exacerbated by feeling that most of the good things happening to her are unearned and that she doesn't face the consequences of her bad choices i.e.  by her being a 'Special Snowflake' (for other examples see Cartwright, Karen and Lance, Dinah Laurel). 

I found her to be self righteous, reckless and hypocritical when introduced. She betrayed the team multiple times and got off. She caused the death of at least 2 innocent men and got off. She disobeys orders because of her own  arrogance and has done a complete 180 degree turn in her core beliefs with no self-awareness that I can make out. And now that she's an addict we're going to see another round of 'me...me...me', which I am really forward to, NOT. I don't know about people on Facebook etc. and how they watch the show, but for me, I really wish they'd stop doing the bait and switch with her possible demise every season, getting my hopes up for no reason. 

[rab01]

30 minutes ago, vibeology said:

I struggle with Special Snowflake too. Daisy is important to Coulson and May and was important to Ward, plus she was the pov character for the first season, introducing the audience to SHIELD and the larger world. It makes sense that she plays an important role in the mythology of the show. I would, now that we're moving into the fourth season, like to see her less at the center of everything (every season has ended with her needing rescuing and an event happening that changes her) and focus on some new dynamics within the team, but I get why she was the focal point of the action so far and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. In the MCU, where white men are almost always the most important people in a story, it was nice to have the show avoid that and make a woc the central character. I'm someone who would like more balance now (and I think given the way the season ended its a very good time to shift the focus a little), but I understand why the show used Daisy as the entry point for so long.

I bolded "woc" because I had no idea before your post that Chloe Bennet was anything other than white and now I find out that her father is asian-american. It has nothing to do with anything but thanks for clueing me in.

As for the character, I don't have a problem with her centrality. May has been central to a bunch of plots, Ward has been central to a bunch of plots, Coulson has been central to a bunch of plots, etc. My problem with Daisy has always been the acting and the way other characters treat her. Recently, I think Chloe has been much better and I think she nailed it in this last episode. If she can learn to play subtler scenes as well as she played the big ones in this last episode, then I'll be happy to have her stick around. The other problem is really the writers room sabotaging the character. When Coulson treats Lincoln like a criminal who should be on death row while at the same time treating dark daisy as a precious steuben crystal to be retrieved, it's insane. When they make it seem like Lash's entire genetic purpose was to save Daisy, it cheapens the character and May's relationship with Andrew. The show could fix it's issues by learning from Agent Carter and show Daisy persevering in situations where people disrespect her instead of praising her. It's a corollary to "show, don't tell." Show me Daisy doing awesome things and I'll think she's awesome. Have other characters tell me she's special and I'll think "well, she's not THAT great."

[kitlee625]

5 hours ago, rab01 said:

The other problem is really the writers room sabotaging the character. When Coulson treats Lincoln like a criminal who should be on death row while at the same time treating dark daisy as a precious steuben crystal to be retrieved, it's insane. When they make it seem like Lash's entire genetic purpose was to save Daisy, it cheapens the character and May's relationship with Andrew. The show could fix it's issues by learning from Agent Carter and show Daisy persevering in situations where people disrespect her instead of praising her. It's a corollary to "show, don't tell." Show me Daisy doing awesome things and I'll think she's awesome. Have other characters tell me she's special and I'll think "well, she's not THAT great."

This.

 

I think that on the surface, Daisy is not that different than a lot of Heroes. The problem that I have is that it's very poorly executed. Instead of explaining to us why she's special, or showing us anything about her character, the writers just tell us everything. Daisy is so caring. Daisy is completely selfless. Daisy is the best agent in S.H.I.E.L.D. history. Daisy is the most special person Coulson has ever met. However, she rarely actually exhibits these traits. As I pointed out in another thread, despite being told many, many times that Daisy is an incredibly talented S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and leader, when we see her doing things, she almost always fails and needs to be rescued (usually by a man). It's almost like the writers don't want her to actually be a skilled agent. They want to show her being a damsel in distress so that Ward, or Coulson, or Cal, or Andrew/Lash, or Lincoln can rush in and save her.

 

I think it's great that the writers want to tell the story of a young woman of color superhero. But I wish that they would actually let her be heroic, instead of showing her failing and needing to be rescued over and over again. (And then still be told that she's the best S.H.I.E.L.D. agent they have.)

Edited May 24, 2016 by kitlee625
grammar

[SocaShoe]

46 minutes ago, kitlee625 said:

I think that on the surface, Daisy is not that different than a lot of Heroes. The problem that I have is that it's very poorly executed. Instead of explaining to us why she's special, or showing us anything about her character, the writers just tell us everything. Daisy is so caring. Daisy is completely selfless. Daisy is the best agent in S.H.I.E.L.D. history. Daisy is the most special person Coulson has ever met. However, she rarely actually exhibits these traits. As I pointed out in another thread, despite being told many, many times that Daisy is an incredibly talented S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and leader, when we see her doing things, she almost always fails and needs to be rescued (usually by a man). It's almost like the writers don't want her to actually show her being a skilled agent. They want to show her being a damsel in distress so that Ward, or Coulson, or Cal, or Andrew/Lash, or Lincoln can rush in and save her.

 

I think it's great that the writers want to tell the story of a young woman of color superhero. But I wish that they would actually let her be heroic, instead of showing her failing and needing to be rescued over and over again. (And then still be told that she's the best S.H.I.E.L.D. agent they have.)

Yes. this.  It's because over and over, we're told not shown the kind of person she is. And  more often than not, they have her acting/reacting like a teenager - which would be absolutely fine if they didn't try to tell us that she's a super special agent. You know if I'd heard something along the line of Phil saying to Melinda "I know, she's young. She doesn't have the advanced educations that Fitz and Simmons have. She's openly defiant and sometimes she doesn't make the best decisions. But she's alone and living in a van. And somehow SHIELD's been responsible for that. So maybe we should  help her out -see if we can help her get to a better place in life. Until then, we could use her - she does have strong computer skills and she definitely has a way with people. Who knows? Maybe she'll even become an agent someday? But right now, I could certainly see her as an asset." I might have give the character more of a chance. And I'd be more understanding about her actions esp. when they try to sell her as the best agent ever.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, SocaShoe said:

Yes. this.  It's because over and over, we're told not shown the kind of person she is. And  more often than not, they have her acting/reacting like a teenager - which would be absolutely fine if they didn't try to tell us that she's a super special agent. You know if I'd heard something along the line of Phil saying to Melinda "I know, she's young. She doesn't have the advanced educations that Fitz and Simmons have. She's openly defiant and sometimes she doesn't make the best decisions. But she's alone and living in a van. And somehow SHIELD's been responsible for that. So maybe we should  help her out -see if we can help her get to a better place in life. Until then, we could use her - she does have strong computer skills and she definitely has a way with people. Who knows? Maybe she'll even become an agent someday? But right now, I could certainly see her as an asset." I might have give the character more of a chance. And I'd be more understanding about her actions esp. when they try to sell her as the best agent ever.

That is pretty much what Coulson told Ward about Skye in the pilot 

[SocaShoe]

You mean when he scolds  Ward for blowing the interrogation? He tells Ward that they need Skye because they don't have any information on her and that that never happens with SHIELD. This makes her an asset in the sense she's a spy's asset, to be used until the information she has is no longer worthwhile and pretty makes her at the least a recurring character or someone to check in with  via Skype. But, bringing her along on the plane, making her an agent - that's not discussed. 

edited to change "worthless" to "worthwhile."

Edited May 24, 2016 by SocaShoe

[kitlee625]

28 minutes ago, SocaShoe said:

You mean when he scolds  Ward for blowing the interrogation? He tells Ward that they need Skye because they don't have any information on her and that that never happens with SHIELD. This makes her an asset in the sense she's a spy's asset, to be used until the information she has is no longer worthwhile and pretty makes her at the least a recurring character or someone to check in with  via Skype. But, bringing her along on the plane, making her an agent - that's not discussed. 

edited to change "worthless" to "worthwhile."

Technically he does discuss bringing Daisy/Skye onto the team at the start of the second episode. But that scene is just May and Ward giving reasonable concerns, and Coulson saying that he's going to do it just because. Then later in season 2, the writers floated the theory that Coulson found Daisy and brought her onto the team because getting resurrected via Kree blood gave him the mystical purpose of finding her and bring her to the temple to activate her Inhuman DNA.

Edited May 24, 2016 by kitlee625

[jhlipton]

6 hours ago, rab01 said:

The show could fix it's issues by learning from Agent Carter

Considering which show is renewed and which show is cancelled, that may not be the smartest thing to do...

[SocaShoe]

Ok. cool. I stand corrected. Apologies for the earlier rant. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by SocaShoe

[DeLurker]

I like Skye/Daisy and have from the start, but liking her and calling her a Special Snowflake are not mutually exclusive.  Agree that having the other characters talking about how important she is as opposed to showing is a huge part of the problem.

[TVSpectator]

10 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I believe I have stated in multiple places why I couldn't stand Skye, and why I don't like Daisy. My dislike is exacerbated by feeling that most of the good things happening to her are unearned and that she doesn't face the consequences of her bad choices i.e.  by her being a 'Special Snowflake' (for other examples see Cartwright, Karen and Lance, Dinah Laurel). 

I found her to be self righteous, reckless and hypocritical when introduced. She betrayed the team multiple times and got off. She caused the death of at least 2 innocent men and got off. She disobeys orders because of her own  arrogance and has done a complete 180 degree turn in her core beliefs with no self-awareness that I can make out. And now that she's an addict we're going to see another round of 'me...me...me', which I am really forward to, NOT. I don't know about people on Facebook etc. and how they watch the show, but for me, I really wish they'd stop doing the bait and switch with her possible demise every season, getting my hopes up for no reason. 

 

 

This is pretty much why I dislike the character because she gets away with shit that others can't or, IMO, it will be a cold day in Hell if it ever does happen. Yes, Lincoln wasn't my favorite character but the way he was treated by Coulson and by the others like he was some kind of bad guy while Daisy is literally forgiven , without anyone ever questioning why they should forgive her and/or they make the lamest excuses to forgive her, is IMO, pretty blatantly bad. Another thing is that it's always about Daisy even when it seems that it shouldn't (like Lash's true genetic purpose). Let's not forget about the larger world here that the show either wants to make it all about Daisy or goes about it in an around about way. Or she has these moments where she acts like a child (IMO, the episode where she disobeys orders and "talks" to that Watchdog guy is, IMO, a good example of her acting irresponsibly) and also when all of the other characters just drool all over her for no reason (like what is the obsession Coulson has with her?).

 

Yes ,the character has improved (she at least now she is not trying to let all of SHIELD's secrets onto the Internet. The events in Winter Solider pretty much did that for her) but still it seems that with all of the good moments with the character there are still way too many bad moments as well. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by TVSpectator

[teenj12]

Speaking on the Chloe Bennet article, this isn't the first time that she has called out the MCU's/the media's bullshit. In April, she addressed Marvel's diversity problem: 

Chloe Bennet On Diversity In The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Quote

“I wish people talked about that more,” Bennet told the Daily Beast. “I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but when Supergirl came out, people were like, ‘This is the only superhero on TV that’s a female!’ And I was like, ‘Hold on! I’m pretty sure Daisy’s been here.’ And I also happen to be half-Chinese and I’m so proud of that.”

At any rate, I'm glad that she's starting to speak her mind about the Media invalidating her identity and the MCU invalidating AOS, and their first WOC lead. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by teenj12

[TVSpectator]

34 minutes ago, teenj12 said:

Speaking on the Chloe Bennet article, this isn't the first time that she has called out the MCU's/the media's bullshit. In April, she addressed Marvel's diversity problem: 

Chloe Bennet On Diversity In The Marvel Cinematic Universe

At any rate, I'm glad that she's starting to speak her mind about the about the Media invalidating her identity and the MCU invalidating AOS, and their first WOC lead. 

Wait Daisy is the lead? I thought thst this was an ensemble cast-meaning that all 7 (possibly 6) actors were the main cast/characters?

[teenj12]

Just now, TVSpectator said:

Wait Daisy is the lead? I thought thst this was an ensemble cast-meaning that all 7 (possibly 6) actors were the main cast/characters?

I think everyone who watches this show can tell that for the past three seasons, Daisy has been the central character. Marketing and promotion has only recently been giving Chloe Bennet the equal amount of top billing that Clark Gregg gets, even though narrative-wise, every season has been about Daisy. 

[TVSpectator]

IMO that is weird since this show is called Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which is strangely plural and not, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. Hence, the ensemble cast definition. I realized that the character of Daisy is important but I would really do not want to watch the "Daisy Hour of Power" (and I would probably bail if it does happen). So, I do need to see the others (and no wasting time on shipping). 

Edited June 1, 2016 by TVSpectator

[jhlipton]

On 6/1/2016 at 2:44 PM, TVSpectator said:

Wait Daisy is the lead? I thought thst this was an ensemble cast-meaning that all 7 (possibly 6) actors were the main cast/characters?

She didn't say she was the lead.  The quote she was responding to was "This is the only superhero on TV that’s a female!".  She is a superhero and is female, so her objection to the statement, as it was written, is valid.

[TVSpectator]

23 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

She didn't say she was the lead.  The quote she was responding to was "This is the only superhero on TV that’s a female!".  She is a superhero and is female, so her objection to the statement, as it was written, is valid.

 

 

Yeah, from the quote it seems that she was saying that she was one of the few 1) female superheroes on TV and 2) a WOC which IMO is on point. Although, teenj12 stated that she was the lead, which in my mind she is just part of the ensemble cast (yes, she is still a  lead actress, but so are the actors like Clark Gregg, Ming-Na Wen, Brent Dalton, Ian De Ceastecker, Elizabeth Henstridge, Henry Simmons, etc...)

Edited June 3, 2016 by TVSpectator

[redfish]

Quote

“I wish people talked about that more,” Bennet told the Daily Beast. “I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but when Supergirl came out, people were like, ‘This is the only superhero on TV that’s a female!’ And I was like, ‘Hold on! I’m pretty sure Daisy’s been here.’ And I also happen to be half-Chinese and I’m so proud of that.”

Granted her character is based on the character from the comics who works for SHIELD, but I wouldn't immediately say she was a superhero or that the show is about being a superhero. I always considered Agents of Shield was or should have been about an organization (that's not the Avengers) that lives in the world that is occupied by superheroes now. They observe and react to the events around like the superhero TV version of the police or fire department. Because if they were superheroes why do they spend most of their time engaging in strife within their own organization and putting out fires they created and not actually doing something productive. IMO I always wanted them to be like the X-files except with the metahuman/superhero version.

Edited June 3, 2016 by redfish

[TVSpectator]

15 minutes ago, redfish said:

Granted her character is based on the character from the comics who works for SHIELD, but I wouldn't immediately say she was a superhero or that the show is about being a superhero. I always considered Agents of Shield was or should have been about an organization (that's not the Avengers) that lives in the world that is occupied by superheroes now. They observe and react to the events around like the superhero TV version of the police or fire department. Because if they were superheroes why do they spend most of their time engaging in strife within their own organization and putting fires they created and not actually doing something productive. IMO I always wanted them to be like the X-files except with the metahuman/superhero version.

 

Yeah, I would be totally down if they were more like the X-Files but with superheroes/Inhumans/powered people/8-0-4s running around (and what ever happen to the term 8-0-4?/the general MCU materials, etc... It also seems that there are a lot of loose ends from Season 1 that needs to be resolved. Like Ian Quinn and Gravitron). Yes, they had to respond to CA: WS, but I felt that after that story arc was done, they just became another superhero show (and IMO what kind of sucks was that they started to change up stories and characters that were from the comics or just totally ignore them. Another superhero show, like Flash, totally embraced their comic book side and totally showed some of the most weirded parts of the DC universe and many fans just loved it. Even though they would argue that the writing on that showed also turned sour, but that they would still keep watching because of the way they would reference/show material from the comic books). Which isn't really bad, but I always liked that idea of what would the MCU look like to a regular person who doesn't have superpowers and/or special in some kind of way. Just a regular person trying to get by (and not getting killed, kidnapped, tested on, etc...) with the everyday world literally changing every minute. Sure I can tolerate one or maybe even three main characters that are superpowered individuals, but when it solely becomes about the Inhumans/HIve, IMO, it felt like they totally abandoned their main idea for the show. 

[romantic idiot]

I don't think Flash is the superhero show Agents should be emulating. I'd aim for Buffy myself. 

[redfish]

Quote

Sure I can tolerate one or maybe even three main characters that are superpowered individuals, but when it solely becomes about the Inhumans/HIve, IMO, it felt like they totally abandoned their main idea for the show.

Which is weird. They went from trying to be different to now conforming to the business memo. Maybe that last scene in the finale is a hint that they're trying to get back to their roots. Only time will tell to see if that follows through.

Edited June 3, 2016 by redfish

[TVSpectator]

54 minutes ago, redfish said:

Which is weird. They went from trying to be different to now conforming to the business memo. Maybe that last scene in the finale is a hint that they're trying to get back to their roots. Only time will tell to see if that follows through.

 

 

IMO, Marvel tends to shine when they do weird stuff, like making a movie that is basically a Cold War Era Paranoia Spy movie with the added bonus of superheroes/powered individuals in costume running around. I do wish that the show would be different, but I don't think that they will be different because their ratings have been falling (and I wondering if the writers just put Fitz and Simmons together to get that supposedly extra boost of shippers to watch live?) and they are probably going to be sticking to "safe" storylines for awhile. Although, if they have to become a superhero show, then they probably should adapt a carp ton of the comic book material (including the more strange and weird stuff. Like introducing magic, werewolves (which do exist thanks to an evil spell book called the "Darkhold" that in the Marvel comics the Vatican keeps under lock and key), parallel/alternate Earths, other dimensions, Skrulls (they have shown us the Kree why not the Skrull?), time travel, alternate timelines, Galactus (okay this one, Marvel probably doesn't own the rights to but damn, if they could do it then please show us Galactus), the Elder Gods, etc.... The list can go on and on-and maybe do a few small crossovers with the Netflix shows?

15 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I don't think Flash is the superhero show Agents should be emulating. I'd aim for Buffy myself. 

It was just something I keep on hearing people say how much they hate the current writing on The Flash (but that the earlier episodes are way better), but absolutely love how they have shown stuff from the comic books that most TV shows would stay the hell away (currently, I am watching early Season 1 of  The Flash and I do like it a lot). Like introducing Grodd Gorilla and also Earth-2. IMO, those are topics/stuff most TV shows,( and yes even some sci-fi shows would never touch and would try to stay the hell away from because of a certain trend to make everything dark and realistic, etc...). Instead, IMO, these writers have boldly embraced the weird and have come out on top, in the fans eyes because they took a chance with it. IMO, the writers on this show have been trying to build up the Secret Warriors they should try to incorporate more from the comics if that is the route they want to take. IMO, I would love a Secret Invasion storyline with actual shapeshifting Skrulls. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by TVSpectator

[redfish]

Quote

IMO, I would love a Secret Invasion storyline with actual shapeshifting Skrulls. 

That would be make sense for the next phase from Civil War but I wonder because the rights to the Fantastic Four is owned by Fox and the Skrulls are part of the FF will Fox withhold it to get back at Disney/Marvel for their passive aggressive tactics on the FF comic line especially in terms of merchandise.

[TVSpectator]

1 minute ago, redfish said:

That would be make sense for the next phase from Civil War but I wonder because the rights to the Fantastic Four is owned by Fox and the Skrulls are part of the FF will Fox withhold it to get back at Disney/Marvel for their passive aggressive tactics on the FF comic line especially in terms of merchandise.

 

 

I thought that Marvel has partial rights to the Skrulls? They can't use the Super Skrulls but the rest are okay? IMO, if they do own some rights to the Skrulls they can still do a Secret Invasion storyline since I always saw that as the sequel to the Secret Warriors storyline (and all Skrulls can shapeshift, it's their race's baseline ability). If they still can't use the Skrulls, they can always use the Chitauri, since they are also a shapeshifting race. 

Here is James Gunn on the issue back in 2014 (and it starts at the 2:20 mark):

 

According to Gunn, they can't use the Badoon and Bug and had to put in the Sakaaran.

[romantic idiot]

On 4 June 2016 at 4:34 AM, TVSpectator said:

It was just something I keep on hearing people say how much they hate the current writing on The Flash (but that the earlier episodes are way better), but absolutely love how they have shown stuff from the comic books that most TV shows would stay the hell away (currently, I am watching early Season 1 of  The Flash and I do like it a lot). Like introducing Grodd Gorilla and also Earth-2. IMO, those are topics/stuff most TV shows,( and yes even some sci-fi shows would never touch and would try to stay the hell away from because of a certain trend to make everything dark and realistic, etc...). Instead, IMO, these writers have boldly embraced the weird and have come out on top, in the fans eyes because they took a chance with it. IMO, the writers on this show have been trying to build up the Secret Warriors they should try to incorporate more from the comics if that is the route they want to take. IMO, I would love a Secret Invasion storyline with actual shapeshifting Skrulls. 

I am completely with you on not making things dark and depressing, however, I want AoS to just write and show good stories. I don't really care if that keeps them true to the material or not, though I'd think that it makes sense to mine the source material, which does have excellent series. But the basic issue with AoS is that i don't think they are looking at good stories to do and I don't think they always get a 'superhero' mission, which is why I'm saying that they should be looking at shows that just do good stories that make sense for their characters and that got the ensemble balance right. In that sense I think The Flash has struggled from Season 1. 

[TVSpectator]

Here is an interview that I found on Reddit. It has Jed and Maurissa talking about the possibility of bringing Dalton back onto the show but they are either not sure or aren't' telling  anyone in this interview:

Quote

Quote

 

According to The Hollywood Reporter, in an interview, showrunners Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen spilled the beans on what fans can see of Brett Dalton’s character next season. When asked if there is a chance fans could still see him next season despite Hive blowing up in space, Maurissa Tancharoen neither denied nor confirmed his return.

She replied, “In the Marvel universe, it’s always a possibility that once someone’s dead, they may return. The very center of our show is founded upon that notion.”

Jed Whedon shared his views, too, over this question. He said, “….it’s the Marvel universe. Everything is fluid and we are such fans of the character and more importantly of Brett, so I’m sure there will be something [with him returning] in the future.”

From this, it appears that perhaps actor Brett Dalton might ensure his comeback to the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D” in Season 4. Hence, fans will have to wait for the next season to premiere to know if he returns or not.

 

 

 

 

http://www.movienewsguide.com/agents-s-h-e-l-d-season-4-spoilers-premiere-date-brett-dalton-return-next-season/212307

On 6/5/2016 at 1:20 PM, romantic idiot said:

I am completely with you on not making things dark and depressing, however, I want AoS to just write and show good stories. I don't really care if that keeps them true to the material or not, though I'd think that it makes sense to mine the source material, which does have excellent series. But the basic issue with AoS is that i don't think they are looking at good stories to do and I don't think they always get a 'superhero' mission, which is why I'm saying that they should be looking at shows that just do good stories that make sense for their characters and that got the ensemble balance right. In that sense I think The Flash has struggled from Season 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

I do want good stories and good writing for this show. I also want this show to be fun to watch (which, IMO, can be achieved with good writing and good stories) but I really don't know what kind of show this is anymore. I am now kind of guessing that this is more of a superhero show than a spy show and we probably will never have an X-Files type show anymore.  That being said, I totally agree with you about mining not only good source material but source material that would work for this show. But, I have already stated that I don't even know what type of show this is anymore. If I had to describe this show to someone that I know, who never has seen it, I would probably say these things about it....

1. It was a spy show that became a superhero show later on

2. It is set in the MCU but the only major movie tie-in was a CA:WS reveal/fall of SHIELD storyline and Samual L Jackson is in two episodes. Also, Maria Hill makes a few appearances. 

3. Patton Oswalt is in it. He is really funny and the characters he plays are fun to watch. When they appear on the screen. 

4. Inhumans seems to be a big thing for this show. 

Okay, so I forgot to post another article that I found on Reddit. This is from the cast talking about how Season 4 is going to shape up and it looks like (by the way they are talking) that things are going to get dark, sexy, and some swearing will happen:

Quote

 

In season 4, Gregg told Entertainment Weekly that his character's only concern would be for Daisy to be okay again. Coulson and Daisy's fate are intertwined now. He will come back to S.H.I.E.L.D. only if Daisy will return with him.

"He's not the director anymore, his destiny is not so much in his own hand as it used to be. The person he cares about is on the run and seems to be very sought after by the authorities. It's very much changing the game for Coulson. Certainly from that teaser of where we'll be next season, he does not seem to be in good shape," he said.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Henstridge, who plays Simmons in the series, shared with the fans that the new installment would be darker and sexier compared to the previous seasons. She said, during MCM London Comic Con panel (as per Digital Spy), that the show has been steadily pushing the boundaries each installment. This time around, the writers are reportedly penning a sexy storyline, with "some good swearing" thrown in. Will the audience see more romantic scenes between Simmons and Fitz (Iain De Caestecker)?

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-season-4-spoilers-coulsons-fate-lies-in-daisys-hands/45383.htm

 

 

 

2

Edited June 7, 2016 by TVSpectator
Quote box issues

[romantic idiot]

I hope to God Gregg is trolling. Re: Fitzsimmons getting sexier - they do realise that's not what attracts most people to that 'ship right? So a big fat Meh on the news so far. 

[TVSpectator]

10 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

I hope to God Gregg is trolling. Re: Fitzsimmons getting sexier - they do realise that's not what attracts most people to that 'ship right? So a big fat Meh on the news so far. 

 

 

 

 

Well, I do hope that Gregg is trolling but part of doubt that he is actually trolling. 

 

As with the Fitz/Simmons getting sexier I hope to God that it doesn't happen. Personally, I don't care about the relationship and I don't hate them together (and in all honestly I can't understand why some people think that this is the best relationship the MCU and/or this show has to offer or why those two had to get together. IMO, Steve and Bucky is the best couple in all of the MCU and those had two movies together) but if they start showing those two in sexy time ,in all the scenes they are in, I will just roll my eyes probably quite live watching.

I do know that part of Reddit eats that crap up but I just don't buy their relationship at all. Especially the Simmons side. IMO, it seems that Simmons just like Fitz as a friend (which is alright, IMO) but if they felt that those two had to hook up because either (or both) a) Fitz brought Simmons back over to Earth, through the Portal that he barely understood and/or b) ratings it will just suck. First, because then IMO, Simmons becomes Fitz's prize and for the ratings, it just that, a ratings grab to stay afloat. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by TVSpectator

[tv echo]

Awesome Con 2016: Elizabeth Henstridge gets real about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Laura Hurley  June 11, 2016
http://www.examiner.com/article/awesome-con-2016-elizabeth-henstridge-gets-real-about-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d

Agents of SHIELD Awesome Con 2016 Panel

Edited June 12, 2016 by tv echo

[TVSpectator]

There is a rumor going around the Internet that Aos' TPTB are currently doing casting calls for the characters of Robbie and Gabe Reyes (both characters are from the comics). Yeah, this is just a rumor and there is no definite answer but if this is true then this would mean that they are going to do a Ghost Rider storyline. Since Robbie Reyes was the Ghost Rider, from the comics, that drove a car instead of riding a motorcycle:

Quote

 

Now, an SDCC teaser ad and a casting call are creating real buzz about the possibility of Ghost Rider being added to the fourth season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

It would be a huge move to add a character like Ghost Rider to a network television series, instead of moving the character right into a darker, more adult themed series on Netflix. The inclusion of a major and recognizable Marvel hero can only serve to elevate Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season four with audiences. That coupled with the new later time slot of 10/9c could allow for some edgier content. The only question is, which Ghost Rider are we going to see, if any? A new casting call has leaked for the series that points towards a modern incarnation of the supernatural anti-hero.

As noted by Comic Book, the casting call has gone out for a pair of latino brothers with one characterized as “the most dangerous person in the room” and the other brother is “paralyzed in a wheelchair”. This could point to the 2014 comic book incarnation of Ghost Rider, a Mexican-American named Robbie Reyes. Reyes drives a flaming black muscle car instead of the traditional motorcycle and carries his own distinctive look as Ghost Rider. He also happens to have a disabled brother named Gabe. It could be that using this modern version of Ghost Rider is Marvel’s compromise, as it still leaves the more traditional Johnny Blaze incarnation open for an adult-themed series down the road.

 

1

http://screenrant.com/agents-shield-season-4-ghost-rider/

Yeah, this all could be just wishful thinking but I guess the major rumor and buzz going around is about possibly seeing a version of Ghost Rider for Season 4. 

Also, here is an article (that is now a month old) with Clark Gregg talking about how he thinks Season 4 will deal with a) Coulson as not the director and who replaced him and b) the aftermath of CA:CW and the Sokovia Accords:

Quote

 

Speaking with EW, Clark Gregg addresses who the new director just may be and remarks upon season three’s mention of events in Captain America: Civil War – which, in Gregg’s mind, are more than likely linked together. So, just who is the new leader of the newly-federally-recognized spy organization? According to Gregg:

Quote

“I was not given a clear answer. I don’t know that it’s been determined. I thought I was going to find out when I saw Civil War, but it’s not at all clear. It all depends when the glorious Nick Fury returns from the cold and the shadows. I suspect, in the wake of the Sokovia Accords and the end of Civil War, the people involved in choosing who the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. will be are other than in-house S.H.I.E.L.D. people. If I know my government bureaucracies, I have a feeling it will be someone somewhat less qualified than Coulson to run S.H.I.E.L.D.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article goes on to say:

Quote

Then again, given the creative break-up between Marvel Studios (the film side) and Marvel TV, it just may be that the showrunners and their writing-producing staff have even less of an appetite – and, certainly, less of an impetus – to keep up such storytelling synchronicity. At this point, it’s unlikely that Fury will play a major role on S.H.I.E.L.D. (well, save for the series finale, perhaps), let alone become a recurring character by becoming S.H.I.E.L.D.’s leader again. It just may be that Coulson’s single reference to being on Team Cap will be all that audiences get – and considering that next May’s big movie release is Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, which takes place almost exclusively in deep space, it’s possibly that season four will be the first to not have any reference to the greater MCU at all.

 

 

http://screenrant.com/agents-shield-season-4-clark-gregg-director-civil-war/

This has been the only things I have heard. Although I do think that filming is going to start soon so we will probably hear more about Season 4 in the next few weeks.

[Hecate7]

On 5/24/2016 at 10:27 AM, rab01 said:

I bolded "woc" because I had no idea before your post that Chloe Bennet was anything other than white and now I find out that her father is asian-american. It has nothing to do with anything but thanks for clueing me in.

As for the character, I don't have a problem with her centrality. May has been central to a bunch of plots, Ward has been central to a bunch of plots, Coulson has been central to a bunch of plots, etc. My problem with Daisy has always been the acting and the way other characters treat her. Recently, I think Chloe has been much better and I think she nailed it in this last episode. If she can learn to play subtler scenes as well as she played the big ones in this last episode, then I'll be happy to have her stick around. The other problem is really the writers room sabotaging the character. When Coulson treats Lincoln like a criminal who should be on death row while at the same time treating dark daisy as a precious steuben crystal to be retrieved, it's insane. When they make it seem like Lash's entire genetic purpose was to save Daisy, it cheapens the character and May's relationship with Andrew. The show could fix it's issues by learning from Agent Carter and show Daisy persevering in situations where people disrespect her instead of praising her. It's a corollary to "show, don't tell." Show me Daisy doing awesome things and I'll think she's awesome. Have other characters tell me she's special and I'll think "well, she's not THAT great."

It did. Agent Carter was cancelled. I can't think of a thing that's wrong with Daisy that isn't wrong with Superman, Spiderman, or Batman.

[Ceindreadh]

1 hour ago, Hecate7 said:

It did. Agent Carter was cancelled. I can't think of a thing that's wrong with Daisy that isn't wrong with Superman, Spiderman, or Batman.

The difference IMO is that Superman/Spiderman/Batman are all the lead hero on their own shows.

Daisy on the other hand is supposed to be part of an ensemble and yet she's the only one being put on a pedestal.  If the show was called "The amazing Daisy (formerly known as Skye)" then fair enough, it'd be her show and yes it should revolve around her.  But it's called Agents of SHIELD and gives the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be about a team and not an individual.

[rab01]

19 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

It did. Agent Carter was cancelled. I can't think of a thing that's wrong with Daisy that isn't wrong with Superman, Spiderman, or Batman.

Actually, Agent Carter was cancelled after it's second season when they stopped having the people around her underestimate her and instead had every male lead (and some of the female leads) fall in love with her.

Also, it is a problem with Superman and why it's so hard to bring such an iconic character to life (and also why they often focus on the bumbling Clark Kent to give us times to root for him). Spiderman is always persecuted and Batman is often treated like a dangerous vigilante ... I'm not propounding some outlandish idea that audiences tend to root for underdogs who are unfairly picked on more than they root for the popular kids. It's pretty standard storytelling.

Edited July 18, 2016 by rab01

[Hecate7]

20 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

The difference IMO is that Superman/Spiderman/Batman are all the lead hero on their own shows.

Daisy on the other hand is supposed to be part of an ensemble and yet she's the only one being put on a pedestal.  If the show was called "The amazing Daisy (formerly known as Skye)" then fair enough, it'd be her show and yes it should revolve around her.  But it's called Agents of SHIELD and gives the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be about a team and not an individual.

But that's not true. I think if you add up how many lines Daisy has, compared with other characters, you'll find that she's not centerstage most of the time. May, Coulson, Bobbie, Fitz/Simmons, and whoever the inhuman of the season is, get just as much focus. For a little while her backstory was the main plot, but it dovetailed with the backstories of May and Coulson, and it was a good story.

I'm not sure I understand Phil's obsession with Daisy, but it seems to be a very important part of his character. The title seems to refer mainly to Phil, Daisy, Grant, and May, and to the evolution of the SHIELD organization as it copes with Hydra and various inhumans. I liked Agent Carter better, because the story was more compelling and Agent Carter herself was just so much fun to watch.

The title, "Marvel Agents of SHIELD" is a tipoff that this is a superhero story based on a Marvel comic book, and Sky/Daisy/

Spoiler

Quake

is a central character in that series.

[SocaShoe]

Umm, except for the fact that the current Agents of Shield comic book is a spinoff from the tv series. It was launched after the first season. Daisy first appeared in the Marvel Secret Wars series in 2004. And SHIELD stories have been around for decades before that. While the last season has some of it's story basis in Secret Wars it doesn't follow it faithfully. Do I think Daisy is the central character? I think that there are certain producers who want her to be, but the character gets written like she's a teenager who's not capable of taking care of herself, much less anybody else. She's a hero that rarely gets to act like one.  I do also think that for some reason Bennet has failed to resonate with audiences the way they wanted her to. The show's given her three years to do so, so maybe it's time to spend less time on her. And to me, when every character has an arc or stakes in the story it's a more interesting show. 

[TVSpectator]

On 7/17/2016 at 4:53 PM, Ceindreadh said:

The difference IMO is that Superman/Spiderman/Batman are all the lead hero on their own shows.

Daisy on the other hand is supposed to be part of an ensemble and yet she's the only one being put on a pedestal.  If the show was called "The amazing Daisy (formerly known as Skye)" then fair enough, it'd be her show and yes it should revolve around her.  But it's called Agents of SHIELD and gives the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be about a team and not an individual.

 

 

 

 

I believe that a lot of the posters here have pointed out the reasons why they hate Daisy but I will just repeat this again; the other main characters all drool over her, for some reason and they allow her to get away with things that one else ever does, she acts like a bratty teenager when she is approaching 30 (I realized that the actress is much younger than 28 but Daisy the character was born in 1988), the show loves to mock the people who hate Daisy, her character goes through arch/changes without any development/reason (well actually, all of the characters have gone through this for some reason. I would blame the writing and also the instance of the writers to have multiple large time gaps between episodes), and they love to point out that she is a special snowflake.

Take Lincoln, for some reason, he was continuously yelled at by Coulson, despised/suspected by Fitz, May, Mack, and Simmons, and ended up being more mature about the situation than Daisy, and he was forced to put with that right up until his death. Plus, her character is supposed to be around 27/28 years old, but she goes out and acts like she is a bratty teenager who never learns her lesson (and ends up being captured and/or places the people around her in danger- like, what happened to Fitz. Personally, I feel that the writers do like the character too much and has allowed this character to get away with obvious blunders, and they haven't had her mature to the point where she learns that not everything is about her, she isn't the smartest and/specialist person in the room, if she breaks orders/the rules she will have to be punished accordingly, and stop making her character seems to be all over the place. The other three superheroes you mention seem to have the idea that they have to be responsible and their characters aren't unstable and all over the place. Plus, they were able to prove, to the audience, that these three are special and that they struggle with everyday issues (thus making them relatable) and also with how a lot of the people around them perceive them in a negative light (as rab01 pointed out in the above post). If I remember my Spider-Man correctly Jameson hates Spidey (for some reason) and would paint him as a crazy theft/villain, Batman gets painted as a crazed and dangerous vigilante that must be stopped. With Superman, well it is hard to write about him because he is basically a perfect alien god who came down to Earth, but his alter-ego Clark Kent is just a bumbling newspaper reporter and the stories would focus on Clark's adventures (and this was also pointed out in an above post. Sorry, but I had this post half written out before work this morning but now I just saw that a few more people have responded). When they screw up they feel bad and sometimes the people around them also yell at them (hell, Jameson, for some reason, likes to publish articles declaring that Spider-Man is a menace to society, etc...). The point is the three superheroes you mentioned act more in a believable way, are more relatable, are more likable, and learn from their mistakes, which makes them better people. 

Quote

The difference IMO is that Superman/Spiderman/Batman are all the lead hero on their own shows.

Daisy on the other hand is supposed to be part of an ensemble and yet she's the only one being put on a pedestal.  If the show was called "The amazing Daisy (formerly known as Skye)" then fair enough, it'd be her show and yes it should revolve around her.  But it's called Agents of SHIELD and gives the mistaken impression that it's supposed to be about a team and not an individual.

 

 

Yes, the title of the show does indicate that this is an ensemble show and that the other 5/6 characters (and I am still counting Ward because Season 4 hasn't started yet) are also the main characters. And yes, I do believe that Ward was another main character that became the main villain

Edited July 19, 2016 by TVSpectator

[TVSpectator]

Double post.

Edited July 19, 2016 by TVSpectator
Double post

[ottoDbusdriver]

20 hours ago, TVSpectator said:

Yes, the title of the show does indicate that this is an ensemble show and that the other 5/6 characters (and I am still counting Ward because Season 4 hasn't started yet) are also the main characters. And yes, I do believe that Ward was another main character that became the main villain

Mind you, Daisy seems to be the only agent that gets the super slo-mo treatment on a regular basis. Just saying.