Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Legion is good. I like that one a lot, but I have talked to a ton of people who hate it. I guess I like shows where people put thought and effort into stories and characters, as well as the visual style, while some people prefer to watch superheroes have big battles every week. I don't know. I just know that I find the exploration of character on Legion to be really compelling, while others say that the show is boring and nothing happens.

When it comes to Iron Fist, I'm just going to have to wait and see. Critics are morons who don't know anything, so we can't go by them. Complaining that a white comic book character being white on screen is "whitewashing" is stupid (and possibly a little racist). A lot of those same people would be complaining if they had cast an Asian actor, because they complain about the martial arts stereotype all the time. The star of the show says that it's because people don't like Trump and don't want to cheer for a billionaire superhero. I think that's a bit of a stretch, but who knows?

All I know for sure is that plenty of critics praised Luke Cage, which has to be one of the low points of the franchise, so we can't count their opinions for much.

Plus, they bashed some really good DC films. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Sepinwall doesn't usually get caught in that BS.  He likes it or he doesn't, and his complaints about Marvel shows have been pretty similar to yours.  Good but drags on too long.  Too repetitive.  He really liked season one of Daredevil and didn't care as much for season two.  Was less into Jessica Jones and Luke Cage.

He says to simply skip this one.  Not "it's bad, go in knowing that" - "Don't worry about it.  You'll catch up when Defenders airs"

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't get why people think season 2 of Daredevil was such a big fall from season 1. It had some solid new characters and the arc was pretty smooth, compared to JJ or LC.

I guess it's also possible that season 1 earned the show a little more wiggle room from me. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have watched the first two episodes of Iron Fist. I have thoughts.

1. I don't know what the critics are smoking. This show is closer to Daredevil quality than JJ or LC were. Are they really just pissing and moaning over race issues?

2. Honestly, I know nothing about this character going in. He definitely has Bruce Wayne/Oliver Queen stuff going on, but it's working well so far. I'm interested in following this.

3. I can't judge the whole series yet. There could well be a slump coming up. That seems to be a thing with these shows. But if they can hold this quality of character/story, I will be happy.

4. I do have some issues. It felt weird to have the doctor look at Danny as though he were crazy for referencing other dimensions when they exist in a universe full of alien invasions and mythical gods using a magic hammer to fly. Also, Danny probably could have helped himself by replacing a few "could we just talk?" lines with some "you once poured pancake batter on my head" type lines.

5. I find myself sitting here, waiting for Claire to show up. I know she's around here somewhere. smile

6. Why am I numbering these thoughts?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Further proof that critics are useless idiots. Iron Fist has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 17% from critics! Audience score of 87%... Which is closer to where it should be. And the critics comments are largely political, with cries of racism, cultural appropriation, "mansplaining"... It's like they don't care about the writing, acting or directing, and only care about their SJW bingo cards.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Seriously though... Don't the new Spider-Man posters look more like the posters for an animated movie than live action? Bright colors aside, they don't even look photographic and the composition is weird. Someone went a little crazy in Photoshop.

I haven't been keeping up with news on this movie. What does "Homecoming" refer to, aside from Disney getting the ability to integrate him into their franchise? Does the story involve him coming back to New York after some great amount of time? I'm a little confused.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

I haven't been keeping up with news on this movie. What does "Homecoming" refer to, aside from Disney getting the ability to integrate him into their franchise? Does the story involve him coming back to New York after some great amount of time? I'm a little confused.

From my understanding, it's set in the lead-up to and during Peter's high school homecoming dance.  They've said they really want this to be a John Hughes movie (Breakfast Club, 16 Candles, etc) mixed in with super-heroes.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ah. Interesting.

I will reserve judgement on that until I see it on Netflix. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant not knowing what a homecoming dance is only deepens my grief for him and his genetic inability to have fun. Stay strong, buddy. We'll get through this.


I sure hope Claire shows up soon! I only got around to watching LUKE CAGE now. Honestly, while Luke Cage is one of my favourite Avengers (he plays the straightman to the insanity of Tony Stark and Thor), I'm not really into stories about street gangs. But once I got past that, I really enjoyed this series -- and I've decided that Claire is my favourite MCU character.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I know what a homecoming dance is. I just didn't expect a superhero movie to have a school dance as its big draw.

Winter Soldier. The First Avenger. Civil War. Age of Ultron... Homecoming.

I guess it can be pretty harrowing, trying to pin a boutonnière to a super suit. And it's going to be a tough moment when it's time to take pictures and he doesn't want to remove his mask.
Finally, the film will end with a chase scene after Spider-Man gets his date home after her curfew, and her father chases him through the city with a shotgun.

Second thought, I might love this movie.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Luke Cage sucked though. It was painful to get through. Claire didn't save it. I might rather go to the dentist and get my teeth drilled than sit through that series again. It was horrible. Which is sad, because Luke was a strong character on Jessica Jones.

I'm still watching Iron Fist. Still liking it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

A new Spider-Man trailer is out. I'm curious to know what you all think.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The movie looks good.

The trailer seemingly tells the entire story, beat by beat.  In chronological order.  I haven't read a single online spoiler, but I can basically tell you the entire plot based on this one trailer.

It's baffling why studios do this.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, it is stupid. They've lost the ability to build mystery. I think that mystery and subtlety are dead in our entire culture.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Star Wars was able to do it.  You can watch all the trailers and promos and not really learn much of anything.  I think the Deadpool trailers created the right feel without ruining the movie.  Guardians has done a pretty good job.

The trailers for Life apparently did the same thing - tell the movie in two minutes beat by beat.  I think the BvS trailer (and I know I'm banned from talking about it) shouldn't have spoiled the Doomsday bit.  I think they need to do one of two things:

1. Let the directors edit the trailer (or they can let someone they trust do it).  Having 3rd parties make the trailers creates a situation where their goals (making a cool trailer) don't mesh with the goals for the movie (get people interested in movie).

2. Only provide scenes from the first two acts to the 3rd party.  Most genre movies have a big action setpiece in the first two acts, and all you really need to know is the inciting incident to get a feel for what the plot is going to be.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Star Wars was able to do it.  You can watch all the trailers and promos and not really learn much of anything.  I think the Deadpool trailers created the right feel without ruining the movie.  Guardians has done a pretty good job.

The trailers for Life apparently did the same thing - tell the movie in two minutes beat by beat.  I think the BvS trailer (and I know I'm banned from talking about it) shouldn't have spoiled the Doomsday bit.  I think they need to do one of two things:

1. Let the directors edit the trailer (or they can let someone they trust do it).  Having 3rd parties make the trailers creates a situation where their goals (making a cool trailer) don't mesh with the goals for the movie (get people interested in movie).

2. Only provide scenes from the first two acts to the 3rd party.  Most genre movies have a big action setpiece in the first two acts, and all you really need to know is the inciting incident to get a feel for what the plot is going to be.

If we're talking about The Force Awakens, I think it might be because there was no plot to give away. smile

With BvS, people like to blame Snyder for the missteps, but I think the studio genuinely doesn't know what to do with those movies. They don't know how to market to comic book fans, and they aren't comic book fans themselves, so they don't know what's good and what isn't. This is probably why they edited a lot of Superman's story out of BvS when they got their hands on it. People love Batman and he makes a lot of money, so play that up. With the trailer, they just wanted to throw everything at the wall and see what stuck, I think.

Especially because the people making those movies now aren't creating the simple tellings of those stories anymore, which is a lot easier to do than to really explore the characters. Snyder's version of the movie was much more solid. Plus, it set up Justice League a little bit more by letting us get a glimpse of... wait, you haven't seen it. I won't spoil that.

The directors and editors should probably make the trailers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I just think we've moved to a place where people assume that stuff is going to be spoiled so they show it.  How cool would it have been for Doomsday to show up with absolutely no reference to him in the trailers?  Apparently the ending to Life was spoiled by the trailers (and it's a twist ending, allegedly - I haven't seen the trailer or the movie).  And the Spider-Man trailer spoils a great deal of the relationship between Peter and Tony Stark, almost the entirety of a huge action setpiece in the middle of the film, and Peter's entire motivation throughout.

It was just too much.  Maybe the director would've spoiled the same stuff, but I doubt it.  Maybe you tease the boat splitting in half and have you wonder "how's he going to get out of this one?" like they did with the skydivers in Iron Man 3. 

Guardians didn't do that in their trailer.  Justice League gave a lot of character information without really giving much away.  These are big movies that didn't feel the need to make the same mistakes.

Maybe there's a great ending to Spider-Man.  Maybe the rest of the movie is great.  But if they're going to show so much (which looks great), my first instinct is to assume that the rest of the movie wasn't worth showing.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

IRON FIST is pretty mediocre. The corporate machinations are extremely dull and Finn Jones is thoroughly uninteresting as the already blandly scripted Danny Rand. Colleen Wing and Claire Temple are pretty much perfection, though, and they elevate the series from lifelessly indistinct to watchable. The drunken boxen sequence was good, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't understand the IRON FIST series at all. Why did Marvel TV commission a series about a martial artist character but fill the series with corporate intrigue and boardroom debates instead of martial arts action?

Why did Marvel TV hire an actor with no fighting skills and no time to learn how to fake it to play a master martial artist in this show?

Why did Marvel TV greenlight a show about Iron Fist when the Iron Fist superpower is barely present and Danny Rand never wears the Iron Fist costume?

Why did Marvel TV want to do an Iron Fist TV show about the character's origin story where the mystical city in which the story takes place -- K'un Lun -- is never shown onscreen and where the magic dragon -- which each applicant must fight to become the Iron Fist -- never appears in person?

Why is Harold Meachum the final villain of the first season when Harold has been established as weaker than the Hand ninjas and subservient to villains that Iron Fist has already defeated and dispatched?

If Marvel TV felt uncomfortable with the martial arts, the costume, the mystical city from which the martial arts came, the superpower and the origin behind the superpower, why are they doing this show at all?

IRON FIST is a series that doesn't seem to have any concrete goals and it keeps sabotaging itself throughout its run.

It's almost as though somebody decided years previous that Netflix would have a DEFENDERS series featuring Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist who'd first appear in their individual shows, but the Iron Fist show was thrown together at the last second to justify the character appearing in DEFENDERS without any sense of what IRON FIST would be and no commitment or interest in the aspects of Iron Fist that are present in the comics.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I had family in town, so I still haven't finished Iron Fist.

We did watch Doctor Strange though. So... Yeah.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Dr Strange was harmless fun, I thought.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I guess it was harmless. I mean, it probably didn't give me cancer or anything. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

We don't talk about it much, but I think Agents of Shield has really found its footing.  I actually look forward to watching it each week, and I think it's a lot of fun.  It's annoying that the movies don't care about it, and it's crazy that AoS takes place in the same universe as Daredevil.  But for what it is, I think it's a lot of fun.  Ghost Rider was a fun story, LMD was zany but allowed for some great character work, and I think Agents of Hydra will be pretty cool too.

Bringing back (spoiler) is upsetting, but hopefully they do it right.

Informant wrote:

I haven't watched the show in months. I started this season watching, but eventually forgot to watch and didn't care. Then I went and watched an episode and it just seemed stupid, so I never went back. I never got past the Ghost Rider story.

I don't really know how to describe AGENTS OF SHIELD, and every time I try, I ramble endlessly. I think the best way I have to explain the show is that it has constantly reinvented itself with each season and with Season 4, they did the annual reinvention early, in the middle of the season, wrapping up the Ghost Rider arc and shifting into the artificial intelligence war.

Season 1 was the children's version of a spy show and the series only seemed to find its footing when SHIELD was destroyed and the agents were made fugitives and outsiders which is a more Marvel-approach than having them as agents of the establishment. Season 2 were the agents trying to do their jobs when it wasn't their job anymore and it set up the Inhuman arc of Season 3 which did a really neat job of finally creating Inhumans to truly represent the best Marvel characters as misfits and freaks.

With Season 2, there was a cinematic, crisp, fast-paced approach to the show with tight editing and a snappy sense of rhythm. The series also pushed the actors to their limits with Clark Gregg, Chloe Bennett, Elizabeth Henstridge and Iain De Caestecker playing characters who were increasingly strained and maddened and pushed to their limits. And Brett Dalton as Grant Ward found deeper and more disturbing layers of horror and twisted monstrosity in a character who initially seemed incredibly bland and flat. The Ghost Rider arc was very fulfilling and exiting. The AI war has really grabbed me with the nightmarish Framework environment.

But I honestly can't point to any coherent throughline or central purpose to the series beyond being an exciting, PG-13 espionage series in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It isn't a film noir adventure like DAREDEVIL; it's not a detective drama like JESSICA JONES; it's not a street-level exercise in atmosphere like LUKE CAGE; it's not a goofy space comedy like GUARDIANS and it's not a charming character piece like ANT MAN. It was a supernatural procedural thriller in the Ghost  Rider arc and it's currently a techno-action spy adventure. Who knows what it'll be next week?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah there's not much to it as a whole, but I enjoy it weekly and am glad it exists.

So I watched the original Iron Man movie tonight.  And while I think it did a lot to create the world of the MCU, I gotta say it doesn't feel like an MCU movie.  The MCU is hitting on all cylinders these days (if only as a machine, Informant), and when you watch Dr. Strange or Guardians of the Galaxy or Ant-Man, it all feels authentic to me.  They introduce something strange, and I say, "yeah, that makes sense."

Iron Man shows a world that would feel a bit odd if a Hulk randomly showed up.  A world that doesn't really feel like Red Skull would've fought Captain America.  A world where Hank Pym had already had a lengthy career as Ant-Man.

What really drove that home was, in fact, Phil Coulson.  When I saw Coulson show up, I smiled.  I'd almost forgotten that his character goes back to the beginning....that he, not Nick Fury, was the introduction of SHIELD.  I even forgot that Coulson says Shield first - I thought Fury was the first one to say it.

But at the end of the movie, Coulson and some agents go to arrest Obadiah Stane, and they're surprised when it happens.  At the time, they were just faceless agents.  But as Coulson was leading them in, I watched him with four seasons of a show under his belt, and he felt....underprepared.  He felt sloppy.  I don't even remember how Coulson made it out of the situation alive, and I'm fairly certain the other agents were killed or seriously wounded.

The world hadn't, quite, gotten away from SHIELD yet.  It'd been decades since the Tesseract was causing problems.  Hank Pym had retired already.  The Hulk hadn't made himself known to the world, and he was still in hiding.  No one knew about aliens or Asgardians.  Spider-Man is about 8 years old.  So Coulson probably hadn't faced many supernatural threats at this point in his career, but outside of a small gadget to get into a secure location, it doesn't feel like Coulson works for any SHIELD I understand.

The movie is great, though.  It still might be the best overall movie in the MCU.  They got so lucky that it worked out, or that Nick Fury stinger would've felt really empty.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Iron Man worked the best, because it was its own movie. It wasn't bending over backwards to establish some character to plot device that will become important 75 years down the line. It wasn't trying to be cute, with references to things in every other movie and jabs at characters from other movies. Iron Man was... pure.

Then you get to Iron Man 2 and it's a sea of character setups and building up to something down the line. Captain America never got to have his own movie, outside of the machine.

The Marvel machine is great for marketing. It's like Apple... at some point, it doesn't matter what they point out, because you've invested too many hours into this thing and you refuse to give up on it. But the machine is the killer of stories and characters. It's a parasite, feeding off of every movie. And it's completely unnecessary. Not every future movie needs to be teased in three otherwise unrelated movies before it. When something big happens in my life, there isn't always a post-credits scene from three years ago that set it up in advance.

One of the things that I'm really looking forward to with Wonder Woman, for example, is that she doesn't get frozen and wake up 100 years later. She can have ten movies set in the first quarter of the 20th century. Her romance with Steve doesn't have to be rushed and then thrown away. She can marry him and watch him grow into a 100 year old man without stepping on the toes of the Justice League movies in any way. This is what they should have done with Captain America, with his final movie having him frozen and waking up just before The Avengers. As it stands, his first movie feels like a rushed setup for The Avengers. His relationships in his first movie are a waste of time, for the most part. His transition to the present is glossed over. He makes out with the niece of the love of his life, about five minutes after said love of his life died unceremoniously. The actual Captain America character is like an afterthought in his own movies, because of the big machine that he is serving.

Iron Man didn't have that problem. It was clean and had its own soul. Not unlike Guardians of the Galaxy.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I finally finished Iron Fist the other day. It took me a while, because life got in the way, but I finally got through it.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I think it's easily better than Luke Cage or Jessica Jones, but not up to Daredevil level. I'm a little over this whole trope of the evil corporations, etc., but I still enjoyed the story.

Danny is an interesting character. I don't know the comic book character, so I can only speak about the TV version, but I think it's interesting how he is highly skilled and trained in some ways, but completely developmentally stunted in other ways. He suffered a horrible trauma as a child and was immediately told to repress any and all feelings about that trauma. He was forced to live in a place that he was never meant to live in, and physically abused until he became what they wanted him to become. So it's not surprising that he has anger issues and that his walls start to crumble when he is reintroduced to the normal world. He interacts with it in the only way he knows how, which is as a child. At times it seems silly, but when you stop to think of someone who has essentially been held captive and brainwashed for a decade and a half, it's not really unthinkable.

Do I think it was a little heavy-handed at times? Yeah. But it was still interesting.

The corporate stuff... it is what it is. Yeah, Danny has been trained to fight the Hand, but he doesn't know how to fight someone like Harold, who is a master at controlling people and situations. He used Danny and the Hand against each other, not unlike Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman. I think they could have played him with a little bit more subtlety toward the end, but I do understand why they went with him. The Hand, I imaging, will be an issue to be dealt with in The Defenders, so they couldn't just resolve it here.

I had a hard time getting a feel for Joy in this series. She was a poorly defined character whose reactions and motives seemed to change from episode to episode. Did she love Danny like a brother? She seems to be a lifeline in the first episode or two, but then whatever bond they might have had is sidelined. I think that perhaps Claire didn't need to be as prominent as she was in this series, because she took over some of what Joy could have been doing.

Iron Fist wasn't the best series I've ever seen in my life. And at times, I felt like the OA was going to step out of the shadows and start doing her five movements as he did his tai chi, but that's just my wacky imagination.

I do think that the series was ridiculously over-slammed by critics. Especially after they praised Luke Cage, which was painful to get through.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

AGENTS OF SHIELD continues to impress with a story that shouldn't work. The Framework is a simulated dreamworld, so why should what happens in a dreamworld matter in the slightest? But the AGENTS OF HYDRA arc has found all sorts of ways to make it immersive, first through the disorientation of Daisy waking up as an agent of HYDRA and Simmons having to dig out of her own grave to find herself in a hellish dystopia. Then there's the history of this simulated reality where the regrets each character had cost them the strength, honour and compassion they would have otherwise had to defeat HYDRA.

There's also the sense that the Framework reality is not a simulation even if AIDA and Radcliffe may have programmed it, first indicated by Fitz being a sadistic monstrosity whose memories cannot be unlocked, then by the Grant Ward revealed as a hero with his alternate history being that Victoria Hand was his SHIELD recruiter instead of John Garrett -- these potentialities are not a video game but a genuine path not taken that, while having only simulative form in the Framework, may gain reality in our world through Project Looking Glass.

Despite the fact that the Framework isn't real, there's been such beautiful poignancy and horror. There's Fitz's increased depravity as his love for his father and AIDA are used to transform him into a psychopath. There's Grant Ward apologizing for what his counterpart may have done and Daisy realizing that the self-justifying villain who deluded himself that he was a hero could've actually been one had Garrett never gotten to him. There's Coulson seeming more natural as a schoolteacher than a secret agent before embracing his secret agent identity. There's the grief of Mace's sacrifice in a world that isn't real.

It's beautiful.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It really is well done.  Although I'm wondering if this is going to be a problem for the show.  Giving Ward a chance for redemption is interesting, but what if they use this as a way to bring Ward back into the real world as a good guy?  It wouldn't really be redeeming our Ward, but I was actually pretty impressed by the idea that they moved beyond Ward in a way that Heroes never moved beyond Sylar.

Now he's back, and I'm worried they're going to use this as a way to bring him back.  Maybe Tripp too.

If they don't do that, I'm actually really impressed by this segment.  It's playing on a lot of the show's mythology....which brings up how much actual mythology the show has to play with.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There was a time when I thought like you did -- that Sylar was a played out character that the writers were burdened with, that the character was a serious problem -- but now I think that's total BS. At the end of the day, the character is a fictional construct and all the choices and consideration and planning is being carried out not by a character, but by the writers. Which leads me to my position that the problem was not the character as much as the choices made by the writers controlling him. Volume 1 established Sylar as a serial killer. Volume 2 was a replay of his Season 1 arc except he had no powers which stretched out his story while contributing nothing new.

Volume 3 toyed with the idea of making Sylar a hero, then abruptly abandoned it and reverted back to the Volume 1 playbook. Volume 4 actually found a new angle: Sylar joined the government task force to hunt evolved humans, and you can tell that it's the Volume for which Volume 1 writer Bryan Fuller returned. Volume 4 created a Sylar who was the devil in Nathan's persona, then created an amnesiac Sylar, then reverted back to the Volume 1 playbook, then took away his ability to kill and have him live out decades in a dreamworld in which he changed... but we didn't get any further development and Tim Kring's interviews indicated he would have made Sylar villainous again in Volume 5 had he returned.

So, the problem isn't the character; it's that despite raising numerous avenues of development, the writers reverted back to the original template over and over again.

I don't see that problem with Grant Ward; he was killed off in Season 3 and the actor stayed on playing a different character who'd possessed Ward's body. Frameward, as Reddit seems to have dubbed him, is another new angle: this is the same character with the same sense of loyalty, except in this reality, his loyalty was to Victoria Hand and then the Skye/Daisy, so Frameward was never twisted into a detached killer constantly engaging in sick and bloody efforts to justify murder after murder after murder. This is something new, something they can continue develop, and AGENTS OF SHIELD has shown that it's willing to reinvent its playbook every season has reinvented itself three times alone this season.

It's funny, though, to see a fan of SLIDERS protesting a show being able to retain its cast. ;-)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

From what I watched of the series, Ward suffered from the same issue as Sylar, Spike (from Buffy), Crowley and Castiel (Supernatural) and many others. It isn't about the character vs the writing. They're the same things. Usually, the writers get attached to the actor and they don't want to lose them. This selfish writing results in sweet fruit staying on the tree for too long. What was cool at one point eventually starts to rot.

These characters aren't meant to last. Villains (which most of these are) need to either kill the good guys and end the show, or they need to die. If you just have the characters circle each other for five years, with everyone having various chances to end the war but somehow never doing it, you end up in a situation where the heroes and villains both look incompetent.

With Ward, I always had the sense that the writers didn't want to let the actor go (not sure why, since he wasn't anything super special) and they kept making excuses to try to keep him around. It wasn't natural or logical. When the wants of the writer start to become more visible than the needs of the story, everything breaks down.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

While I understand the view that some characters run their course, surely a television show should be designed to carry on with its core cast indefinitely. And surely writers working on a TV show should be able to keep their cast and characters a going concern because if they can't, why are they working in TV in the first place? That's the format of serial fiction whether it's a five to ten season show or a comic book that's run since 1962. That's the job.

I never hear Spider-Man and Batman writers saying there aren't any stories left to tell with their leads and if they did, are Spidey and Batman the problem? Or is it the writers?

A TV writer saying they can't come up with new stories for a TV character is like a truck driver complaining they hate long drives.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It depends on the character. Some characters are designed to serve a specific arc, and keeping them around for longer than that arc means that you are sacrificing the original intent of the story, and the foundation of the character. Yes, they can be kept around, but it is usually a matter of whether they *should* be kept around.

On Supernatural, Crowley is a neutered joke of a character. He has had many chances to kill the Winchesters and they have had many chances to kill him, but they never do. It is even a joke within the show, but they never justify it. He is evil. Why don't they kill him?! And because these characters can't move in any direction, they become useless and boring. Crowley spends most of his time in a dungeon-looking place, talking about how bad he is while never contributing to the story.

On the other hand, Bobby Singer was meant to be in one episode, but stayed for many seasons, and he contributed a ton. But his character was never written into a box that depended on him either killing the good guys or being killed by the good guys.

The longer a villain stays on a show, the more pathetic both the villain and the hero begin to look. Imagine if Buffy were still fighting the Master in season 7.

Wait, that might have actually been better. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think it's a delicate balance.  I have no problem with shows keeping their casts together, but I think it's different when it's heroes and villains.  No one gets mad when, say, Coulson escapes death over and over again because he's the hero.  When he survives, it's a win.

When Sylar survives, the "win" is either minimized or taken away completely.  In the audience, it's frustrating.

There are clearly ways to keep villains around when they're interesting.  But sorta like "will they, won't they" romances in sitcoms, there's a delicate balance.  Most of the fun is watching them go bad.  Once they go fully evil, then there's a countdown clock that starts.  And once it hits zero, the character needs to go away.

What's funny is that it doesn't really matter what the villain does...just whether the hero knows it.  Look at Hannibal.  Hannibal is an evil, awful person from the start of the show.  We're supposed to hate him, but he's charming.  His friendship with Will Graham is fascinating.  So we're cool with whatever he does....and we're thrilled watching Will try and catch him.  But once Will knows, the countdown starts.

It was fun watching Lex and Clark on Smallville.  Lex would bend a rule here, compromise his morals there, and he was a lot of fun.   But once his villainy became cartoonish, he stopped being fun, and I wanted Clark to take him down.  If Clark didn't take him down, it was a failure of our hero and less fun.

With Sylar, he was always 100% evil.  He's a serial killer.  A villain.  Beating him was the whole point, and when he kept coming back, it was a failure.  A problem.  I didn't have any interest in his redemption because I didn't think he was worthy of it.  And I knew, sooner or later, he'd be back t his old tricks. 

I think the same can be said for Ward.  He went fully bad, and the team took him down.  The show had some fun with him as Hive, and then he died again.  The show as able to move on, and I think it was better for it.

I know he's technically a different person, but if Ward comes back to life, it's going to be like Ward (season 1-3 one) found a loophole and redeemed himself.  When I still see Ward (fairly or unfairly, including the fake one) as being evil.  Like Daisy, I don't trust him.  Even though it'd be like holding one twin accountable for the sins of another one.

It just feels cheap to me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm not watching AoS, but on this topic, I think it's at its worst when the writers want to keep the character around and they want to keep him as he was when he was the most fun, so it's like there's a bungee tied to his character arcs, and he keeps snapping back to his original setting.

When Crowley went through that ritual that partially cleansed him and almost purified him, I was intrigued. It was movement of some sort. But then it was back to normal, in that stupid dungeon. What happened to his mansion from season 5?

I hated Rowena with a passion. Then she met God and the character suddenly shifted into someone not quite good, but not quite bad. Now I don't find her nearly as irritating, because she's not just twirling her mustache (so to speak).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Daisy trusts Frameward. That said, it's a moot point -- Jed Whedon addressed the question and says that the Framework will not be used to bring Ward back as a regular character. It seems his appearance in the Framework was simply to deepen our understanding of the real Ward and realize that he could have been a hero if he'd had the right influence.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

And if that's the case, I think it's a pretty cool idea smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

But wasn't Ward crazy as a kid too? I thought he was evil on a deeper level.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ward was severely abused by his parents and older brother, and the latter forced Ward to beat up the youngest of the brothers, Thomas, and leave Thomas to nearly drown in a well. Ward was later sent to a brutal boarding school after he began openly defying his parents. One night, Ward escaped the school and attempted to burn down his family home with his parents and older brother inside, enraged at their treatment of him and Thomas.

The parents and brother escaped and Ward was arrested and tried as an adult until Garrett (Bill Paxton) broke him out. He then left the teenaged Ward alone in the wilderness with no supplies or equipment for six months and Ward nearly froze and starved until he taught himself to hunt and build shelter. Garrett refined Ward's survival skills and emotional detachment while inducing Ward's loyalty to Garrett by Garrett being the person who gave Ward his freedom and the only one who saw his value, and Garrett joined HYDRA and had Ward do the same, not because they subscribed to HYDRA but because Garrett sought revenge on SHIELD and Ward was obedient to Garrett.

After Garrett is killed and Ward's treachery is revealed, he initially insists that he's still part of Coulson's team and loyal to Daisy, offering them intel and insisting he'd never have harmed the team. But his injuring Fitz and murdering Victoria Hand proves unforgivable and Coulson decides to hand Ward over to Ward's abusive older brother, now a senator, in exchange for cooperation and access. Enraged, Ward escapes custody, kidnaps his brother and forces him to confess his abuse, at which point Ward ties his brother and parents up in their house and burns it down, this time succeeding in murdering his family.

Then Ward joins HYDRA as a sting to aid Daisy in finding her missing father, declaring his loyalty to her and Coulson's team again, but Daisy shoots Ward the first chance she gets and Ward realizes he has no hope. Ward falls in with a disavowed SHIELD agent, Kara, and inducts the traumatized former agent into his soldier and falls in love with her, only to accidentally kill her when setting a trap for SHIELD.

Blaming SHIELD, Ward reforms HYDRA and goes into open warfare, murdering Coulson's new girlfriend. Coulson begins a thorough analysis on Ward and determines that all of Ward's actions are a sick attempt to justify his past and blame others for his actions while claiming he alone acted correctly -- and Coulson locates Ward's younger brother, Thomas, who calls Ward and declares him a monster, saying Ward had no need to murder their parents and brother, that they could have moved on from their abuse, but Ward uses it as an excuse to act out his bloodlust and sadism. Ward's emotional breakdown allows Coulson to trace his location and kill him.

So... what it comes down to is that Ward was defined by his loyalties. Garrett encouraged Ward's anger and bitterness towards his family and, by extension, anyone in his way. Hand apparently encouraged Ward to leave his past behind. Ward's loyalty, in the Framework timeline, saw him build a new life and find new purpose whereas in the real world, he never cast away his demons.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 … er-is-here

The trailer for the Defenders.  More hallway fight fun!

(It does look good.  And is only 8 episodes.)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I heard an interview with James Gunn.  I figured he'd sound exactly like Sam Rockwell (because he looks like Sam Rockwell sorta), and he doesn't.  It freaked me out a bit.

I also thought GOTG Vol. 2 was fun.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

AGENTS OF SHIELD continues to impress. Mallory Jansen, who plays Agnes/Aida/Madame Hydra, is terrifying and chameleonic in these multiple roles and quite possibly the best villain of the series since Maveth. It's fascinating how Jansen can illicit sympathy while being completely contemptible. I hope they can find some way to keep her around next year even if her character doesn't remain.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Season 4 was pretty great.  After it was just one of those series that I watched for a long time, it got some footing.  I don't know how good Inhumans will be, but I'm wondering if the tag at the end has to do with them.  We won't see season 5 of AoS until after Inhumans ends.  We'll have also had Thor: Ragnarok in between then and now, so the whole universe could be different by that point.

Not that much of that matters.  Agents of Shield can definitely stand on its own now.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Anyone else find it weird that Sony is insisting on doing all these Spinoff (but not Spinoff) movies of a defunct Spider-Man universe?  They're moving forward with a Venom movie (with Tom Hardy) and a Silver Sable/Black Cat movie (a director was announced today).

I'm still not 100% how these movies are gonna work.  Is Tom Holland able to do cameos in this universe?  Will the Venom movie be in the same universe as the Black Cat movie?  Does anyone think a "Spider-Man's guest characters universe" is sustainable?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Sony is still involved with the new Spider-Man movie, right? Its made with Disney, but they're still the main studio, aren't they?

Anyway, Marvel has made billions off of half-assed movies and shows that are kinda-sorta connected, but not really. So it's probably not a big deal.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Venom could be a decent horror / anti-hero movie; Black Cat / Silver Sable could be a decent buddy movie with a thief and a spy.   The problem is that Sony doesn't really need the trademarks to do those movies - the brand awareness will likely help Venom, but it's going to do nothing for Cat / Sable.