Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

NOTE: I'm rewatching LOST with my wife right now (she's never seen it) and I'm enjoying every moment. I've forgotten more than I thought I would, but it's just so well done.  Even the average stuff is just very compelling to watch.

MORE AVENGERS SPOILERS!

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

ireactions wrote:

I just think it is unlikely that AGENTS OF SHIELD can allow the Thanos erasure to cause them to lose half their cast; the actors are on contract and it'd be foolish to break up the cast due to events that aren't specific to AGENTS OF SHIELD. Maybe they could disappear in a cliffhanger, but then the Season 6 premiere will require coming up with some reasoning that restores them but can't be extended to the other characters who were lost in INFINITY WAR. It's probably best just to avoid it entirely.

I could see that, but I'm hoping they made some sort of deal with the budget.  Maybe they get the same budget for 13 episodes that they had for 22 episodes.  It would probably take someone at Marvel flexing their muscle, but maybe it happened. 

It's actually a good opportunity for Marvel to play around with a world that is, technically, post-Avengers.  It could actually be a cool world to play with as a writer's room.

The problem is that, sorta like Fringe's final season, it'd be really weird to have the final season of SHIELD be in some sort of post-apocalyptic world that eventually gets erased.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

AoS is scheduled to come back next summer, presumably after the next Avengers movie is released in May.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Oh I didn't see that.  I just saw midseason so I figured it'd be winter.  Nevermind smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, looks like the writers either didn't know about Infinity War or didn't want to mess with it.  Everything that happens in Agents of Shield happened before, and with the return coming after the Infinity War sequel, it might not even matter to the AoS universe.  Which is fine.  The Thanos threat played into Talbot's motivations, and that's all that really needed to happen.  Considering how much of Infinity War takes place in space and Wakanda, I don't think anything more needed to be shown or referenced.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think AGENTS OF SHIELD was in a difficult place. INFINITY WAR’s release date was close to AGENTS OF SHIELD’s finale, but there were strong signs that this would be the final season. If they tied into INFINITY WAR, they’d be ending on a cliffhanger and while the situation would be resolved in AVENGERS IV, there wouldn’t be any closure for the SHIELD cast. So they elected to do a series finale with a happy ending — that is likely to be negated anywhere from five seconds to five minutes after credits when Thanos erases at least half the cast from reality.

Anyway. The numerous bottle episodes in the second half of the season were clearly to permit the location filming and the effects for the Quake/Graviton fight scene in the streets of Chicago.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah I thought all that looked pretty good.  What's weird is that the scene in Tahiti looked like an obvious green screen shot.

If that's how they decided to use their budget, that's fine.  I just hope that they got enough budget to finish the series off in season six.  There's still some plot threads left, but I would've been okay if that was the series finale.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think the bad green screening was deliberate; the background plate was based on the dreamy, blurry stock footage of Coulson's Season 1 flashes of his false memories. Season 5 also tied back into Season 1 heavily with Coulson's hallucination of Mike Peterson telling him that Seasons 1 - 5 have all been a near-death dream as Coulson lies dying on an operating table after Loki stabbed him with line with the phantom of Peterson reciting some of Coulson's dialogue in the Pilot.

**

The only thing I really disliked about "The End" -- I kept bracing myself for any one or more of the cast to dissolve into dust and as the plane flew overhead, I kept thinking it would crash into the beach because the pilots might have vanished due to Thanos -- and I kept worrying that the autopilot might not be set and the plane could crash into something else when Thanos' snaps his fingers in a few minutes or hours.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Since the show is coming back more than a year from now....I wonder if Marvel would have any interest in doing a one-shot with some of the Agents of Shield characters in the aftermath of Thanos.  Because they've set themselves up for a situation where we may never know what happened post-snap (assuming everything is reset to pre-snap in Avengers 4).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I was rewatching some Season 1 episodes of AGENTS OF SHIELD and the show is a shockingly poor failure in so many areas. The pilot episode is adequate with Chloe Bennet giving Skye a spunky, irreverent energy that contrasts well with the buttoned down Coulson.

But immediately with the subsequent episodes, problems come up. The lighting is entirely too bright for a show about espionage and it makes everything onscreen look like an overlit toy commercial. The depiction of SHIELD is entirely too clean: it's a covert spy operation that drives around with its insignia on its SUVs; its surveillance is entirely benign, its methods are largely bloodless. It's a child's vision of what spies do.

Another problem: the SHIELD team we see the most of is composed of a hacktivist with no security status, two scientists with no combat training, a pilot who doesn't want to fight, a stone cold killer who isn't a team player led by a man who is officially dead. They come off as a ragtag group of misfits and yet, we're constantly told they're part of a large, highly equipped and completely professional organization even though the lead team we see the most of is a gang of awkward amateurs.

This is a version of SHIELD that is totally disconnected from the glimpses we got in the AVENGERS films, totally at odds with the sprawling, global, professional SHIELD that the characters describe onscreen, and it's impossible to imagine Nick Fury signing off on this team.

There's also a high level of humour that doesn't deepen the situations but instead makes the show seem goofier and the threats less serious. Fitz whining about a sandwich on an operation is distracting and silly; Jemma getting too deep into her role as Coulson's daughter on an undercover mission undermines the danger. The jokes don't fit the show; the characters don't fit the SHIELD concept -- it's all these disparate and mismatched pieces.

And it's strange how WINTER SOLDIER destroying SHIELD actually helped the AGENTS OF SHIELD TV show get into place. The Agents of Nothing phase is when the show starts to figure things out: the cast is a gang of misfits, so having them become an underground operation makes a lot more sense for these characters. These characters are not fit to represent the entire SHIELD organization, so having SHIELD reduced to them and only them is a far better fit. And when SHIELD is down to Coulson's team, the jokes take on a bleaker, darker tone that actually deepens the sense of danger and paranoia.

I did note, however, that even in Season 1 when the budget was high, there was a lot of walking through dark and empty hallways.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, SHIELD has always been an anomaly in the MCU.  In the first Iron Man movie, Coulson operates like it's a new agency that people haven't heard of (not just Tony, Pepper hasn't heard of it either).  Maybe something in response to 9/11 like Homeland Security. 

In Winter Soldier (and Agent Carter), the history of SHIELD shows that it's been around since the end of World War II.  And as Grant Ward aptly, said in the AoS pilot:

Maria Hill: What does S.H.I.E.L.D. stand for, Agent Ward?
Grant Ward: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.
Hill: And what does that mean to you?
Ward: It means someone really wanted our initials to spell out "shield."

So either Coulson was playing a trick on Tony and Pepper, or no one noticed that SHIELD spelled anything for 60 years.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The writers clearly changed their minds between IRON MAN and AGENTS OF SHIELD. There's a little wiggle room in that the SHIELD of AGENT CARTER is not actually SHIELD but the Strategic Science Reserve. AGENT CARTER had the SSR being a covert operation which seemed to be the case until the first IRON MAN movie during which Fury tells Stark that Stark has brought superheroes into the public eye where they were in the shadows before. It's possible that SHIELD realized Stark was going to expose his Iron Man identity to the public and decided they would finally wheel out the acronym they'd set up for public use but never deployed until now.

432 (edited by ireactions 2018-05-25 21:07:22)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Over the weekend, I wanted to write the book on AGENTS OF SHIELD. Didn't get far, but it was interesting to note: AGENTS OF SHIELD, since Season 4, has been dividing its storylines into what the producers called "pods" where each season was actually 2 - 3 short and separate seasons within 22 episodes. But every season of AGENTS OF SHIELD seems to have had its own pods:

Pod 1: Season 1, Episodes 1 - 12 - "Fan Fiction"
The first 12 episodes of AGENTS OF SHIELD are an extremely simplistic children's show. SHIELD agents are all uniformly good, all others are bad. AGENTS OF SHIELD is presented as an extension of the AVENGERS film, but it seems more like a Disney children's cartoon that accidentally got filmed in live action.

Skye, Fitz and Simmons are constantly played for easy jokes and face lightweight threats. They feel more like characters in a children's half-hour sitcom than the cast of a Marvel Cinematic Universe production. The overlit look gives the impression of an student production. Namedropping "Romanov," "Banner" and "Stark" when those characters don't appear onscreen seems desperate.

Worse, the cameos from Nick Fury and Maria Hill have no impact on the plot and feel like deleted scenes ripped off a blu-ray and plugged into a fan film. The use of the term "Gifted" to avoid calling superpowered people "mutants" is an awkward way to address lacking the X-MEN rights. The tie-in to THOR: THE DARK WORLD is carefully designed to avoid any impact on the film series. The show feels like a STAR TREK novel: disposable, making no waves in the universe it supposedly inhabits and designed to be ignored by the actual MCU productions.

There are any number of reasons for this. The production was forbidden to offer any buildup to WINTER SOLDIER revealing that HYDRA had infiltrated SHIELD to the point where AGENTS OF SHIELD had to use "Centipede" to refer to its central evil organization. The show was barred from making any hints that SHIELD might be anything other than an organization of white knights lest the surprise be ruined.

There was the initial sense that a TV extension of AVENGERS needed to skew to a younger audience. The production difference and distance between TV and film made it hard for TV to write stories that films could respond to as films were made over years while TV was made in weeks.

But the result: AGENTS OF SHIELD didn't seem to be a genuine extension of the Marvel Cinematic Universe laid out in the AVENGERS movies and had a painful air of illegitimacy.

Pod 2 - Season 1, Episodes 13 - 22 - "Agents of Nothing"
Which is why it's so interesting that the "Agents of Nothing" era determinedly turns into the spin by taking that accidental illegitimacy and making it text within the show.

Despite the tie in to WINTER SOLIDER being from Episode 18 onward, the real shift in tone actually begins with episode 13, "TRACKS." Although there's a goofy sequence of Simmons shrieking at Coulson in public (with a Stan Lee cameo), the show is more brutal as May encourages a villain to stab her in the shoulder so she can cut the ropes binding her and the episode ends with Skye shot twice in the stomach. There's something shocking about seeing bloodshed in a show that seemed more like GIRL MEETS WORLD or LIV AND MADDIE than it did AVENGERS.

We're truly in different territory as "End of the Beginning" and "Turn Turn Turn" tie into the WINTER SOLDIER feature film in which HYDRA has infiltrated SHIELD since its beginnings to the point where Captain America is forced to dismantle the organization entirely.

Coulson, Fitz, Simmons, Skye, May and Ward never felt like they represented SHIELD; now they truly aren't SHIELD at all. They have been reduced to a malfunctioning plane, scant weapons, Ward is a traitor and Coulson has driven May off the team. Maria Hill shows up to make a full appearance only to establish that the team's textual illegitimacy means they no longer have resources, backups, bases or support outside themselves.

There's a sincerity and a genuine sense of threat here; we've seen how Skye, Fitz and Simmons can only win in a Disney world of easy answers, weak villains and immediate solutions. An episode ending with Ward and Garrett flying the SHIELD jet and the rest of the team sitting nervously around a pool is terrifying.

The "Agents of Nothing" have Coulson attempting to contain a monster of the week and stop Garrett and Ward from finishing their supersoldier program and they face defeat on all sides. Stopping one superpowered villain used to be easy with all of SHIELD; now they're reduced to using spotlights. Fitz and Simmons are sunken to the bottom of the ocean. Garrett is unstoppable: he has Deathlok. He has Ward. He has the SHIELD data. He has a superhuman body.

Most tellingly, Garrett has what the Agents of Nothing have always lacked: he has legitimacy; he can present HYDRA to the US Government as a genuine, above board arms manufacturer through the guise of Cybertek. The Agents of Nothing are outmatched and doomed.

But then Fitz and Simmons find a way to escape the ocean. Skye realizes Garrett is threatening Deathlok's son to secure his compliance and wins Deathlok's aid by saving the boy. And Nick Fury returns.

Samuel L. Jackson had revealed early on that he'd be appearing in the season finale, but even then, AGENTS OF SHIELD manages to make him feel like a surprise. When Fury appears to pull Gemma and Fitz into a helicopter, the downbeat terror of the last four episodes suddenly turns around. Jackson has an instant charisma and he inspires confidence and trust with his effortless appeal.

Jackson's screentime, despite being significant, is clearly designed to excuse the Nick Fury character from any further involvement in the show. He calls Coulson the reason SHIELD works, promotes Coulson to director, gives him the last of SHIELD's resources and leaves the TV show and SHIELD's legacy entirely in Coulson's hands.

It's a shift that finally moves AGENTS OF SHIELD away from being an awkward sequel to AVENGERS that lacks any actual Avengers. Jackson's role serves to hand the torch to Coulson and company and free them to define their own show.

Pod 3 - Season 2, Episodes 1 - 10 - "SHIELD Underground"
In terms of tone, this pod is similar to the Agents of Nothing run. The gang are still underground fugitives, but Fury's resources have allowed them to recruit some new teammates. This smaller scale suits the showrunners' preference for a cast of awkward misfits rather than purely militaristic professionals.

SHIELD's limited resources are played effectively: their military might is an empty show, they win through cleverness and perseverance and while they're fighting HYDRA, the world at large considers any SHIELD agent to be indistinguishable from HYDRA.

For this pod and the next four, SHIELD is not considered a legitimate peacekeeping force or law enforcement agency; they are viewed as criminals -- a great way of deepening the sense that AGENTS OF SHIELD never felt like a genuine extension of the feature films and turning it to the show's advantage. It's a take far more suited to Marvel, a publishing house that's always been more about the underdogs and the rebels than it has about the establishment.

The main focus is on fighting HYDRA, but a larger myth-arc is present as the show presents HYDRA as merely one faction in a long-running conflict involving alien interference in humanity from the dawn of its existence.

Where Season 1 awkwardly attempted impact-free sequels to feature films, Season 2 begins delving into a secret history to the MCU that AGENTS OF SHIELD can explore on its own terms and this pod ends with Skye being revealed to be a comic book character named Daisy Johnson and also to be Gifted.

Pod 4 - Season 2, Episodes 11 - 22 - "Inhumans"
As a whole, the Marvel Cinematic Universe struggled with illegitimacy but to a lesser degree than SHIELD. Despite claiming to be the cinematic representation of Marvel Comics, the MCU didn't have Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, the X-Men or any other characters whose film and TV rights were carelessly sold to FOX and Sony.

The absence of the X-Men left a hole in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As a concept, mutants served as a catch-all explanation for how people could have superpowers without needing screentime for origin stories.

SHIELD tried calling mutants "Gifted," but without access to the X-MEN explanation that mutants are the next stage of human evolution, the Gifted concept was a fractured facsimile of the original idea. Jealous of FOX's success with X-MEN, Marvel executive Ike Perlmutter proposed that the INHUMANS concept, featuring a superpowered civilization living on the moon, could compete with the X-MEN cinematically.

It was ridiculous. But AGENTS OF SHIELD, ordered to present the Inhumans concept in their show, rolled with it beautifully: Pod 4 focused on how the Kree alien race had experimented on humans thousands of years ago, resulting a percentage of the human race having the potential to have their Inhuman abilities awakened. Rather than being an awkward photocopy of X-MEN's mutants, Inhumans were now the core mythology for AGENTS OF SHIELD and a legitimate concept for the TV series.

The question of legitimacy was further explored the show revealed that there was a separate faction of SHIELD survivors, apart from Coulson, who considered themselves the real SHIELD and Coulson's team to be impostors using a name and legacy to which they had no genuine claim with Coulson supposedly manipulating everyone to gain a secret weapon.

This ended in a very nice tie-in to AGE OF ULTRON where Coulson's secret weapon turned out to be the airship used to evacuate civilians in the film and the two SHIELD factions united. With a united (but rogue) SHIELD, the Inhumans and HYDRA, the show now felt like a meaningful exploration of its own corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe rather than the timid tie-in it had been before.

Pod 5 - Season 3, Epsiodes 1 - 10 - "Age of Ward"

This pod introduced the Secret Warriors and presented Ward as the primary villain of the series, but for the most part continued with the SHIELD Underground concept even as Inhumans took a larger role.

Interestingly, it's at this point that the fracture between Marvel Films and Marvel TV took place; AGE OF ULTRON's aftermath had led to a break between the two divisions and the CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR screenwriters confessed in interviews that they'd not watched AGENTS OF SHIELD and were unaware of the Inhumans concept.

AGENTS OF SHIELD most determinedly did not need CIVIL WAR to give it direction; it had its own concepts to explore and had plenty to do with Ward becoming the main threat. However, the threat of AGENTS OF SHIELD not being a true part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was again a potential issue. CIVIL WAR was the most significant depiction of the MCU since AGE OF ULTRON and CIVIL WAR didn't have a single line of dialogue acknowledging the rising superhuman population with the Inhumans.
 
Could AGENTS OF SHIELD truly be considered part of the MCU when the main forces of the MCU weren't addressing it?

Pod 6 - Season 3, Episodes 11 - 22 - "Hive"
Despite a brief reference to SHIELD seeking to register its Inhumans cast under CIVIL WAR's superhuman registration act, the "Hive" era, like the "Age of Ward" episodes, didn't tie into the feature films at all. Within the show, SHIELD made one brief bid for reintegration with the US Government only to be dismissed, almost as though the show itself couldn't imagine itself rejoining the AVENGERS and the original presentation of SHIELD as a government organization. SHIELD was more an NGO on the fringes. At one point, the MCH President of the United States appeared to advise Coulson continue SHIELD unofficially. "We'll keep doing what we do," Coulson remarked, "and you'll keep pretending we don't exist." He might as well have been addressing the Marvel film division.

With no direct integration with the new CAPTAIN AMERICA film, this pod had Ward being written out of the show but the actor remaining, Ward's body possessed by the ancient being of power that HYDRA had worshipped and sought to revive.

AGENTS OF SHIELD in the "Fan Fiction" era had felt like an abandoned stepchild of the MCU. Season 2 attempted to make it a neighbour to the AVENGERS films in the MCU neighbourhood. By Season 3, AGENTS OF SHIELD seemed to have genuinely outgrown the AVENGERS films: the Hive storyline had no need for CIVIL WAR at all. What's more, AGENTS OF SHIELD seemed to be on the verge of expanding. Season 2's new cast members, Bobbi and Hunter, had become so popular that Marvel was seeking to launch MARVEL'S MOST WANTED, a spin-off show with them as leads.

It was an excellent pod, marred only by outside issues. AGENT CARTER was tragically cancelled on a cliffhanger and ABC declined to launch MARVEL'S MOST WANTED meaning Bobbi and Hunter had been written out of the show for no good reason.

Pod 7 - Season 4, Episodes 1 - 8 - "Ghost Rider"

It's at this point that analysis seems unnecessary as showrunner Jed Whedon explained his approach to integrating AGENTS OF SHIELD into the MCU. While not addressing rumours that the AOS writers were now relying on trailers and press releases to know what Marvel Film was doing, Whedon described his approach of "thematic" links. The DR. STRANGE film had introduced magic, so AOS could now delve into similar material by exploring the Ghost Rider mythology and the Darkhold book.

Despite the lack of direct continuity references and tie-ins, the "Ghost Rider" pod was a highly successful run of episodes that saw the procedural, systematic approach of the SHIELD cast confronting the ambiguities of mysticism. AGENTS OF SHIELD had been working in its own section of the MCU, but now it felt like it was part of the same world presented in the DR. STRANGE feature film.

Tellingly, this was also the pod in which SHIELD was reintegrated into the US Government, having earned the legitimacy it hadn't back in the first pod, although this wasn't to last for long.

It was in this season that the idea of separate 'pods' within seasons was discussed in showrunner interviews, although Jed Whedon remarked in interviews that Ghost Rider's special effects were so costly that the show could only sustain the character for a brief run.

Pod 8 - Season 4, Episodes 9 - 15 - "LMD"
With the LMD arc, AGENTS OF SHIELD was in many ways invited to contemplate the value of its own concept. In a world of superhumans and the potential for Life Model Decoy androids to replace SHIELD agents in every task, what was the point of having Agents of SHIELD?

As the cast of SHIELD were replaced with LMDs and neither the characters nor the audience knew who to trust, the writers made a fascinating choice to grant the LMD replacements for Coulson and May different degrees of self-awareness. The android May was shocked to discover she was a simulacrum of the real person with all of the real May's emotions and memories while the android Coulson had been aware of his true nature the entire time.

In a strange moment of insight, the android Coulson declared that there was no distinction between the real Coulson, who was currently living in a virtual reality, and the LMD Coulson who was inhabiting the real world.

"My programming is different than yours," the LMD Coulson tells the LMD May. "You had to discover that your body had been replaced -- whereas I still have my mind but know exactly what I am, and more importantly, I understand a basic truth that you don't realize yet. That our bodies don't matter." The LMD Coulson later remarked of his prosthetic hand, "My phantom limb used to ache in cold weather. But now I don't feel that pain. I haven't felt this good in years."

The LMD Coulson was arguing that the question of whether he was less real than the biological Coulson was irrelevant as both were existing as simulations, one as a digital intelligence in a physical reality while the other as a physical body whose consciousness now resided in a digital reality.

To the LMD Coulson, the experience of existence regardless of its nature, whether programmed or biological-- or whether in a Marvel feature film or a Marvel television series -- made no difference because the experiences themselves had left impact, memory and meaning. And the LMD May would come to turn on the LMD Coulson while expressing precisely the same opinion.

"I know I'm not real," says the LMD May who has at this writing never been mentioned or shown in a Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. "I'm all phantom limbs," she says, accepting that she is not a real person while metatextually highlighting that Melinda May is no more real than Tony Stark or Steve Rogers regardless of the medium they inhabit. "That doesn't make the pain less real," says May, going on to add, "That pain, that regret that's what made you a person a person I love." Her sentiment is meant for the real Coulson as the simulated May does not consider May's feelings a simulation and she sacrifices herself to help Coulson's team enter the VR simulation to rescue him.

Pod 9 - Season 4, Episodes 16 - 22 - "Agents of HYDRA"
The majority of this pod are sent inside a virtual reality simulation which presents a timeline where HYDRA had defeated SHIELD and Coulson and his team live the lives they would have had if HYDRA and triumphed. As we delve into this alternate timeline and we see characters gradually regain their memories, we're invited to consider: does the Framework reality or any events inside it actually matter? What meaning, value or purpose can these situations or people have if they are merely simulations?

It's a question AGENTS OF SHIELD might not benefit from raising because it leads to asking: what value do Seasons 3 - 4 have if they are completely ignored by the feature films? If CIVIL WAR didn't mention the rogue SHIELD operation, if ANT MAN made no reference to the Inhumans, if DR. STRANGE didn't have Coulson show up for a consult, then how can AGENTS OF SHIELD actually matter at all?

It's a question AGENTS OF SHIELD doesn't shy away from at all. At one point, we spend some time getting to know Grant Ward in this alternate timeline where he was recruited by SHIELD instead of HYDRA. With his loyalty to heroes, he never became a villain. It's a beautiful insight into a once irredeemable antagonist and despite this Ward being a simulation, this perspective into his character is not easily forgotten. The Framework situation closes out with Mac pleading to stay in the Framework because a simulation of his deceased daughter exists in the VR. Mac protests that even if his daughter is a simulacrum, she matters to him: she laughs at his jokes, she cries when he does, he feels her warmth and he believes that she's alive.

To be concluded with Pods 10 - 11.

Edited to add commentary to the LMD arc.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Pod 10 - Season 5, Episodes 1 - 10 - "Quaked Apart"
During its fifth season, AGENTS OF SHIELD had a conflicted situation between Marvel Film and Marvel TV. The film division was moving forward with GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY II, BLACK PANTHER and INFINITY WAR, but with no interest in creating tie-ins and crossovers with AGENTS OF SHIELD.

But Marvel TV was advancing as well, launching DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES, LUKE CAGE and IRON FIST on Netflix. The Netflix shows, unlike the "Fan Fiction" era of AGENTS OF SHIELD, weren't spinning out of a feature film but defining themselves as street level superheroics. Marvel Films made it plain that the AGENTS OF SHIELD and Netflix characters would never be featured in any AVENGERS films.

In response, Marvel TV worked around Marvel Films. The crime and underworld drama of the Netflix shows was so distant from the widescreen heroics of the AVENGERS films that Netflix shows could function, like AGENTS OF SHIELD, in their own corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe sandbox. There were unlikely to be world-changing events in Daredevil's battles with crimelords and corrupt cops.

But AGENTS OF SHIELD didn't have that advantage. AOS had changed the Marvel Cinematic Universe significantly: SHIELD had been sustained as a rogue organization that eventually regained government status, the events of Season 2 had awakened Inhuman powers in random people around the globe. But with no acknowledgement from the AVENGERS films, AGENTS OF SHIELD would perpetually need consider how to depict significant events that wouldn't ever be mentioned by Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man, Black Panther and Spider-Man.

For this pod, AGENTS OF SHIELD destroyed the Earth -- which is to say the cast were transported to a future time period where the Earth had been destroyed due to Daisy Johnson's powers going out of control. But this was pointedly not the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like the Framework, this future scenario was presented as a possible future that SHIELD would avert in order to avoid contradicting INFINITY WAR and any subsequent Marvel movies.

Like the Framework, this pod ultimately declared that victory would mean erasing itself from reality, a moral and emotional conflict that was left unresolved and carried over to the next pod. It was an uncomfortable situation shared by the AGENTS OF SHIELD TV show where it needed contribute to the MCU but only in ways that could be safely forgotten by the films.

Pod 11 - Season 5, Episodes 11 - 22 - "Destroyer of Worlds"
With the final pod of Season 5, the cast were returned to the present to prevent the future they saw. This run of episodes saw AGENTS OF SHIELD suffering from its greatest threat which was not Loki or HYDRA or LMDs or the Kree but instead, the severity of ABC's budget cuts.

The show had barely won a fifth season and made it by slashing the licensing fee which meant fewer resources. The previous pod had dodged the difficulties by setting the show in a post-apocalyptic human settlement of poor living conditions with a few special effects sequences to establish the outer space setting.

This pod, however, was using the same sets as the one before but redressed to be new and clean. Set in the present, it was hard to ignore how the lavish location filming and numerous extras of Seasons 1 - 4 were now missing. Coulson and his team spent most of this pod walking slowly through empty hallways confronting masked thugs (whose masks allowed the same three actors to be reused as different henchmen).

There was also the looming AVENGERS III. This movie, INFINITY WAR, saw Thanos attacking Earth and erasing 50 per cent of all living beings from existence. This threat, if carried into AGENTS OF SHIELD, would necessitate that the show lose a random number of its contracted cast members due to a conflict in which they'd had no involvement.

The polite co-existence shown in referring to CIVIL WAR and thematic tie-ins to DR. STRANGE and GUARDIANS was not an option. But if AGENTS OF SHIELD wasn't going to react to INFINITY WAR's cataclysm upon the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, how could it claim to be part of the same shared reality?

During this run, the show had a dimensional rift presenting manifestations of the characters' worst fears. Agent Coulson was assailed by a phantom of Mike Peterson, the first person he'd ever saved in the show.

This spectre of Mike asked Coulson to consider his deepest terror -- that AGENTS OF SHIELD might be apocryphal to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

MIKE: "Hello, Agent Coulson. It’s time I told you what’s really going on here."

COULSON: "You’re not here to hurt me? You’re going to let me pass?"

MIKE: "Do whatever you want. Shoot me if you like. After all, you’re the one that’s making this up. But you know there’s something deeper. And you’re here to face it."

COULSON: "Face my fear?"

MIKE: "How am I your fear, Phil? No, I mean face facts."

COULSON: "What facts?"

MIKE: "That this is all in your head."

COULSON: "Are you telling me that that I’m still in TAHITI?"

MIKE: "No, Coulson. I’m telling you that you’ve never been to TAHITI. Or Malta. Or Puerto Rico or outer space or the Framework or the future. You’re on the table, Coulson, code blue."

COULSON: "Okay, Phil, back to work. Don’t pay attention. This makes no sense."

MIKE: "What makes more sense? That you were brought back from the dead after many days? Your mind programmed with false memories? A world with alternate realities and rocks that tear holes in spacetime? Or is your brain is being stimulated with electricity to revive it, and your consciousness is trying to make sense of random synapses firing off in your brain?"

COULSON: "That’s not true."

MIKE: "You know it’s true. Loki ran a scepter through your heart, and we are desperately trying to bring you back. But isn’t working."

COULSON: "No, no, no, no. No, I’ve been through too much. I’m not going to let this nightmare get to me."

At no point is this scenario presented as a narrative possibility. The moment the phantom Mike tells Coulson that the entire show has been a hallucination, we cut to the rest of his team observing the situation on video monitors.

But the fear manifestation's argument is easily read as a comment on AGENTS OF SHIELD's relationship with the feature films. The existence-threatening stakes of INFINITY WAR dwarf AGENTS OF SHIELD, making the battle to save one planet trivial.

MIKE: "This whole thing has been a dream. You really think your skull caught on fire, Phil? Or does it hurt to have electrodes on your scalp for this long? You think there was an alternate reality where you were a history teacher? Or were you remembering your father who was a history teacher? You’re reliving mementos of your life mixed with the dreams you wish had come true.

COULSON: "No, Mike. This is fear. I thought I’d come to terms with death, but this is my fear of it manifesting, because it’s harder to let go of than I thought it would be."

MIKE: "And that’s why your mind created this story where you spent years doing all the things you never got a chance to do. To vacation on a white beach with blue water. To travel to the stars. To own your own plane, a car that flies, your own team. To have a family. The brilliant students you never got a chance to mentor. The daughter you never had. And above all, a chance to be a hero."

COULSON: "No, I’m not trying to be a hero. I’m just here to see that SHIELD continues."

MIKE: "There is no SHIELD. Even now, your mind is rejecting the fact that I’m just an EMT standing over you. It’s trying to make me into something else. It’s trying to find a way out."

COULSON: "You don’t know what those people mean to me. Don’t say they’re nothing. Don’t say that."

The sequence ends with the real Mike Peterson coming to Coulson's rescue, validating AGENTS OF SHIELD and Coulson's experiences. The final episodes in this pod took place at the same time as INFINITY WAR -- but decisively ended the season before INFINITY WAR's cliffhanger, sparing the SHIELD characters any onscreen involvement.

The pod concluded with Coulson setting out to enjoy his retirement while the remaining SHIELD team flew off to new adventures. On one level, there was an awkward sense that this happy ending would be eradicated with INFINITY WAR's conclusion, but on another, AGENTS OF SHIELD had argued that relationships, emotional bonds and meaningful moments had weight and value even if they were to be wiped out of existence by the Framework simulation shutting down or a future timeline being averted or a supervillain wielding an Infinity Gauntlet.

The Legacy of Spies
AGENTS OF SHIELD is likely to be the most irrelevant Marvel Cinematic Universe production among all of them, averaging 1.8 to 2 million viewers by its final season and never acknowledged by the feature films. Its lack of impact has been bemoaned by star Chloe Bennett and addressed diplomatically by showrunner Jed Whedon. The short ONE SHOT films on the Blu-rays likely had a larger audience.

But AGENTS OF SHIELD is, despite being situated in a superhero universe, a series about characters in espionage. Its lesser status brings to mind the old adage that spies have been honoured and spies have been hanged, but for the most part, spies have been ignored.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I genuinely enjoyed reading this.  Agents of SHIELD is a series that I've watched every episode of but haven't watched particularly closely.  It's often something I watch while I'm doing something else (playing on my laptop, folding laundry, cooking or eating dinner, etc).  I watch the show closely enough to very easily follow the plot, but I was surprised at how few of the (several) early season references I'd completely forgotten.  The show had so many random villains that I couldn't really place references to certain ones, and I'm sure some of the Easter eggs went completely over my head (the centipede serum being connected with a season 1 villainous organization was lost on me).

But I enjoyed going back through the show with your writing - it's not a show I've ever gone back to (or, honestly, considered going back) so I actually only remember the show being strong and its own thing.  I have visuals of SHIELD before Winter Soldier, but I could just-as-easily be getting that confused with items from Winter Soldier itself.

SHIELD was a bastard son, created in a lab, that ended up making something of himself.  Once the show stripped itself of so much of it's baggage, connected to its older brothers, the show was able to walk freely.  And while the show still feels a part of Tony Stark's world, it's separated enough that it's reasonable that the two worlds wouldn't touch.

What's fascinating, to me, is the behind-the-scenes stuff.  For example, I find it odd that the show came out when it did.  Was it designed to run for half a season of "standard SHIELD stuff" before blowing the show up?  Was that by design?  Or were TV and Films always so disconnected that, when Agents of SHIELD was announced, Films laughed at the idea that they were going to blow up their show midway through their first season?

Or were things once better?  When Sif, Maria Hill, and Nick Fury showed up, was there still a dream for Marvel Films and Marvel TV to have a beautiful marriage?  Was there ever a conversation with, I don't know, Chris Evans, to shoot some sort of cameo while he was filming Avengers 2?  Was there a dream of introducing a character here or there that might show up to help out Tony Stark in some future movie?

Or was it somewhere in the middle, where Marvel TV decided to do something, and Marvel Films wished them the best, offering them whatever help they could until things fell apart and each went their separate way?

I find it hard to believe that Marvel Films wouldn't see the value of having a TV playground to play in, but that seems to be where things went.  I don't think they'd necessarily need to agree on specific episode-specific plots, but you'd think that they'd want some insight on what's happening in their various shows.  I guess not, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I find it odd that the show came out when it did.  Was it designed to run for half a season of "standard SHIELD stuff" before blowing the show up?  Was that by design?  Or were TV and Films always so disconnected that, when Agents of SHIELD was announced, Films laughed at the idea that they were going to blow up their show midway through their first season?

What follows is largely speculation:

My suspicion is that Ike Perlmutter wanted Marvel to have TV shows to propogate the brand, expand opportunities for merchandising and get paid by a network to produce content rather than having his own studio finance the content.

I don't think AGENTS OF SHIELD was conceived in terms of creativity because I don't believe Perlmutter sees anything in terms of creative content. It was a product like the toys he sold on street corners when he was scraping by. The fact that the SHIELD concept was slated for demolition was irrelevant to him.

And Joss Whedon, our favourite fake feminist, having seen two TV shows crash and burn, was looking for an opportunity to return to his medium of choice. Whedon confessed that AGENTS OF SHIELD was a show made with "leftovers" from the film department and said that Coulson's resurrection on TV didn't allow him to rejoin the film series. Whedon gamely tried his best with the AOS pilot which features some hilarious jokes and heartfelt writing, but the script lacked a clear vision for how the SHIELD of big budget feature films could be done on a TV budget.

I suspect that the poor production on the early episodes were due to confusion. Joss Whedon had planned to run the show like BUFFY where he would oversee and rewrite all scripts. Instead, he ran SHIELD the way he ran ANGEL: a subordinate worked with the writers and ran the scripts past Whedon, but Whedon lacked the time to rewrite or do anything beyond vetoing the show from using concepts for which the movies had plan.

There was also the issue that Whedon, judging from his script for AVENGERS, viewed SHIELD rather ambivalently. Captain America was suspicious of Fury and thought him potentially a conflict-seeking warmonger; Fury himself was in conflict with the World Security Council. But suggesting that SHIELD had dark secrets or malevolent intentions would be paving the way to the reveal that HYDRA had infiltrated SHIELD -- which AOS couldn't be allowed to do because WINTER SOLDIER was in development.

With WINTER SOLDIER being written and filmed over the course of a year and AOS episodes being made in a week's time, there was the risk that AOS' hints and clues might not line up with however WINTER SOLDIER would reveal HYDRA behind SHIELD. There had already been difficulties: Whedon said in interviews that the writers had developed an arc featuring Loki's scepter -- which Whedon later had to stop as it was being used in AGE OF ULTRON. One can understand why the writers tried to play it safe for awhile.

The early episodes suffer from that confusion: is the show a comedy or a spy thriller? Are the team professionals or amateurs? Are they a family or at odds? Are they superheroes or are they police officers? How much can the episodes play with the movie concepts?

AOS didn't seem ready to make these decisions and with ideas getting shot down and airdates to meet, the staff likely decided to do one-off villains and wait out the situation. The early episodes are full of overly bright lighting and confused character dynamics and odd comedy choices. It's like watching first drafts get filmed and rehearsals get aired. It gives the sense that the creators didn't know how lighthearted or serious their show was to be and the person they expected to make those decisions was busy making AGE OF ULTRON.

I'm guessing that halfway into the season, some serious workflow revisions were made: Joss Whedon ceded control to Jed Whedon. A darker tone was chosen, and the WINTER SOLDIER tie-ins allowed the show to divorce the TV SHIELD from the feature film SHIELD. The show would develop its own mythos so as to never again be barred from plot progression by a film.

It would be interesting to know: did the writers grasp from the outset that Coulson's team made no sense? His roster consisted of an untrained hacktivist, two scientists with no field clearance, an assassin with no capacity for teamwork and an office administrator who didn't want to fight anymore. A paramilitary security force like SHIELD as seen in the films would never approve such an unbalanced group of mismatched unprofessionals. No spy agency would sanction such an incapable group or have them led by a partially amnesiac trauma patient whose memories and sanity couldn't be trusted.

In "Turn Turn Turn," the writers provide an explanation: May chose the team and manipulated Coulson into selecting the specific individuals needed to assist him in his post-TAHITI condition: Jemma could treat his body, Fitz could reengineer his memories, Ward could kill him if he went insane like the other TAHITI patients and Skye was completely unexpected. Was that reveal always planned? Or was it to address an obvious flaw in the material resulting from wanting a product before deciding the content?

Other Marvel TV productions like IRON FIST and INHUMANS were commissioned in a similar fashion: product first, content later. Sadly, those projects seemed to lack the staff or vision needed to turn them around, or at least IRON FIST did. I haven't seen INHUMANS and I think barely anyone did.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That actually makes a lot of sense.  There was originally going to be a Whedon tie-in to keep the movies and the show connected, but when Whedon didn't have time or energy for it, the connection weakened.  And when Whedon left, it was completely severed.

Thinking about the timeline also works in why the Film division might've seen value in AoS and then realized that they don't really bring much.  Agents of SHIELD premiered in September of 2013.  At that point, the only Phase Two movie that had come out was Iron Man 3.  Thor: The Dark World was coming.

At this point, the MCU wasn't really a success.  Phase One was a mixed bag, both creatively and financially.  Of the 19 current MCU films, Avengers is the only movie that's even in the Top 10 of Box Office numbers, and Phase One is 4 of the 6 lowest rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes.  The films were picking up steam, but they weren't the guaranteed blockbuster that they are now.  Iron Man 3 had just come out, and while it was a commercial success (5th highest grossing MCU film), it was rated by fans and critics around the same level as the other solo films (outside of the first Iron Man).

Marvel Films might've seen Agents of SHIELD as a way to drive people to their movies.  We saw direct tie-ins to both Winter Soldier and Thor: the Dark World.  We saw minor characters from those films appear on SHIELD.  They were able to show tons of promos and advertise to a core audience.

I think Winter Soldier could've changed their minds a bit.  It was a critical success, and it got a lot of people talking about how it was a legitimately good movie.  The next movie was a bit of a wild card in Guardians of the Galaxy, and it did well.  Suddenly, the MCU had some street cred, and they realize that they don't need the show to drive the audience.

The next season, they did the cool background storyline with the Helicarrier, but it was really just a nod to AoS fans (not much more).  But there was no tie-in to Ant-Man, and by that point, the MCU was rolling along well enough that Civil War could make as much as an Avengers movie.  There was no reason to use SHIELD's dwindling audience to drive people to movies that more-than-succeeded on their own.

And by that point, SHIELD was doing enough stuff on their own that it wouldn't have made sense to have Sif show up again.  I'm sure they would've loved if someone like Paul Rudd showed up, but it would've seemed forced.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

With the LMD arc, AGENTS OF SHIELD was in many ways invited to contemplate the value of its own concept. In a world of superhumans and the potential for Life Model Decoy androids to replace SHIELD agents in every task, what was the point of having Agents of SHIELD? As the cast of SHIELD were replaced with LMDs and neither the characters nor the audience knew who to trust, viewers wondered how this pod tied into the question of whether or not AOS was truly part of the MCU and realized that it probably wasn't all that relevant to the thesis. Damn.

Actually, I found a spin!!

Pod 8 - Season 4, Episodes 9 - 15 - "LMD"
With the LMD arc, AGENTS OF SHIELD was in many ways invited to contemplate the value of its own concept. In a world of superhumans and the potential for Life Model Decoy androids to replace SHIELD agents in every task, what was the point of having Agents of SHIELD?

As the cast of SHIELD were replaced with LMDs and neither the characters nor the audience knew who to trust, the writers made a fascinating choice to grant the LMD replacements for Coulson and May different degrees of self-awareness. The android May was shocked to discover she was a simulacrum of the real person with all of the real May's emotions and memories while the android Coulson had been aware of his true nature the entire time.

In a strange moment of insight, the android Coulson declared that there was no distinction between the real Coulson, who was currently living in a virtual reality, and the LMD Coulson who was inhabiting the real world.

"My programming is different than yours," the LMD Coulson tells the LMD May. "You had to discover that your body had been replaced -- whereas I still have my mind but know exactly what I am, and more importantly, I understand a basic truth that you don't realize yet. That our bodies don't matter." The LMD Coulson later remarked of his prosthetic hand, "My phantom limb used to ache in cold weather. But now I don't feel that pain. I haven't felt this good in years."

The LMD Coulson was arguing that the question of whether he was less real than the biological Coulson was irrelevant as both were existing as simulations, one as a digital intelligence in a physical reality while the other as a physical body whose consciousness now resided in a digital reality.

To the LMD Coulson, the experience of existence regardless of its nature, whether programmed or biological-- or whether in a Marvel feature film or a Marvel television series -- made no difference because the experiences themselves had left impact, memory and meaning. And the LMD May would come to turn on the LMD Coulson while expressing precisely the same opinion.

"I know I'm not real," says the LMD May who has at this writing never been mentioned or shown in a Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. "I'm all phantom limbs," she says, accepting that she is not a real person while metatextually highlighting that Melinda May is no more real than Tony Stark or Steve Rogers regardless of the medium they inhabit. "That doesn't make the pain less real," says May, going on to add, "That pain, that regret that's what made you a person a person I love." Her sentiment is meant for the real Coulson as the simulated May does not consider May's feelings a simulation and she sacrifices herself to help Coulson's team enter the VR simulation to rescue him.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There's a hilarious line in AGENTS OF SHIELD, Season 3, Episode 11, "Bouncing Back," where Coulson tells the President: "We'll keep doing what we do and you'll keep pretending we don't exist."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There's a hilarious moment in Season 4, Episode 16, "What If... ?" in which Dr. Radcliffe runs into Grant Ward and shrieks, "Hive!" before realizing it's a Framework simulation of Ward. I know it's a small thing, but it always stands out to me because SLIDERS was so spectacularly bad at it. I remember this particularly obnoxious moment in Season 4, "Slide By Wire," where Rembrandt doesn't seem to know who Maggie's husband is despite spending two episodes around the guy in Season 3.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm watching the AGENTS OF HYDRA era of AGENTS OF SHIELD set inside the Framework and what strikes me is how the show is almost relentlessly dark, but there are tiny little glimmers of light and hope throughout. Jemma has to dig herself out of her own grave; Fitz is a sadistic nutjob; Daisy woke up to find Grant Ward in her bed; HYDRA rules America; SHIELD has fallen; May is a monstrosity; Coulson turns Jemma in as a subversive while allowing children to be taken to concentration camps -- but at the end, Daisy pleads for Coulson to remember her and the final line of dialogue is Coulson whispering, "Daisy?"

A subsequent episode has Fitz executing a defenseless woman and Daisy captured, but there's a small moment of Coulson silently discovering he has muscle memory for handling firearms. The next episode has Jeffrey Mace dying in an airstrike and all exits from the Framework cut off, but it ends with the HYDRA version of May regaining her morality and triggering Daisy's Inhuman powers. AGENTS OF SHIELD can be very bleak, but there's always just enough light to make the darkness seem bearable.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Something I only really noticed on rewatching AGENTS OF SHIELD -- the characters of Piper and Davis. Piper was somewhat prominent in Season 3. Piper was a SHIELD agent played by Briana Venskus, first appeared in Season 3 to hunt Kree Reapers and despite barely having any dialogue and not even a last name, the actress made an immediate impression thanks to a masculine demeanor, a short haircut and slightly nervous crush on May. She made small appearances throughout Season 4 and was one of the agents aboard the plane while Jemma and Daisy were in the Framework.

When she returned in Season 5 as an unwitting traitor to SHIELD, I struggled to remember who she was, but on this rewatch, I realize that she actually stands out quite well as a SHIELD Agent #3 character and I'd just forgotten her due to the unusually long hiatus between Seasons 4 - 5.

Another character whom I didn't notice was Agent Davis, who again is not given a full name and actor
Max Osinski joked that Davis' full name is Davis D. Davis. (I assume the D. stands for Davis.) He showed up in Season 1 as an anonymous suit in Episode 9, then returned in the Season 4 premiere as a deadpan presence. Like Piper, he was one of the agents aboard the plane while Daisy and Jemma were plugged into the Framework, and in the Season 4 two parter, he's attacked by the unstoppable superpowered android Aida, yanked off camera and Fitz regretfully leaves him for dead.

I had completely forgotten this character if I ever noticed him at all, but on this rewatch, I suddenly realized that this character returns in Season 5, Episode 12 among the numerous SHIELD agents Deathlok brings to the Lighthouse and Coulson says Deathlok got Davis medical attention just in time. Hilariously -- in Episode 19, we see Piper exclaiming to Davis that the way he survived Aida with only a scar is incredible and that he must tell the entire team the story, to which Davis replies, "I don't think they really care."

Later, Yoyo tells Davis and Piper, "I can't be killed" (on account of the timeloop) and Piper, looking at Davis, says, "That makes two of you." Two episodes later, we see Deke and Davis together. Deke has just heard the story of how Davis survived Aida and reacts with, "That is totally nuts." Davis replies, "No, no joke. It really happened. Good thing too, otherwise Aida would've killed me." Piper proceeds to grouse that she's had to listen to Davis' story numerous times. Deke protests, "That's the most incredible story I've ever heard, and I'm the same age as my grandparents."

... it just never registered with me until this rewatch.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Your attention to detail is quite admirable, ireactions!

I really enjoyed reading all that.  So much of the early bits of the show I'd actually forgotten.

*******

So Tom Holland "spoiled" the new title of the Spider-Man solo sequel - Far From Home.

And it made me laugh because of all the secrecy regarding the title of Avengers 4.  They can't release it because it's a spoiler or whatever.

And, yet, they released the title of a future Spider-Man movie....after Spider-Man died in Infinity War.  I'm fairly certain that's a bigger spoiler than the Avengers title would ever be. big_smile

443 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2018-07-06 15:52:14)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Watching Luke Cage.  It's a little slow, but I want to play Informant to nitpick one thing:

BARACK OBAMA WASN'T PRESIDENT IN THE MCU.

He's mentioned a few dozen times. All the references make sense, and nothing is necessarily shoehorned.  But we met the MCU president.  And he appeared in Agents of Shield.  I don't think Obama fits in the timeline.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

James Gunn.


I'm not putting this in the political thread because it's not really political. I know those who brought it to light are political, so I'll address that, but the topic itself isn't political, so let's not pretend that it is. I am aware of how this issue became an issue but I honestly couldn't tell you who brought it up though. I know that they're reported as conservatives, but I don't know/remember who did it and therefore, I don't know if I agree with them or not.

My reaction to the James Gunn story has come in phases (much like the MCU!), so I'll explain those phases.


Phase One - I heard rumblings of a "conservative group" bringing up the James Gunn tweets and demanding that action be taken against him. At this point, I hadn't seen the tweets. I chuckled at the fact that James Gunn was now being forced to live by the standards that he set for others, but I didn't think much of the issue overall. I saw it as a way for whoever did this to highlight the hypocrisy of the liberal media, so the outrage over Gunn's firing was mildly amusing to me, but I had more important things to worry about, so I didn't really care one way or the other. If Roseanne got fired for being Roseanne, James Gunn can get fired for being James Gunn. I didn't care either way.


Phase Two - I saw the tweets. I found them repulsive. I understood why Disney fired him, but what I didn't understand was why they hired him in the first place. Surely, they must have looked over his social media history before they hired him, right? Again, I don't care that they fired him, because it's Disney and they have very strict guidelines for the people who work for them (I was actually watching a YouTube video about that subject just before the Gunn news broke, so it was fresh in my mind). What I didn't (and still don't) get was why they hired him at all. He clearly does not represent the image that Disney strives for.
There are reports of pedophiles working for Disney, and of course the whole Powder issue, but overall, they seem to at least try to look clean and family friendly.

It's important to note that while I understand why *Disney* fired him, I also wasn't interested in seeing Gunn blacklisted, or his career destroyed. Tweets aren't crimes. I am a strong supporter of free speech, even when it turns my stomach. Unless there is some evidence of him actually molesting kids, I don't need to see any pain inflicted. I just understood why Disney fired him, and I really don't know if I'd be interested in seeing his movies. I didn't even really like Guardians 2, so it's not like I was a huge fan to begin with. Honestly, seeing how many times he joked about pedophilia made me uneasy, so it was going to be a while before I sit down to watch Guardians of the Galaxy again either way. 

Still, the point of making this issue an issue was to show how differently a self-proclaimed liberal is treated, compared to a "conservative" (and I use quotes because Roseanne is not a conservative. That's more of a press label, because she supports Trump). So, the point was well made and kinda funny in an "I'll forget about this in five minutes" kind of way.

Now, the political joke is over, and we're still talking about Gunn, so I guess the issue is still an issue, regardless of where it comes from.

At this point, what was done was done. It all seemed to even out well enough, though I thought it was a mistake for the cast to tie their wagon to Gunn, because there's no way for them to know where the story was going. He was fired for good reason, and that should have been the end of it. He can go work on another movie, and they can go back to doing what they do.


Phase Three - The pictures. James Gunn attending what appears to be a "To Catch a Predator" themed party, where guests dressed as pedophiles and their child victims. This isn't just a random joke, or a poor decision made in the three seconds that it took to write a tweet. This was an organized event, with well considered themes and costumes. At the very least, it makes light of pedophilia, and at worst it shows a weird acceptance of it. Even the better of these two options is disgusting. This is a topic of entertainment not only for Gunn himself, but apparently for his circle of friends. And as I saw these pictures just after watching a documentary called "An Open Secret" about the issue of pedophilia in Hollywood, it didn't take much for me to move to the side of the people who think that Gunn needs to just go away. People need to stop defending him as though his actions are perfectly normal. People need to stop acting like Disney is out of line by firing him, or like this is all some big political conspiracy. He made those comments. He took those pictures. He is the one that is responsible for them, no matter who raised the topic.

Is he a criminal? I don't see evidence that he actually molested any kids, so I am not calling for him to go to prison or anything like that. He had every right to make these comments and go to that party. I have every right to find him disgusting because of it. Disney has every right to decide that he no longer fits their image. People have a right to defend him if they want. I won't. Whatever happens to his career now is his own doing. I feel no sympathy for him. It doesn't take a genius to know that pedophilia jokes won't go over well. It just takes an average amount of human decency.


The question is, with the cast supporting him (at least when they signed that letter) and making a fuss over his being fired, is there a point to making another Guardians movie? If they move forward without him, some cast members may not return and some of the audience might not support the movie. If they move forward with him, another part of the audience will stay away.

Would it be smarter to just use those characters in other movies, at least for a while?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I've gone in phases myself.  I followed James Gunn on Twitter for a really long time.  He's an entertaining guy, and he's willing to give cool MCU insight.  I like when writers are willing to answer direct questions about character motivation, explain things that people thought were confusing, address plot holes, etc.

Over the last year plus, he's mixed in the fun MCU stuff with lots of political stuff.  As I've hopefully shown, I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm also not a hardcore anti-Trump person.  I use Twitter for entertainment, and I don't like filling my feed with stuff that isn't fun.  It started off 70/30 MCU stuff.  Then it was 50/50.  Then 30/70.  The fun stuff was there but it was harder sift through.  Then it just wasn't worth it.  I muted him.

So I can see why people that didn't like his message went after him - he's a fairly charismatic guy who has full control of a series that most people like.  From what I understand, it was someone on the fringe right who is trying to take down people who are critical of Trump.  I don't know and didn't care to investigate.

Gunn does seem like a genuinely nice person who likes interacting with fans.  He does hate Trump, but he's mostly respectful of people who disagree with him (from the limited times I fell down the rabbit hole of comments).  He doesn't seem like the same person who made the tweets and made the jokes and acted immaturely.  He made his name making movies that crossed the line, and that's how he acted.  From everything that I've read, he's genuinely changed and isn't just acting differently because Disney pays him.

So his question to us, and one I've asked myself, is "is he allowed to change?"  Should he hide the evidence of the person he was, or should he leave it there to show how far he's come?  Especially if, like you said, he hasn't done any actual crimes?

And that was part of the reason I wrote my post in the political post.  Where's the line?  Is there a statute of limitations on sexual comments or racist comments, or do those stick with you forever?  Can you tell racist jokes without being racist?  Can you have racist thoughts without being racist?  Are you allowed to grow and evolve? 

I look back at things I've done and things I've said, and I feel like it was a different person.  I'm not even talking about bad things - just things I thought at the time about my own life (though something like Timehop or Facebook's "On This Day".  I have trouble putting myself in that mindset because I've grown since then.

************

It's important to note that Disney didn't hire Gunn.  He was hired by Marvel, and apparently they knew about the tweets and didn't think they were a big deal at the time.  Even just in 2012, it was a different time.  And, yes, Disney owned Marvel at the time, but I think they were somewhat separated then.  And even if they weren't, Disney wasn't paying as much attention back then - Avengers had just come out, and that was the first movie that was a huge hit.

On the same line, Disney fired Gunn - Marvel has been incredibly quiet on that front.  I don't even know if Feige has commented on it.  This came from high up.

*******

At the end of the day, Gunn seems like he was a pretty immature, politically incorrect guy in his past.  From my little bit following him on Twitter and the people that are defending him, he seems like he's changed.  I think he should be allowed to change, but I also respect Disney for doing whatever they like.  They can hire and fire for whatever reasons they want, and they don't have to be consistent.  They're a private company, and they can do whatever they want (as long as it's legal).

As far as what they should do with the Guardians.  There's two schools of thought:

1. Like you said, they should be minimized.  Gunn was integral to their characterization, going as far as to help write dialogue for Avengers: Infinity War.  He's a part of the DNA of the movies, and they shouldn't continue on without him.  Maybe someone could take over, but it would need to be clear that it's a new era for them.

2. The formula has been set, and someone else can pick up where they left off.  The MCU is a machine that's bigger and stronger than any creative mind.  Iron Man moved beyond Jon Favreau, Ant-Man moved on after Edgar Wright, and Guardians will survive after Gunn. 

I sorta feel like they should go with one, but I fully expect/believe that Disney will go with option two.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don’t follow Gunn, but a site I often visit (Bleeding Cool) would showcase his anti-Trump tweets with a cheer.  For me, Gunn’s comments weren’t so much critical as they were an expression of hate.  I really didn’t know much about Gunn beyond that I liked Guardians 1 and didn’t like Vol 2 as much; but reading his anti-Trump ranting really turned me off.  I found it shaping my view of his product too.

That said, Gunn certainly has a right to say it, but he also has a right to the consequences of saying it.  If there’s anything I would like to ask Gunn now, it would be “was it worth it?”  If he wanted to lay himself down selflessly for a cause - well, he’s done it.  He gets to live with it now.  None of this would have happened except that he relentlessly targeted Trump.

I think there comes a point where these people have to ask themselves what business they’re in.  Are they in the political commentary business?  If so, that’s great - there’s money to be made there.  Are they in the blockbuster movie business?  If so, that’s great - lots of money there.  Can you mix the two together?  Not always.  Know what your business is; and if you can’t figure that out, then you really don’t deserve to stay employed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

That said, Gunn certainly has a right to say it, but he also has a right to the consequences of saying it.  If there’s anything I would like to ask Gunn now, it would be “was it worth it?”  If he wanted to lay himself down selflessly for a cause - well, he’s done it.  He gets to live with it now.  None of this would have happened except that he relentlessly targeted Trump.

From what I saw following him, I think he'd absolutely think it was worth it.  He does truly believe that Trump is a monster who is bad for the country, bad for the future, and dangerous for Americans.  He thinks it's his duty as someone with a platform to tell as many people and spread the word.  And like I said, from my limited times actually following one of his rants through, he was fair and kind to people who disagreed.

He does hate Trump, but I don't believe he hates all conservatives.  Part of it seemed to stem from the fact that he's conservative (or used to be) and didn't like how a party he once believed in is being dragged around by someone he hates.

Stepping onto the battlefield got him fired, but if he thinks he contributed to the war on Trump, I think he'd absolutely do it again.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think that's all fair, but I don't think that Disney fired him because of his politics. Ultimately, it might have been people on the right who brought it up and made it an issue, but Gunn was fired because of his own actions. They didn't fabricate the pedophilia comments, or the pictures. Those were choices that he made, and Disney decided that they didn't want their company associated with those things.

He didn't take a hit for his politics, and liberals probably shouldn't adopt him as some sort of martyr for their cause. Not all liberals have pedophilia jokes in their Twitter history, or enjoyed pedophilia themed parties. Regardless of who brought these things into the recent conversation, I think that most liberals probably find them as disgusting as the conservatives do (though I can't claim to understand or speak for their side). I hope that he has changed. I hope that those things don't reflect who he is on the inside, and I pray that they don't reflect anything that he might have actually done to kids. However, if my nine-year-old nephew needs to learn that what you say and do on the internet will follow you for life, a 40+ year old man really has no choice but to accept the consequences of his actions, and own those consequences. Disney's actions have nothing to do with Gunn's politics.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, he was and he wasn't.  If he hadn't gone after Trump, those tweets wouldn't have been unearthed.  It would've been the same the other way too - if Gunn was adamantly defending Trump, he would've been the same kind of target, and the tweets would've been unearthed.  If he'd stayed quiet on the whole issue, there's no way this would've come up because 1) by all accounts, Marvel already knew about it and 2) no one would've spent any time digging through James Gunn's social media.

And that's sorta my whole point in this - if you go deep enough into someone's past, you're going to find something that people would be offended by.  It wouldn't necessarily be anything damning or fireable, but everyone's done or said or written something that they wouldn't want the world to see.  And if you're a public figure on either side of this political war, someone's going to spend all their time digging until they find something to discredit you.

My point is that there needs to be a line somewhere.  If Gunn is a pedophile, he needs to be gone.  If Gunn thought that pedophile jokes were funny at a time when he was less mature....and now he's grown up and apologized and is just as horrified by those jokes as everyone else....Disney still has the right to fire him, but other companies that feel he's changed have the right to hire him and he can work again.

Does the former alcoholic have the right to sober up?  Does the former cheater have the right to prove he can stay faithful?  Is it possible to change in this political climate, and, even more important, do we have any appetite for forgiving people that disagree with us?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

His comments were bound to become an issue at some point. It was just a matter of time. If it wasn't something political, it would have been some angry fan, upset over their favorite character being killed off, or whatever. The reason for this coming out now was political, sure. However, the political people didn't create the issue. They really only did it because Gunn was unforgiving toward others, and they wanted to turn the tables. The whole point of it was to prove that everyone could be ruined in this way... but the topic of his actions made him an especially easy target.

He'll be fine. He will work again. Just (probably) not for Disney. If he were working on the next Deadpool movie, this probably wouldn't have been an issue for the studio, but the MCU movies make their billions because they market toward kids and families. Having their movie title in the same article as some of those comments could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, especially if they didn't fire the person who made those comments.


I think this is a situation of "It is what it is", just like the Roseanne thing. Agree or disagree, everyone involved was free to do what they did and there's not much more to say about it. When the Roseanne thing happened, nobody wanted to hear her explanation or her apology. She was cast out, and everyone danced on the grave of her career. James Gunn was one of those people.  Maybe he can use this as another growing opportunity.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to this - is the goal to sell a product?  To give an example, Dan Harmon *is* selling his product; it’s why the pedo attack on him didn’t stick.  Anyone who watches Rick and Morty was not surprised by any of that stuff they dug up on Harmon; and maybe that’s the kind of creator Gunn wants to be.  Again, nothing wrong with that - there’s money there; but that’s not the kind of product or company Gunn was associated with.

I think what I keep coming back to is that the Gunn situation (drawing attention to himself over Trump) is just a gross sign of incompetence.  He didn’t know what he had or who he was dealing with - he thought he was too big to be affected.  He threw it all away.  I can’t applaud that or sympathize with it.  Gunn’s arrogance revealed just how much he was out of his depth.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't see what is remotely arrogant about a citizen criticizing the job performance of a civil servant. I mean, Gunn lives in America, right? Why should any one be afraid to be critical of any elected official in the US? Why should we want anyone in a supposedly democratic nation of liberty and free speech to be afraid to criticize those in power?

Slider_Quinn21's already run through how Gunn became a very different person. I have nothing to add. I think Gunn knew there would be consequences for speaking out and he has accepted them and will continue to work as a director, just not a Disney director. In his public remarks, he blamed no one, accepted responsibility and accepted the situation.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Here is a question though: if you were the parent of a child actor, would your kid be working on a James Gunn movie?

There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did anything to a kid... And yet, he associated himself with those who do. So, if you're a parent and you see those comments, or the pictures, do you shrug it off and sign on, or do you walk away, just in case?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Free speech has nothing to do with getting or keeping your job; it doesn’t even get you to the head of the line at the soup kitchen.  But if Gunn truly wasn’t worried about it, then more power to him.  Personally, I don’t buy it.  I believe he thought he was protected and there could be no consequences; and I just have zero sympathy for those attitudes when it blows up in someone’s face.

There’s a thing called tact; and there are far too many people these days who have no understanding of what that means (including and especially Trump).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

Free speech has nothing to do with getting or keeping your job; it doesn’t even get you to the head of the line at the soup kitchen.  But if Gunn truly wasn’t worried about it, then more power to him.  Personally, I don’t buy it.  I believe he thought he was protected and there could be no consequences; and I just have zero sympathy for those attitudes when it blows up in someone’s face.

I don't think it's that Gunn wasn't worried; it's that he knew what he was doing would have blowback, especially with his past history.

TemporalFlux wrote:

There’s a thing called tact; and there are far too many people these days who have no understanding of what that means (including and especially Trump).

We can agree on that.

Informant wrote:

Here is a question though: if you were the parent of a child actor, would your kid be working on a James Gunn movie? There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did anything to a kid... And yet, he associated himself with those who do. So, if you're a parent and you see those comments, or the pictures, do you shrug it off and sign on, or do you walk away, just in case?

I have a niece. I would have no problem with her working on a Gunn project, but that's a very personal thing. I understand why Gunn said and did the things he did about pedophilia. He wanted to be funny and he thought the way to achieve that was to provoke people through insensitive remarks about sensitive subjects. The party photos are *not* photos of a party celebrating pedophilia; they are photos of a party celebrating the TO CATCH A PREDATOR TV series which is, as the title indicates, about exposing pedophiles and getting them arrested. The party is mocking pedophiles.

The problem is that this mockery and mock-celebratory atmosphere and the jokes have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the victims. No consideration for the grief and loss and broken lives and shattered spirits that result from being sexually assaulted when one is most vulnerable. No thought to how someone who has been raped as a child would feel from seeing those words and photos. It's unacceptable. It's disgusting.

Gunn's brother, Sean, said that those jokes (and presumably the photos) came from a time when Gunn was finding his voice. He found a bad one. He set it aside and found a good one. He has changed a lot. His later humour indicates he realized that intimacy and connection were better sources of laughs than empty provocation. He clearly regrets those jokes and those parties -- which is why, when Disney fired him, he didn't protest. I do not think Disney was wrong to fire him. It was impossible to retain him; he was making family movies, not DEADPOOL or RICK AND MORTY.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah I don't get the idea that Gunn is the same guy who'd make jokes like that.  Like I said, I followed him on Twitter for months, and I never saw anything like that.  He seemed to have a lot of compassion for various people, and he was happy to engage almost anyone that was interested.  I know that doesn't say much about his private life, but he certainly never made off-color jokes like that.

I ended up not following him for political reasons, but it was just because I was tired of the political argument in general, not because of his specific arguments or the way he treated anyone.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Maybe I've just heard too many stories about Hollywood, and have heard too many personal stories from victims of child molesters, but if I had a kid (or if it were my nephews or niece) and I saw those jokes and pictures, I would walk away. Not because I believe that Gunn is guilty of any crime, but because I just don't know, and those comments which make light of pedophilia would make me nervous about letting any of the kids in my family work closely with him. Hollywood has a long, long history of not only hiring pedophiles, but of covering up for them (many A-list celebrities still make excuses for Polanski and gave him a standing ovation when he won an Oscar... plus *they gave him an Oscar!*). Even the slightest hint would send me walking in the other direction.

But yeah, it's a personal call. He might have changed, or he might have stopped making those jokes once he was hired by Disney. I hope that he has grown as a person, I really do. If so, I wish him the best of luck. I'm not for any sort of boycott at this point.

It's just a really sensitive subject. We all know that I'm not a super-PC SJW. I make all sorts of inappropriate jokes (mostly around those who know my actual personality and know when I'm joking), but the thought of making a pedophilia joke or associating myself with NAMBLA would never even cross my mind, because the thought disgusts me so much. I don't know what it takes to get to a mental place where it wouldn't be disgusting.


Anyway, I guess it's over with. We'll see which of the actors walk away, if any. And if Disney pushes the third GotG movie back some, just to let it breathe. Though, that might cause their whole schedule to collapse, like dominoes. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, for the MCU as a whole, it sucks because Phase 4 was/is supposed to be more cosmic.  Between the Guardians and Captain Marvel and the Earthbound Avengers meeting the Guardians, it was supposed to create more space stuff.  And clearly the Guardians are a big part of that, and Gunn was a big part of what made the Guardians successful.

Now is it all Gunn?  Is it replicable with another director?  If Dave Bautista holds his ground, would they kill off Drax or recast him like they did with Rhodey and Banner?  Or will they go Cosmic some other way?

I don't know.  But if they get the Fantastic Four, that's one way to do it.  Spider-Man replaced the Inhumans when the latter petered out.  And the Guardians, like the Avengers or the Fantastic Four, has had a varied lineup.  It can survive Gunn or Bautista leaving.  That's somewhere they could put Hulk, for example.  Or someone like Vision.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

For me, the obvious replacement for Gunn is the team behind Thor Ragnarok led by director Taika Waititi.  And as for Bautista, his replacement is built into the character of Drax.  Drax has died and resurrected multiple times in the comics taking on a different form each time - including the original, more intelligent Drax:

https://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Drax-the-Destroyer-Marvel-Comics-Captain-Marvel-1.jpg

and the super dumb Drax:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/sonicgt/images/f/fc/Drax-the-Destroyer-Marvel-Comics-Infinity-Watch-a.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170919033243

Though they’re likely not to do it, I think the best move would be to shelve Vol 3 and just leave the Guardians wherever Avengers 4 leaves them.  Marvel has a lot of other properties to mine, and Guardians isn’t worth the baggage it has now with the director / writer gone and cast potentially in revolt.

And if Adam Warlock needs a home, he was never a Guardians character anyway.  Warlock was introduced in Fantastic Four and sometimes associated with Captain Marvel.  Even better than giving him a vehicle on another property, just make an Adam Warlock movie instead of Guardians.  Warlock has a pretty rich history from his dealings with the High Evolutionary, the Universal Church of Truth (led by his corrupted future self, the Magus) and of course Warlock’s connection to the soul gem.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

And to add, if they truly want to go all in on cosmic, I think Marvel could follow up on some ideas from the Jim Krueger / Alex Ross series Earth X.  We’ve seen the head of a dead Celestial with Knowhere in Guardians; but what are Celestials and their motives?

A nearly extinct race from a long fought war, the Celestials seed young planets like eggs in order to reproduce; and they modify the evolving indigenous population so that a percentage can have have special abilities and intelligence to act as anti-bodies to protect the planet egg until it can hatch into a Celestial.  Galactus serves as a kind of galactic mongoose poaching the eggs so that “snakes” don’t overrun the universe.

It raises the interesting question, would the heroes save the world to doom the universe?  Defeating Galactus could mean that.

It was reported awhile back that Marvel is planning a movie based on The Eternals.  That’s notable because the Eternals is where the Celestials and their lore was introduced.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

One of the things that I liked most about the first Guardians movie was the fact that it didn't really seem like an MCU movie. It just felt like its own thing, and not some commercial for another movie that would come out a couple of years later, like most MCU movies. I guess they can't go back to that, but it'd be nice if Marvel had some movies that weren't so interconnected. I don't mean to say that they can't exist in the same universe, but it feels like all of their movies are smothered by other movies.



On an unrelated note, did anyone watch Cloak and Dagger on Freeform? The series definitely feels more like one of the Netflix shows than it does AoS. Maybe not the same cinematic feel, but similar in terms of story. The politics of the show are about as subtle as a brick to the head, which can be irritating (even I would like to just enjoy a TV show without politics sometimes). There are some things about the state of "young people" TV in general that I don't love, but the show was still pretty watchable. I don't know how well it sticks to the comics, since I'd never heard of these characters before this show (though I do sometimes watch the 80's movie of the same name... good times).

They do name drop Misty from the Netflix shows, and I think they mentioned Stark and Rand as well, but I don't remember the exact quotes.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Has anyone watched season 2 of Luke Cage? If so, is there anything important that I need to know when going into the next season of Iron Fist? I know some characters are going back and forth between shows, but I just can't watch Luke Cage. I watched the first episode of season 2, and it was like watching a PBS documentary about paint drying. I don't know who writes that show, but it is insanely boring for a superhero series.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Ummmm, spoilers I guess.

Misty and Colleen have become better friends.   There's a fairly cool fight sequence in a bar where the two of them are fighting off a bunch of assholes.  I don't remember which episode but it'd be fairly easy to scan and find if you know which episode Colleen is in.

Danny and Colleen got Misty a robot arm.  It seems to have no issues and she uses it at an expert level.  It doesn't do anything that a regular human arm doesn't do, but it's stronger.  This is only relevant because Misty is in Iron Fist.

There's an episode that Danny guest stars on.  You can/should watch that episode, not because it gives any insight to what Danny has been doing, but because it's the best episode of Luke Cage season 2 and the Danny Rand there might be a better representation of the Danny Rand you'll see in Season 2.  The two of them work together well, and there's some cool action sequences that take advantage of their power sets.  And you shouldn't be too confused on what's happening because it takes place right after a big thing and before another big thing.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyMumktc51k

Because I like you, here's the fight scene with Misty and Colleen smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, I watched the Danny episode, and the fight scene that you linked.

The fight scene was cool, just because I like Colleen. The two work well together.

The episode with Danny was still boring. I didn't miss anything from previous episodes, because they are constantly explaining everything about every single scene... slowly... and with more melodrama than a reality show set in high school. I really can't do this show. The cast is okay, but the writing and directing are horrible. And does it have a lower budget than the other Netflix Marvel shows? It looks cheaper.

Sigh. But Iron Fist is coming back soon! It might not be super great, but it should be watchable at least. Plus... Colleen.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think LUKE CAGE is good, but I confess that I'm only halfway through the season and have taken a break. The series does not appeal to my personal sensibilities in that it's less about plot and the characterization is presented through mood, atmosphere, deliberate pacing and presenting the texture and experiences of Harlem and black people in New York City. It's not *for* me, but I can see and appreciate the quality of the writing, characters, cinematography, locations, music and performances. LUKE CAGE is primarily about different forms of masculinity -- and that's not something I relate to. Also, LUKE CAGE is an extremely serious show like JESSICA JONES and DAREDEVIL and PUNISHER and... I prefer my Marvel adventures to be more in terms of heightened escapism like AGENTS OF SHIELD or AGE OF ULTRON or IRON MAN III. I think I took months to finish DAREDEVIL and JESSICA JONES in their second seasons.  Also, I tend to identify more with women than men which is why, when Claire left LUKE CAGE, I felt the need to take a breather.

Jessica Henwick is splendid and I have high hopes for IRON FIST in its second season... although I would finish watching LUKE CAGE first.

I haven't seen RUNAWAYS or CLOAK AND DAGGER yet. I haven't even seen ANT MAN II. I generally only go to the cinema for special events like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. The only reason I saw INFINITY WAR in theatres was because I was expecting AGENTS OF SHIELD to tie into it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm even more behind than you. I haven't seen Black Panther or Infinity War. I guess if they're ending their deal with Netflix, I'll have to rent them at some point. I just haven't felt a big need to see them yet.

But that ranks them above the last couple of Star Wars movies, which I'm pretty sure I've just given up on. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Black Panther comes to Netflix soon so you'll have that one for free at least.  I still think Infinity War is worth the $2 Redbox fee since it's just so incredible to have that many characters in one movie and for it not to be a cluster.

Although you'll think it's a cluster.

And I liked Danny and Luke working together, and I thought there were some good fight scenes using their powers.  Better than some of the stuff in the Defenders.  I think the problem with the Defenders is that Luke and Jessica are essentially the same powerset, and Daredevil and Iron Fist are essentially the same as well.  There's obviously slight differences, but it's a lot of either kung fu or brute strength.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

... I don't think Informant should pay to watch INFINITY WAR. We all know he would not enjoy it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agreed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's not that I'm incapable of enjoying a Marvel movie, or even one of their big group movies. The problem that I have is that they've never actually put any effort into one of those movies. They coast on the thrill of the big event, but put very little thought or care into producing a good script. It's all about marketing and deadlines, and they hope that the audience will be too distracted by shiny objects to notice that the plots make no sense.

Believe it or not, the reason why I keep watching the Marvel movies is because I want to like them. It's just that they're so, so bad! smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can't wrap my head around what Sony is trying to do with their portion of the SPIDER-MAN cinematic rights. They've agreed to a sharing arrangement with Marvel Film: Marvel can use Spider-Man in their films and provides consultation and creative guidance on Sony's Spider-Man features. Sony receives no money for Spider-Man's appearances in Marvel movies and Marvel will receive no payment for Sony's Spider-Man movies.

But Sony is also producing a feature films with Spider-Man's rogues gallery: a feature film starring VENOM is coming and there are plans for movies starring Silver Sable, Black Cat, possibly the Sinister Six and Jackpot -- and according to Kevin Feige, neither the upcoming VENOM nor any subsequent spin-off films take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel isn't involved with them.

According to Sony, VENOM and Sony spin-offs will neither contradict nor tie in to MCU films or Spider-Man films, nor will they feature Tom Holland's Spider-Man -- which has me wondering how these films can qualify as Spider-Man spin-offs if they don't originate in an actual Spider-Man film.

It'd be fair to note that DAREDEVIL, JESSICA JONES, LUKE CAGE, IRON FIST, PUNISHER and DEFENDERS have never been acknowledged by the MCU feature films nor did they spin out off the Avengers' movies. But Sony is producing films with characters who, in the source material, were introduced as antagonists to Spider-Man; the Netflix properties existed alongside Avengers in the comics as opposed to originating from them. The Black Cat and Silver Sable are conceivably fascinating standalone characters, but Venom and the Sinister Six always existed in opposition to Spider-Man and Sony is trying to sell Venom based on its connection to the Spider-Man brand from which Venom will be isolated.

I don't get it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think comic book movies are catching up to comic books. There are a ton of different branches, with a ton of different styles, some of which go together and some of which don't, which we're supposed to just accept.

DC is doing a Joker movie that doesn't take place in the DCEU, and probably doesn't feature Batman in any major role (though I suppose he could appear in some capacity). They also have TV shows, only some of which exist in the same universe, but all of which may potentially exist in the same multiverse.

Just pretend you're browsing a shelf of graphic novels. Pick and choose as you see fit.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Sony is just throwing some stuff at the wall to see what sticks.  After all, The Punisher started as a Spider-man antagonist in 1974; it took 12 years before Punisher was given his own solo mini-series.

The problem Sony has is if any of the other characters could replicate that success, they would have already done it in the comics.  Venom did, but it’s very hard to separate him from his Spider-man origin.  Silver Sable had her own series for awhile, but it never set the world on fire.  Black Cat has had a few mini-series, but never took off.  The latest I’ve seen is that Sony is wanting to do a solo Kraven the Hunter movie; and I honestly have no idea where you take him without an existing super-heroic universe to put him in.  Kraven’s whole motivation is finding more dangerous game because he’s already bested every animal on earrh.

Sony is really just spinning their wheels unable to accept they should just take their part of the money from the Marvel Studios movies and let it go.  Their best bet is to be a Spider-man holding company; not a producer of material.

Incidentally, the comics are trying to separate Venom out at the moment - they’re trying to say we’ve misunderstood the white spider symbol all these years - the legs are actually wings. Venom is a dragon.

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2018/08/STL089106.jpg

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

The latest I’ve seen is that Sony is wanting to do a solo Kraven the Hunter movie; and I honestly have no idea where you take him without an existing super-heroic universe to put him in.  Kraven’s whole motivation is finding more dangerous game because he’s already bested every animal on earrh.

I've heard an explanation that makes sense - Kraven shows up to hunt Venom.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Watched Black Panther.


That leaves Infinity War and Ant Man 2 before I'm caught up.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

IRON FIST's second season is a quantum leap forward from the first series. Season 1's inexplicable obsession with corporate politics is gone. Season 1's fixation on multiple and conflicting renditions of the Hand is gone (as is the Hand organization). Season 1's inability to stage effective martial arts sequences with Finn Jones is gone. Season 1's baffling scripting where it wasn't clear if characters were ineffective and stupid or if the writers were ineffective and stupid is also gone. Best of all, Danny Rand's childish impulsivity and cultural appropriation (the latter of which was a flaw in the original source material) is central to the season's arc.

Also, for most of Season 1, I would watch Colleen Wing, the capable martial artist played by the splendid Jessica Henwick and constantly feel like she was too good for IRON FIST. Amidst Finn Jones being unable to convincingly throw punches or kicks, Ramon Rodriguez's clumsily insincere performance as the supposedly charismatic Bakuto and the bizarre fetish for boardroom conversations dominating a kung fu action show was Henwick.

She had a gentle yet sardonic take on her dialogue, her face was a beautiful canvas for serenity and melancholy, her fight scenes showed a stunningly graceful ferocity and she could alternatively convey warmth or animalistic savagery in a single look. She was so instantly endearing that Colleen being exposed as an agent of the Hand was heartbreaking and the performance was so strong that the ridiculousness of Colleen immediately turning against them was convincing onscreen.

I imagined in future decades that Henwick would lead a sci-fi action film, headline a few romantic comedies, feature in a five season courtroom drama as the star, perform some successful sitcoms, take on a number of critically acclaimed indies -- and then, in interviews, when asked about IRON FIST, she'd smile self-effacingly and say that IRON FIST paid the rent and was a stepping stone to better roles. Colleen was likable, sympathetic and played by an actress who could perform fights -- why wasn't she the star of IRON FIST?

The writers of the DEFENDERS seemed to be asking the same question as throughout those eight episodes, Finn Jones was repeatedly knocked unconscious or tied to a stretcher while other characters dismissed him and Stick described him as the stupidest Iron Fist in the history of the role. Throughout DEFENDERS, it was Colleen who performed what would presumably be Danny's role among the Defenders, even providing the means to blow up the Hand's headquarters in the climactic finale.

Why wasn't she the lead character of IRON FIST? Why wasn't an Asian-American female lead put into place to buttress the white saviour narrative that's always been at the heart of Iron Fist's story about a Caucasian man taking an American approximation of an Asian cultural form for himself? In retrofitting IRON FIST from its unworkable Season 1 situation, Season 2 dives fully into what DEFENDERS advised and suggests that Colleen is the star of IRON FIST and that she has always been the star of IRON FIST. The first season of the show is recontextualized as Colleen's story rather than Danny's and I'm really intrigued to know how the audience will react.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Spoilers for IRON FIST Season 2 --




























IRON FIST's second season is getting mixed reviews. The highest praise it's received is that it's not as much a disaster as the first season. Even the worst reviews noted that Season 2 was less boring than Season 1 and demonstrated basic competence.

My view: the show suffers from its inability to explore the mythology of the Iron Fist. All the Netflix shows are street level crimefighting stories, but DARDEVIL has courtroom drama mixed with crime noir, JESSICA JONES has female empowerment, LUKE CAGE has reappropriated blaxploitation, PUNISHER is militaristic -- IRON FIST should have dragon-punching mystic spectacle, but it can't afford it on a Netflix budget. As a result, IRON FIST lacks a distinct identity to justify its existence.

I still really enjoyed Season 2, but I confess -- I enjoyed it more as a writing exercise in repairing a troubled series. IRON FIST's first season had a ton of problems. It had Danny Rand as the heroic Iron Fist, sworn enemy of the Hand, protector of the city of K'un Lun.

However, his foster brother, Davos, declared that Danny, in returning to New York, had abandoned his post, stolen the Iron Fist power and left the city defenseless. Danny protested that (a) as the Iron Fist, it was up to him to define the role and (b) Davos was only upset that Danny left their friendship and that protecting K'un Lun was not an issue. This didn't address the accusation that Danny had robbed K'un Lun of its heritage and protection. 

Another conflict: Danny spent Season 1 regaining control of the Rand corporation. At no point did Danny articulate any intentions for his company beyond regaining his identity. This claim on the company, while valid, suggested his winning the Iron Fist and taking it to New York City was the same sense of entitlement. The show's only real response was to show Danny was an incompetent businessman before dismissing the plot.

This left the show's moral position confused: was Davos correct to call Danny a thief or was it Danny's right to leave K'un Lun? Davos was written to be violent, petty and cruel towards innocent people, effectively dismissing his criticisms. Yet, the ending of Season 1 showed K'un Lun destroyed, indicating that Davos was correct and that Danny had no right to take the Iron Fist and return to New York.

But the immediate follow-up was DEFENDERS which didn't explore the issue, switching the focus to defeating the Hand. The show couldn't seem to articulate any position, offering conflict but unwilling to commit to any defense or criticism of Danny's choices.

Showrunner Scott Buck would later take his clumsy grasp of moral judgment to INHUMANS (which is about a brutal monarchy of slavers as the heroes and their slaves as the villains and I don't even want to imagine how Buck would handle that one).

Anyway. IRON FIST's Season 2 had a new showrunner, M. Raven Metzner, who had inherited quite a mess. The premiere makes a number of immediate shifts: Danny has exited the corporate world and works as a mover, no longer using the Rand Corporation's money. This effectively declares that he only pursued his company as part of regaining his identity.

In this premiere, Davos confronts Danny over K'un Lun being left unprotected and now destroyed. Danny doesn't dispute this but notes that the Iron Fist is also sworn to fight the Hand which he helped destroy in DEFENDERS. Davos declares Danny unworthy of the Iron Fist and where Danny in Season 1 dismissed this, Danny is now deeply shaken.

Season 2 also shows some flashbacks to K'un Lun where Danny and Davos were regularly tortured to prepare them to compete for the Iron Fist. It shows that their final competition was rigged: both are evenly matched with Davos initially superior, Danny getting the upper hand at which point the judges (one of whom is Davos' father) declare Danny the winner when they could just have easily ruled in Davos' favour earlier or waited for the fight to turn Davos' way again.

This doesn't exonerate Danny from taking the Iron Fist from the city it was meant to defend. But it was the Iron Fist judges who steered a traumatized and dislocated orphan into a violently abusive competition and then rigged the match to assign him their most powerful weapon. It was the judges who abused Danny and then gave him the job of defending their home despite knowing he'd try to get home the first chance he got.

Season 2 also shows: Danny didn't 'win' the Iron Fist for being the best fighter; Davos was beating him. Davos' father saw Davos' psychopathy and preferred the Fist go to the weaker candidate, someone less volatile and supposedly easier to control.

Where Scott Buck introduced ambiguity that was confusing and frustrating, M. Raven Metzner offers clear definition. Danny Rand concedes the truth: Davos is too unstable to wield the Iron Fist, but Danny only pursued it for the power and prestige it held in K'un Lun. There is only one person in IRON FIST thus far who has shown the compassion, responsibility and commitment needed to bear the Iron Fist and wield it well. It isn't Danny. It isn't Davos. It's Colleen Wing.

Colleen is a teacher, not a soldier. Colleen seeks to protect, not to fight. Colleen had the strength to realize her commitment to the Hand was based on a lie and to turn against them. Colleen is worthy. And when Danny comes to this realization, IRON FIST shows Danny to be a hero in the true Marvel position where his strength is not in wielding power, but in his willingness to give it up.

It's strong writing. It doesn't come off as strong writing. IRON FIST in Season 1 was terrible. Season 2 is so focused on repairing Season 1 that the terrible and excellent collide to produce a Season 2 that is extremely average. Season 2 is so busy retrofitting itself into the show it wants to be – Colleen Wing as the Immortal Iron Fist – that by the time the job is done, Season 2 is over.

At the same time, deciding to replace your leading man is an extremely difficult proposition. It has to be earned over time and Season 2 is quite determined to earn it over its 10 episodes.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Daredevil Season 3 is going to come out October 19.  That means, in a 12-month period, all five Netflix shows will have released a season.  Pretty cool.

I've liked the first half of Iron Fist season 2.  It's a lot more fun.  I'd actually like to see a Heroes For Hire series with Luke Cage and Danny, but I don't know if that's possible with the ending of Luke Cage (not even knowing how Iron Fist ends).  I'd rather have that show than a third season of either show separately.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I have not seen VENOM yet, but www.them0vieblog.com, my favourite reviewing site, reviewed it and had some spoiler-free Thoughts.

https://them0vieblog.com/2018/10/03/non … ore-102708

The M0vie Blog wrote:

Trying to make a Venom movie without Spider-Man is like trying to make a Sabretooth movie without Wolverine, a Man-Bat movie without Batman, a Bizarro movie with Superman, an Abomination movie without the Hulk. It doesn’t make sense.

Brushing aside any continuity or shared history, Venom is the archetypal “obvious evil doppelganger” to Spider-Man. His character simply does not work without Spider-Man as a point of inspiration or contrast. Visually speaking, Venom makes no sense outside the context of “what if Spider-Man, but dark?”

The prospect of a Venom movie without Spider-Man is inherently absurd. The punchline here might be to suggest it’s like making two Joker movies without Batman, but that’s not entirely accurate. Despite their long association, there’s nothing about “killer clown” that requires “man dressed as a bat” in order to work. Venom is defined by his relationship to Spider-Man. Removing Spider-Man from Venom’s origin story essentially removes the spine of the character, in a way that creates an appreciable absence.

Even audience members without any appreciation of the long-standing association between the two characters might wonder why Venom’s eyes look like that or why he swings around like that or why he climbs up walls. VENOM cannot possibly answer these questions.