Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (Page 8 of 15)

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

Watched Black Panther.

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

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.