Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. [US] ** Spoilers **

There seems to be a serious understanding of comic books in this thread with most assuming that they are throw away trash aimed at 8 year olds. The comic book medium, like any other appeals to a wide range of people and as such the content differs from book to book. Sure there are plenty of comics that are aimed at kids but there are just as many adult books out there. Crossed, Preacher, Bedlam, The Sixth Gun, Blankets, Kid Eternity, etc, etc, etc are all books written for adults and with content that you would never allow a child to view. In some cases it's simply full of graphic sex and violence and in many more it's a case that it would all go way over their heads.

humanji

I don't think anyone is saying that.

The point I'm trying to get across is that Marvel want young teens to get into their products, so that they'll have a lifetime of spending money no them. It's simple marketing.

TheIrishGrover

humanji wrote: »

And there's always Gotham for a serious show, although it remains to be seen what comes of that development.

Plus.... It's on Fox so either it'll be good (ie. Cancelled) or CSI (And get cancelled)

wampyrus77

lol samuel l jackson is in second episode

brianregan09

wampyrus77 wrote: »

marvel invent Skrulls, they are alien race and enemies of fantastic 4 and where you think super Skrull came from was a skrull with alls powers with of fantastic 4.

http://marvel.com/universe/Skrulls

skrulls have in marvel comics since 1962, so of course they have rights skrulls

Its not as simple as that Marvel years back sold all there movie rights including X-Men, Spiderman and Fantastic Four and in those included all the stuff that goes with them ie skrulls for Fantastic Four

wampyrus77

brianregan09 wrote: »

Its not as simple as that Marvel years back sold all there movie rights including X-Men, Spiderman and Fantastic Four and in those included all the stuff that goes with them ie skrulls for Fantastic Four

movie rights ok what there comic rights they producing skrulls in fantasic 4 comic since 60s

humanji

Just watched the second episode there. It wasn't bad. Not great, but it got the "we're a team" bit done with, so other than the awkward will they won't they sub plot, it leaves the rest of the series free to stick to the fun bits.

wampyrus77

Disney-ABC Domestic Television are the Distributors, since disney are Distributors of agents of shield im pretty sure disney are publishers of agents of shield, that means disney are running the show not marvel

Gbear

I thought the 2nd episode was pretty heinous tbh.

It's not a kids tv show. And that shouldn't preclude decent quality even if it was. It was just poor.

I spent a good lot of the 2nd episode cringing at how crap most of the dialogue was, how annoying the characters mostly are (Except Coulson. He's an oasis of rather good in a ****ty desert of mediocrity.) and the cheapness of it.

Pretty pessimistic but I suppose I'll stick with it for another couple of episodes and give it the benefit of the doubt because it should have enough material, given the subject matter and the Coulson-having, to make a decent tv series.

pixelburp

Maybe I'm picking it up wrong, but there seems to be an undercurrent in the thread that seems to suggest family or child-friendly TV is exempt from good scriptwriting - the mentality of 'well, it's 8pm ABC, what do you expect; cut it some slack'.

To an extent that's fair enough, and as some mentioned we ourselves grew up with the A-Team, Star Trek: TNG and so on, shows that often betrayed their own cheese & lack of quality. I think those comments are more apt than intended though, because it's precisely because Agents of SHIELD feels like a 80s/90s throwback that I myself object to it so far. If there's anything in the overused phrase "Golden Age of TV", then surely it's reasonable to hope standards have risen across the board, even in the world of Primetime TV. Some of that dialogue in episode 2 was atrocious. A-Team bad. Airwolf bad.

But hey; once again, it's early days and hopefully the show is just finding its voice and rhythm. The transition from Pilot to full series seemed pretty quick so maybe these are just the panicky, early scripts to get the show going. Plus I've said and I'll say it again, in genre TV Season 1 is often a write-off & can be pretty ropey. But considering the money, clout and talent behind Agents of SHIELD, I think it's fair to demand more than the borderline PSAs 'we can do it if we work together!' we've been getting. Not to mention the Gap models strutting about the sets.

expectationlost

when was a-team shown when original aired?

aren't there more detailed nielsen ratings that count under 18's watching shows

wampyrus77

pixelburp wrote: »

Maybe I'm picking it up wrong, but there seems to be an undercurrent in the thread that seems to suggest family or child-friendly TV is exempt from good scriptwriting - the mentality of 'well, it's 8pm ABC, what do you expect; cut it some slack'.

To an extent that's fair enough, and as some mentioned we ourselves grew up with the A-Team, Star Trek: TNG and so on, shows that often betrayed their own cheese & lack of quality. I think those comments are more apt than intended though, because it's precisely because Agents of SHIELD feels like a 80s/90s throwback that I myself object to it so far. If there's anything in the overused phrase "Golden Age of TV", then surely it's reasonable to hope standards have risen across the board, even in the world of Primetime TV. Some of that dialogue in episode 2 was atrocious. A-Team bad. Airwolf bad.

But hey; once again, it's early days and hopefully the show is just finding its voice and rhythm. The transition from Pilot to full series seemed pretty quick so maybe these are just the panicky, early scripts to get the show going. Plus I've said and I'll say it again, in genre TV Season 1 is often a write-off & can be pretty ropey. But considering the money, clout and talent behind Agents of SHIELD, I think it's fair to demand more than the borderline PSAs 'we can do it if we work together!' we've been getting. Not to mention the Gap models strutting about the sets.

well to me AOS feel more like firefly/itcrowd/Mutant X/power rangers 21st century / smallville / arrow/ the walking dead or any other tv show that came beyond year 2000, not 80s/90s area in 80s the tv shows were lot better then most shows nowadays and some 90s were better then most shows nowadays

johnny_ultimate

I watched the first episode a few nights ago, and my first impressions were very negative indeed. The whole thing just came across as awkward, flat and charmless. I was taken aback at how little I cared for it actually: while I undoubtedly have increasingly little love for the Marvel Universe, I am extremely tolerant of Whedon's work, so happy to give it a chance. As a Dollhouse veteran who thought that show offered some excellent storytelling after its incredibly shaky start, I know I should probably give it the space it needs to warm up. I still might do. But I'm struggling to motivate myself to watch episode 2. And knowing how Marvel seem absolutely terrified of doing anything remotely provocative, original or intelligent these days - relegating proven talented directors to mere directors-for-hire positions - I'm not entirely optimistic the creative team will be given the space to take the show in the directions it needs to. That, and ABC will want this to be a blockbuster of major proportions.

I have to concur with the 'cheap looking' comments. Undoubtedly we're all spoiled as we come off the back of Breaking Bad, which took television cinematography in exhilarating new directions (you can watch an episode of that show and just marvel at the lighting and how the camera is allowed to tell the story and emphasise thematic depths). It's unreasonable to expect that for every show, but this really gave off a dreadful 'filmed on a backlot' fell at times. There was no energy or verve to the presentation, and it felt very much like a performance rather than a cohesive, expensive production from a major studio and station. The initially irritating characters, so-so storytelling and - sorry, Joss - pretty dreadful script are significant flaws, and I can't imagine the 4oD compression helped matters, but damn I really thought television had moved on aesthetically (even the soundtrack felt awkwardly faux-cinematic). I'd love, absolutely love, to see a vivid, bright and bold visual template applied to TV: lord knows we need it while so many great shows wallow in darkness. Alas, there's little evidence so far this show will manage that.

Fingers crossed these are growing pains, not indicators of things to come.

wampyrus77

im going watch 2nd episode tonight at 7pm on channel 4, because i miss 1st half of the 2nd episode

humanji

wampyrus77 wrote: »

Disney-ABC Domestic Television are the Distributors, since disney are Distributors of agents of shield im pretty sure disney are publishers of agents of shield, that means disney are running the show not marvel

Seriously doubt that. Marvel would never allow another company to control their products again, would they?

Patty O Furniture

expectationlost wrote: »

when was a-team shown when original aired?

aren't there more detailed nielsen ratings that cout under 18's watching shows

It used to be on twice on a Sat, ITV@5.05 + RTE1@7pm, classic innocent tv times then

Bacchus

humanji wrote: »

Seriously doubt that. Marvel would never allow another company to control their products again, would they?

Disney own Marvel.

expectationlost

Patty O Furniture wrote: »

It used to be on twice on a Sat, ITV@5.05 + RTE1@7pm, classic innocent tv times then

this is what im talking about are these saturday evening shows or not, maybe not if A-team was shown at 8pm weekday in USA originally, I was asking about when exactly the original airing was in the USA.

ah it was shown on a tuesday don't know what time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_A-Team#Reception

McLoughlin

expectationlost wrote: »

this is what im talking about are these saturday evening shows or not, maybe not if A-team was shown at 8pm weekday in USA originally, I was asking about when exactly the original airing was in the USA.

The first episode of The A team was broadcasted after the Superbowl in January 1983 so it would have been a late night showing.

Mc Love

Nice to see that special guest in the end of episode 2

Mc Love

Mc Love wrote: »

Nice to see that special guest in the end of episode 2

Would have been nicer if a poster here hadn't ruined it.

sunbabe08

Just watching this on channel 4 Oh my god squeal!!! :-):-) wasn't expect that.

Patty O Furniture

Deleted User wrote: »

Would have been nicer if a poster here hadn't ruined it.

Yeah that was close, he just nicked it , but seriously i hope they keep it up, as seeing it a second time, i was like meh!

expectationlost

McLoughlin wrote: »

The first episode of The A team was broadcasted after the Superbowl in January 1983 so it would have been a late night showing.

yes i read that and ignored it because i was looking for its regular showing, what others shows could you compare this to

Also Starring LeVar Burton

It's gonna be a grower... Textbook Whedon... First 2-3 episodes are all about set up and introduction of characters... Once it hits its stride, it'll be as epic as the rest of the Whedonverse shows...

pixelburp

CaptainNegative wrote: »

It's gonna be a grower... Textbook Whedon... First 2-3 episodes are all about set up and introduction of characters... Once it hits its stride, it'll be as epic as the rest of the Whedonverse shows...

Textbook to most shows to be fair, it's not something Whedon invented; nearly every ensemble-driven show uses that format. My main hope is that once the introductions are dealt with the scripts improve and become less shockingly by the numbers; not sure I could survive a season of after-school specials like Episode2

connemara man

pixelburp wrote: »

Textbook to most shows to be fair, it's not something Whedon invented; nearly every ensemble-driven show uses that format. My main hope is that once the introductions are dealt with the scripts improve and become less shockingly by the numbers; not sure I could survive a season of after-school specials like Episode2

hey now it was an after school specials with special effects a completely different beast

Kirby

CaptainNegative wrote: »

It's gonna be a grower... Textbook Whedon... First 2-3 episodes are all about set up and introduction of characters... Once it hits its stride, it'll be as epic as the rest of the Whedonverse shows...

Firefly gripped you right from the start and Dollhouse was as boring as ever after 2 full seasons......so I wouldn't be as steadfast in that opinion.

Whedon's lack of day to day involvement in this show has me worried as well. No point in just showing up for 2 or 3 episodes a season.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Kirby wrote: »

Firefly gripped you right from the start and Dollhouse was as boring as ever after 2 full seasons......so I wouldn't be as steadfast in that opinion.

Whedon's lack of day to day involvement in this show has me worried as well. No point in just showing up for 2 or 3 episodes a season.

Dollhouse was amazing - first few eps were a bit crappy, but it got so good.
As much as I love Firefly, I didn't fall in love with it straight away - it took until episode 2 or 3... Hindsight is 20/20...

expectationlost

well its jed whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen who seems to be main writers on this and wrote on dollhouse but not firefly