Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Discussion Thread

[Ann_SS]

What I don't understand is why Disney does not let the show use several of Marvel's minor superheroes for a small fee? For goodness sake, there are hundreds of them to choose from. And Disney is never going to make movies with characters like Paladin or Luke Cage as the leading superheroes. It does not help their Marvel franchise if the tv series fails. I just don't get it. Disney lets Once Upon a Time use its most popular fairy tale characters.

[marceline]

Ditto. As a proud Whedonista, it breaks my heart to say it but there's nothing about this show I care about other than Coulson and May. It's just not working.

[EricMontreal22]

As a big Marvel fan and former huge Whedon fan, I hate to agree with most of the complaints. While the Whedon-esque dialogue by this point comes off as kinda cliched (even when he isn't actually writing it) I admit I do like some of the brief moments of character interaction. But that seems to be about 4 minutes an episode...

What's especially ironic is now we have a former Whedon writer in charge of the Netflixx four Marvel series all involving actually recognizable superheroes...

[DRW50]

It would be nice if he realized Alyson Hanigan was the only one who could ever pull off "quirky wacky tech girl who's actually super cool!"

I also wonder why they don't have any Marvel heroes. I guess they don't think it would fit the format, or it's a rights issue. There are quite a few that have been dormant for a long time and could be woven in. Hell, bring in some of those people who were in Contest of Champions. I think there was a woman from Israel who shot quills at people. I liked her. I'd take her over most of the characters Whedon's created since sometime in 2000.

[EricMontreal22]

I'm pretty surew it's not a rights issue and that they could if they wanted to use any of the Marvel characters owned by Disney -- that's what I gather from all I've read. Next week's episode (or was it this week? I haven't watched it) is meant to tie into Thor 2 with them investiagating the destruction of a scene, or some such.

Joss' whole plan was to make this "not all heroes are super" or whatever. Which is fine in theory, makes sense for budget, But in practicve the show has ended up as just a good looking, but not distinctive "spy-fi" genre show with characters who seem like watered down versions of the characters every Wheon fan has already seen in stronger versions, from Buffy to Dollhouse. Part of that is probably due to this being something ABC/Disney/Marvel have put so much money on and I am sure Whedon's crew (meaning his brother nad sister-in-law who are in charge) have a lot less leeway than Wheson had on Fox or the WB, but so what.

[DRW50]

There was a comic about twenty years ago that revolved around people who were supposed to clean up cities after huge superhero/supervillain battles. Whedon and ABC should have gone with that.

[Soapsuds]

The show was renewed for a whole season but after yesterday's new low I dont see the show coming back next season.

[EricMontreal22]

I dunno. ABC/Marvel/Disney have a lot invested in this -- I could see them retooling and trying at least one more season.

[gtru1981]

Even that, this show is doomed. Once people lose interest, it hard to get them back to watch.

ABC has been the biggest loser so far this year, nothing is working for them.

[marceline]

Why are you a "former" fan Eric? I don't mean that in a "come back to the fold" kind of way, I'm just always interested at what drives people away from something they once loved.

[EricMontreal22]

Oh I suppose I'm still a fan That was kinda arrogant to say.

There are several reasons why I did say it though. One is a sorta backlash against the Whedonites, or whatever they call themselves now. People who refuse to believe certain truths, like that Angel (a show I ultimately preferred to Buffy--I know shocking--at least seasons 2-4) had very little direct Joss involvement. He was never the showrunner -- Greenwalt, Bell and Minear were on different seasons -- and the episodes he is credited with script involvement on are often shockingly out of character and tone for the show. Of course he also wasn't -- for good or bad -- showrunner on the last two years of Buffy, on Firefly or Dollhouse either (or SHIELD for that matter.) And to be even handed there is no doubt that he was still involved, usually picks a great team to run these shows, and that his "voice" informs the shows. And that many of these writers who were strongest on his shows, have been far less strong on their own, or other people's shows. But that leads into my other complaint.

He's spread too thin and I think it dilutes his brand name (this is, granted, much much much more true for JJ Abrams who is in a similar position but whose name used in the credits, for me anyway, means next to nothing anymore.) Look at his comic book work. His first two major projects, the Buffy spin off Fray and his 25 issue run on Astonishing X-Men are, IMHO, very very strong. Up there with any (mainstream, superhero) American comics I've read. He also was notoriously slow on both, because he was too busy -- I believe X-Men's run took about five years to finally finish. Then you move on to his later titles that were/are on date and monthly like the Buffy Season 8 and 9 titles and Angel: After the Fall, all of which he has a few writing credits on but is wildly credited for as "Exec Producer" (a title I'd never heard before for comics -- I suppose Editor in Chief would involve too much work?) On different levels they all became huge messes -- although, contrary-wise, Buffy Season 9, in which he was far far less involved than Season 8 (basically only going over basic plot points in a summit with the writers before the comics launched) is a big improvement over that season. I think his name is just over used too much. I mean, in a way I hope Drew Godard being appointed to head up the Daredevil part of Netflix four Marvel superheroes series (wow, these heroes ARE super) gives him some sense of irony, since Cabin in the Wood is advertised and sold as Joss Whedon's, the way Nightmare Before Christmas is advertised and sold on Tim Burton's name, when in both cases those people had very very very little story involvement at the creation stage, and a limited role as exec producer. Albeit, there is no doubt that whatever success either film had (and, in terms of box office, for Cabin that wasn't much) was probably due to selling those names.

And his Shakespeare film was amateurish and clumsy, although still kinda fun due to the actor excitement. So there, Joss.

But I guess, mostly it's the fans. (His recent viral speech about why we should not use the word feminism--as well intentioned and carefully written as it was--hasn't helped my view.)

[DRW50]

Given how much Buffy went to pot after season three, I have often wondered how much direct involvement he had. IMO any writer or showrunner with any sense of integrity would have avoided season 4 stories like, "Hey let's break up all the core relationships on the show for Important Plot Reasons To Remind Of The Meaning Of Friendship, even though doing that right after huge cast changes is kind of a stupid idea," "LOL SPIKE HAS A CHIP," "LOL XANDER IS A LOSER LOL," and my favorite, "LOL GILES IS A DUMB OLD MAN LOL."

[EricMontreal22]

Carl, I say this with all due respect because you know I enjoy and value your opinion, but I love how you don't hold back. I loved a lot of Buffy after Season 3 though I think that was probably its peak overall. Personally, I loved the divisive season 6 (which had Marti Noxon as showrunner--when she was off on maternity leave for most of Season 7 is when the show truly fell apart with no clear idea of what they wanted to do.) Although I do hate how didactic some of it was. But your quoted comments are justified and I'll just say never read the last half of the "Season 8" comic if those things bugged you... (It started off promising but pretty much stop when Buffy starts her lesbian fling--the hatred for which is something Whedon does not understand which really makes me think less of him, although to his credit he has owned up to most ofthe other major mistakes made in that run of the comic as well as Season 7.)

[DRW50]

That probably was me holding back - the way that Buffy and Angel both pretty much fell apart so he could go do Firefly, all while he continued to get nothing but parades from fans, is something that annoyed me for a long time. It also annoys me that he is seen as some sort of expert on racism and feminism, when his shows actually had some terrible messages about women and when he received so much criticism for the whiteness of his shows that Angel producers essentially went to the press and said, "We are adding Gunn because he is black," (which I thought was kind of a slap in the face to J. August Richards, who did a good job in spite of poor writing). Whedon has his moments but I've always felt like he gets by on a cult of personality, because he's cute and adorable and "witty" and he does the whole cute adorable patter with cool geeky characters who are somehow "real."

I didn't realize Noxon still had that much of a role at Buffy in season 7 - I thought she'd been relieved after season 6.

I guess I am going way off topic and that's not kind of me. I apologize.

[EricMontreal22]

Sorry I may not have been clear (at all.) Noxon helped write a few episodes of Season 7 (some of the better ones) but was not involved in the overall story at all due to her maternity leave. And then she went on to show run Point Pleasant, a show I actually remember kinda liking despite everyone else kinda hating it, but frankly I remember next to nothing about (I would youtube it but I'd probably find out it's awful -- I remember something about a time travel episode set in a depression era dance-a-thon.)

I don't think you're going off topic at all.

And I agree with a lot of what you say. I cut Whedon more slack than you do -- I suspect I think he's a better writer than you do too, but I also agree, to a lesser degree with *all* of your points above. I think he HAS created strong female roles, but I do NOT think they are the feminist ideals that his fans, and he himself now anyway, seem to think they are. I also feel he has some issues with race, although some of that (particularly on SHIELF and his major network shows, less so on the WB where I think -- initially anyway -- he had more control) is network and exec interference. It gets annoying when it seems that the "new character for one episode" is always someone of colour as a way to deflect that, but, again, I'm not sure who to blame there. He also gets lauded for GLBT (got I hate those initials) issues, and yet he seems to only want to talk about lesbians, not gay men unless it's vaguely (the only Season 5 Angel episode he wrote was the one where Buffy's Andrew came back and he had a harem of female lovers, something he admits now was a mistake, and Andrew has come out in the comics, but just shows how overwhelmed with other projects he was -- the episode was off in tone in general.)

And I admit, most of this wouldn't bug me. I think his good writing outweighs his bad, and I think he's a talented, and a well meaning genuinely nice guy. So it's the cult of his fans who have largely made me be so harsh -- which may not be fair, except the Whedon franchise fully buys into that.

In one way his shows suffer from Agnes Nixon syndrome. ANY show he's attached to as exec producer when it's bad, one of the other writers gets called out on it by the fans. When something's good -- even, say, one two minute scene like on SHIELD two weeks back, fans all jump in that Joss MUST have ghost-written that scene. And this view continues in the comics, which is completely ridiculous.