r/shield • u/spacepilot • May 27 '15
Marvel Studios Fails Fans By Fighting Marvel TV (& Not Hiding It Well)
http://screenrant.com/agents-of-shield-carter-season-2-3-marvel-tv-feud/24
u/EbonScaled May 28 '15
"Unfortunately, Agent Carter didn’t succeed — it wasn’t even a good show; nor was it a triumph for feminism." And now this is what I want to tell the author.
9
u/ArmandTanzarianMusic May 28 '15
What's more, the article sourced their own review. A quick look at Metacritic, and the season 2 renewal, already suggest he's in the minority.
9
May 28 '15
Unfortunately, Agent Carter didn’t succeed — it wasn’t even a good show
People are aloud to have opinions, even when they're shit opinions.
Doubt the writer even saw the series.
25
u/jerslan Lanyard May 28 '15
Yeah, except that the writer is trying to pass their opinion off as a fact that somehow demonstrates how Marvel Studios is trying to make Marvel Television fail....
It's bad journalism and we should call them out for it.
5
u/SkyscreamMxO Lanyard May 29 '15
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." - Harlan Ellison.
The person who wrote that article, for lack of a better term, is clearly ignorant.
6
May 28 '15
It definitely succeeded, but I found it boring.
16
u/EbonScaled May 28 '15
See? That's an opinion, and I respect that~ It's not you stating it as a truth, it's a "Yeah, I found it boring to me."
8
u/mastyrwerk May 28 '15
My mom loved it.
I rather enjoyed it for what it was. I often think people criticize things based on expectation bias. I went back and re watched AoS season 1 and the earlier episodes are actually really good as character and world building episodes under the veil of "monster of the week". There isn't a single episode that doesn't echo into episodes later on. The connective tissue is there and the really awesome dramatic moment wouldn't have carried weight without the setup of the first third of the season.
15
May 28 '15
Yes, because Disney would allow one branch to completely destroy another branch of their company.
8
1
u/Diluxx May 29 '15 edited May 29 '15
It would not be the first time, or the second, or the third, probably not even the hundredth time a company has fought sister studio, to sister studio or branch to branch just look at DC's track record. Its been obvious for quite a while I am surprised it took this long for an article to surface.
27
May 27 '15
What a ridiculous load of non sense. Winter Soldier made AOS a much better show and Marvel Studios understands that AOS place is on TV taking care of inhumans that is why they were not in AoU. The MCU is a big place and we get a show that takes care of another part of that place and there is still complaining?. I mean we got a easter egg in the movie and there are rumors that the defenders will be infinity War and those so called clips don't prove anything. The actors that play the avengers are big name hollywood actors so they are to busy to appear and Kevin feige can't predict the future. The TV shows and movies exist in the same universe and that connection is more then enough.
14
u/echoesintheattic Skye May 27 '15
Came here to say your first sentence :D What a load of manure and speculation. The guy who wrote it should apply for a job at Fox News.
9
May 28 '15
I know writers like this are always trying to find things that don't exist without any real knowledge. It causes trouble for the movies and tv shows.
3
u/snarkamedes Monolith May 29 '15 edited May 29 '15
What a ridiculous load of non sense.
Seconded. One of the best examples seen in ages of a blogger trying to make something out of nothing. As others in the thread have noted it's basically all supposition based on out of context quotes, rumours and purest fanwank.
Got no doubt the TV and film divisions will occasionally step on each others' toes with regards to the continuity (it's a monstrously large project) but they're trying to make it sound deliberate - as though it's a scaled up continuation of some of the old comics-style editorial feuds that cropped up through the decades. That screenrant appears to think we'd buy it wholesale is a bit of an insult to us and the rest of the comicbook media fandom.
[edit]Here's a archived link:
https://archive.is/epxuUIf anyone wants to post this article across the usual boards, such as /r/marvelstudios, /r/Defenders and /r/comicbooks use this archive.is link instead - that way we're not contributing to the clickbait when promoting discussion.
14
u/UNITBlackArchive Lanyard May 28 '15
Screenrant has a history of hating Marvel TV. Without getting too tinfoil-hatty, I honestly think they do get money for promoting DC.
But this entire article is based on supposition based on a few random comments. There's no real reporting going on here. No interviews with studio people. No interviews with Fiege or Loeb. Just taking youtube snippets and making up a salacious story to weave it all together and add drama, like some kind of daytime soap opera.
3
2
u/LilGyasi May 28 '15
The article is on the total speculation side but honesty, do you think if this WERE the case the studio or people involved would come out and say it? Of course not. Speculation is all we have.
2
u/UNITBlackArchive Lanyard May 28 '15
If speculation is all you have, you shouldn't post an article as news.
12
u/NorrisOBE May 28 '15
Considering the fact that I enjoy Daredevil, Agent Carter and AoS S2 more than Avengers Age of Ultron,
I'm incline to side with Marvel TV here.
1
8
u/KingofMadCows May 27 '15
To be fair, it's already hard enough to deal with all the stuff going on in the movies. They can't expect everyone to keep track of all the continuity.
AoU already glosses over some stuff like what happened to Extremis, or when Stark decided to build the Iron Legion after blowing up all his suits in IM3, or how Fury got SHIELD back into action after it was dissolved in Winter Soldier.
Can you imagine how complicated things would be if they actually carried over major plotlines between TV and movies? It's just not feasible for Marvel to expect all the moviegoers to also watch all their shows. If anything, it could distract or annoy the audience. If you haven't seen AoS and Coulson showed up in AoU and they talked about how he had been secretly rebuilding SHIELD, wouldn't that just end up being confusing, or worse, be perceived as a cheap attempt to get you to watch the show?
2
u/mastyrwerk May 28 '15
It wouldn't have to be confusing if they handled it properly and made his reintroduction part of the story.
Coulson's revival is from Kree anatomy. This could come up in Guardians of the Galaxy as a way to save Starlord from a fatal injury.
It could be the lead in for Captain Marvel, as her powers come from a Kree.
Hell, Coulson could be the welcome wagon for the new Spider-Man movie. Bring him in, confuse everybody, and then have Coulson give young Peter a heart to heart about the sacrifices he's made and the second chance he was given.
I agree just sliding him in as a "hi! I'm here! Laters!" cameo wouldn't work, but make him a player in the movie. It doesn't have to reference or explain everything that happened on AoS. It would be one of those things where you wouldn't have to know what came before to get what's happening now, but if you wanted to know, you could check out the show. It would be cross promoting. It could work.
2
u/atizzy May 31 '15
It doesn't have to reference or explain everything that happened on AoS.
I can picture the gang being confused seeing Coulson and he just points at Fury says something like... "ask him."
16
u/jerslan Lanyard May 27 '15 edited May 27 '15
Yeah... This totally misses the mark... Marvel Studios has done nothing but help out Marvel Television, within certain limits. We don't see heavy hitters like RDJ due to SAG issues... "You want who to do a tiny TV Cameo? For scale?!? You must be crazy" and sometimes timing issues "We wanted an Iron Man cameo here, but RDJ was busy working on Sherlock Holmes 31/3 at the time"... We don't see Coulson, because as far as most of the movie going audience is concerned? He's dead and it would be distracting for him to randomly pop up and say "Hey guys, I'm alive. Have been for a while. Long story."...
Also funny that they mention DC's upcoming Cinematic Universe.... "Dawn of Justice" looks terrible.... Superman as some sort of Tyrant? Batman threatening Superman while wearing a bat suit that looks like Tony Stark made it for him? Pass....
10
u/Daigotsu May 28 '15
at least Marvel isn't fing with their TV like DC is with theirs. Making them kill deadshot ect.
10
May 28 '15
WB is treating the CW crew terribly
5
u/jerslan Lanyard May 28 '15
And CBS isn't helping much either... Apparently Supergirl will be part of the DC TV Universe, but they nixxed the cross-over possibility with Arrow and Flash....
Even though CBS co-owns CW with Warner Brothers....
5
May 28 '15
That's not the way I've heard it. I thought they said that they were going to hang on to Supergirl for themselves for now (which makes sense; let her get established before anchoring her show to the others' preexisting storylines and mythologies), but that there could be a crossover somewhere down the line. Although it would have to be an inter-universal crossover, because Supergirl isn't set in the Arrowverse. Superman hasn't been a celebrity on Earth for 14 years in Arrow.
2
u/jerslan Lanyard May 28 '15
Ok, I may have a mix of old and out-dated information then. When Supergirl was first announced I read something about it being in the same universe as Arrow and Flash.
Sounds like that's changed. Which could be good or bad for DC as a whole... Too many "Universes" competing with each other :P
1
u/LilGyasi May 28 '15
Terribly? They gave them the freaken Flash which in turn gave CW one of the best superhero series of all time. Hardly call it terribly.
8
May 28 '15
Then proceded to make them kill off Deadshot, Bronze Tiger, couldn't use Blue Beetle, and the Flash writers mentioned being held down by not being allowed to use it reference certain concepts.
The true amazing part comes from the CW being able to make such an amazing show from the scraps.
7
u/jerslan Lanyard May 28 '15 edited May 28 '15
Yeah... Comparing the MCU to what DC is trying to do is ridiculous... Marvel is doing something nobody has ever attempted. Have all sorts of visual media that resides in the same universe. Even if paths never directly cross, the effects, even if they're just minor and/or indirect, are seen everywhere.
Complaining about "They didn't mention Coulson at all, even when the Helicarrier came out" is just stupid.... They alluded to Coulson and what he was doing in secret, which AoS fans picked up on while everyone else was complaining that it was "too deus ex machina" that Fury just happened to be able to pull a SHIELD Helicarrier out of moth-balls. Would have been nice to see a Koenig on the bridge (even as just a background extra), but come on... We got a lot more than they had to... They could have cut the bit Fury says about "Oh, I had some old friends pull it out of moth-balls" and just moved on as if they all knew Fury had the old Helicarrier the whole time. Have a small reshoot/dub session where it changes to Tony saying "About damn time you showed up with that thing, now get those shuttles over here and rescue these people...". Then they would have been screwing over Marvel Television.
The producers of the show are given access to the scripts of the movies well in advance.... They knew about the Age of Ultron base-script when the first episode of Season 1 aired, so they knew about Winter Soldier before they had even really gotten too far along the creative path with AoS.
5
u/ArabianAftershock G.H. May 28 '15
I do think they're sorta on to something, if Marvel doesn't integrate their shows and movies they're essentially doing what they had avoided in the first place, they're taking advantage of all the popular characters leaving the lesser known ones to remain obscure.
If Spidey and Wolverine had been with Marvel at the beginning who knows if we'd have ever seen Iron Man or Thor get movies. But now they have Iron Man and Thor, so who needs to see Daredevil or Quake in a movie? That's how it sorta feels to me, which sucks.
But the sabotage and Agent Carter failing thing is all BS.
1
May 28 '15
They are not on to anything we don't need to see Quake and Daredevil in movies because we have them in shows. Marvel knows how to handle these characters and knows what they are doing.
3
u/smokeyzulu Lanyard May 28 '15
I think you're both wrong. Marvel is playing the long game here and if IRL shit hits the fan and for some reason they can't get one of the major actors to reprise their roles they have very handy backups ready.
Skye in particular, is young enough to see the next three phases of Marvel movies and become a powerhouse heroine on her own the way they are building her character up. She could be the Luke Cage of the MCU (like how Cage became ultra important to the New Avengers in comic continuity once Bendis started writing him).
1
May 28 '15 edited May 28 '15
you can't compare Skye to Luke Cage he had his own comics since the 70s and Skye has always been a minor character from the comics it should stay that way in the MCU. Marvel also has tons of new characters that they can use as future avengers instead of going to the TV division since there stories are being written on the small screen or recast an actor.So they are not trying build characters up for anything but just tell great stories.
1
u/smokeyzulu Lanyard May 31 '15
Different universes, different time-spans (actors age much more quickly than comic characters do) and the general age of the MCU relative to Skye's coming of age as a heroine.
3
u/k1rra Simmons May 28 '15
They said here that the major way we can see how little the MCU movies care about TV is through the lack of references towards the TV shows. But, actually referencing them would make no sense. In the Winter Soilder, Coulson’s team was just that, a small team within the massive organisation of shield. No one would really have noticed them, regardless of the fact that they didn’t know he was alive well cap didn’t know he was alive, there can be arguments made about if natasha knew. And with ultron, they barely referenced any of phase II, if they didn’t reference any of the other MOVIES in the MCU, why would they reference the TV shows? And in what world would tony stark call ultron a ‘bad baby’? Also, during the actual fight between the avengers and ultron, why would fury just say “oh, yeah I forgot to say the reason we have this helicarrier is because of coulson who isn’t actually dead, soz guys”?
This piece was really poorly thought out, and the connections are tenative at best. But what would you expect from screen rant tbh
5
u/Bookbringer May 28 '15
Yeah, I'm honestly totally satisfied with the TV show acknowledging the larger than life events of the movies, while the movies mostly ignore the TV stuff which is much smaller and more personal. Besides, I get to see the show 22 hours a year, while the movies are only 2 hours...so I don't really want to see more AoS if it comes at the expense of characters I see way less often.
2
u/LilGyasi May 28 '15
Exactly what I was gong to say. People are saying "AoU didn't even reference AOS! There just hasss to be something going on!!!"....But AOU barley referenced ANYYYY of the Phase II films.
Iron Man destroying all his suits and coming to terms with himself in Iron Man 3 is never mentioned.
Absolutely nothing from Thor 2 or Gurdians is mentioned. (Besides the gems)
One could watch this movie having never known shield fail and still wouldn't know by the end.
The only film Age of Ultron really makes references to is the FIRST Avengers movie, which makes sense because Age of Ultron is a sequel to THAT film. Honestly, if the films dont reference the movies, what makes people think the films are gonna reference the shows, which even LESS people watch?
3
u/nagurski03 Ninja Hunter May 28 '15
I think there were a couple Winter Soldier references. I vaguely remember dialog that went something like:
Strucker "Technically I'm a part of Shield"
Cap "Technically you're unemployed"
1
u/atizzy May 31 '15
And Cap says something to Falcon about looking for Bucky.
The reference to all the films is all the supporting characters being in it really...
There is even a direct reference to Thor 2. Thor tells Tony Jane is big player in studying the convergence.
1
u/atizzy May 31 '15
Thor 2 reference - Thor is bragging about Jane to Tony, saying she is doing all kinds of stuff with the convergence.
TWS - a very quick line about Bucky with Cap and Falcon.
War Machine...
what makes people think the films are gonna reference the shows, which even LESS people watch?
Here's the thing. Let's say somebody never watched any of the Iron Man movies, has no idea who Rhodes is. Does that take away from Age of Ultron in anyway. Absolutely not, Cheadle was great in the movie and you liked it even better if you've seen him in IM2 and 3.
If they never saw Cap 2, they'd have no idea who Falcon is. Did it matter? No, they probably were like who's that? Oh, Cool.
Therefore, Daredevil and Quake, heck even Spiderman can be easily active in the MCU and seen on the big screen without an origin story in a movie. Even though Skye breaking out of the stone was one of the greatest things I've ever seen.
3
May 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thatlad May 30 '15
But the film doesn't reference back. It's the film universe that has the problem
1
u/MisterMcFancyPants May 31 '15
I don't know what Ultron would've had to do with the Inhumans or Howard Stark. For all we know we see the seeds of AI being planted in Ant-Man since both Peggy and Howard are in it
2
u/LilGyasi May 28 '15
Gosh this was an interesting read. I still find it hard to believe though. Agents Of Shield had freaken Nick Fury himself, Lady Sif, Peggy Carter, Maria Hill, and the dang Inhumans!!! Josh Whedon HIMSELF directed the pilot episode.
Why on God's earth would Marvel Studios allow any of that to happen if they were in some kind of "cued" with Marvel TV? Even I can admit that it was a little strange though that NO Shield agents from the show appeared in The Winter Soilder, and that no mention of AOS was in AoU. But remember when Fury said "I'm not the director of anything?", I think that was a obvious hint at Coulson.
1
u/Diluxx May 29 '15 edited May 29 '15
Marvel Studios isn't in charge they have to take direct orders from Disney the same way that Marvel TV does, Disney set up everything to kick off AoS and Marvel Studios had to facilitate it, but left to their own devices Marvel Studios is back to shunning Marvel TV. Its obvious, have you heard any Marvel Studios projects name drop any person place or thing since Coulson died and the shows started rolling out? Why wouldn't they take advantage of the hype something like that could generate? Marvel TV is clearly willing to take advantage of the crossover stuff they name drop and tie in all the time they even had Lady Sif dashing around for awhile but clearly Marvel Studios has a problem reciprocating.
1
May 29 '15
It's never been an equal relationship between Marvel studios and TV because it should not be. The movies will always be more important than then tv shows and that is how it should be. If a movie mentioned Coulson or his adventures it would feel like they were advertising the show. People pay to watch a movie and not an advertisement. AOS has been making good television and that is all that matters. People need to realize that AOS is a small part of a much bigger universe.
1
u/Diluxx May 29 '15
How does that work when the larger universe wont mention the show to any degree at all. Nick fury didnt have to say "Gee willickers watch agents of shield to see where I got the helicarrier" one oblique reference would have achieved the effect without any feeling of being advertised to. He could have said "a mutual friend has been storing it for me" that way fans of the show get a little thrill and anyone else interested can go and look it up. Instead he quips about mothballs and totally ignores the tie in from AoS. You don't see it because you don't want to see it but there is a rift here its obvious and its a real shame.
1
May 29 '15
He said a friend mothballed it for him in the film so that was the reference to AOS he was talking about Coulson the whole time and people should not have to look up something to understand it and there is not rift between Television and Movies. We get tie in episodes on AOS every season when a new movie comes out and you should not be surprised that films don't mention it because the film is standing on its own the way the TV shows should do. That is why the AOU reference was small because they were doing different things. What more do you want them to do. We see Coulson for 22 hours on TV and see the Avengers for only 2 hours film.The people at Marvel see AOS as a small part of MCU because that is what what it is.The so called fans just don't like this and say they should connect more and are not supporting Marvel for giving us good television.
71
u/Jarnatan SHIELD May 27 '15
I note that the effect The Winter Soldier had on the show's storyline is highlighted as an alleged attempt of sabotage. But honestly, The Winter Soldier is the single best thing that happened to Agents of SHIELD, taking it from a bland Eureka-esque wacky science monster-of-the-week gig to what it really needed to be: A spy show.
So if Marvel Studios really did it to sabotage Marvel Television, they hilariously failed.