Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: To Kill a Mockingbird

[RumHam]

4 hours ago, protar said:

Well okay, but is Tony just sitting about doing nothing? The connectivity issue goes beyond just Agents of Shield.

I actually don't have a problem with this one. Originally someone at Marvel said Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier overlapped, and that's why they couldn't help each other. I think they had to back away from that a bit because of Shane Black's love of setting his movies at christmas time. But if we assume Winter Soldier takes place right after Iron Man 3, Tony has no armor because he just blew it all up.

As far as I remember they never really explain why he did a 180 and built more armor and a whole new Iron Legion. But I'd bet it was the fall of Shield that brought that on. 

As for why Hulk is never called in to help, he's probably more trouble than he's worth. Especially if this is before they figured out that Black Widow lullaby thing. 

[Bastard of Boston]

7 hours ago, protar said:

So now my big question is - how sincere have Ward's actions been? I know sleeper agents are a thing in real life, and it is feasible that he's been completely lying about his friendship with the others this whole time. But narratively that poses a problem. Because the whole reason you spend time with characters is to get to know them. If there has been no sincerity to Ward's actions throughout the whole season, that's a bit of a narrative cheat imo. It wipes the slate clean for the character in a way I think is a bit cheap. So interested to see what direction that goes in. Fingers crossed for some conflicted loyalties.

Oops.

[protar]

I wasn't actually asking for spoilers ya know, I was just musing. I mean I know this isn't my thread so I can't stop you talking about events I haven't seen yet, but I'd rather you didn't direct spoilers at me. So it would be nice if you deleted or spoiler tagged that.

[The BlackBear]

3 hours ago, RumHam said:

But if we assume Winter Soldier takes place right after Iron Man 3, Tony has no armor because he just blew it all up.

As far as I remember they never really explain why he did a 180 and built more armor and a whole new Iron Legion. But I'd bet it was the fall of Shield that brought that on. 

The idea with him blowing the armour up was to get rid of his dependence on it. Building armour had become a vice, he was always going to build more, but building with a purpose not just to take his mind off his PTSD.

As for the general: 'why aren't x helping here' thing, I just don't think about it. It's not like you question why Batman is always going after his villains by himself in the comics. It's all just part of the suspension of disbelief contract you've entered into when you started watching/reading the piece.

[RumHam]

14 minutes ago, The BlackBear said:

The idea with him blowing the armour up was to get rid of his dependence on it. Building armour had become a vice, he was always going to build more, but building with a purpose not just to take his mind off his PTSD.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but that didn't really come across clearly to me. I seem to recall it seemed like he was retiring to be with Pepper (even though we knew he wasn't, because of Avengers 2. I figured his return to being Iron Man would be more of a plot point than it ended up being.) He even had the reactor thing taken out of his chest.

In any event that seems like a really wasteful symbolic gesture! Especially considering all the rare elements involved in making the suits and reactors. 

[Jon AS]

17 minutes ago, RumHam said:

It's been a while since I've seen it, but that didn't really come across clearly to me. I seem to recall it seemed like he was retiring to be with Pepper (even though we knew he wasn't, because of Avengers 2. I figured his return to being Iron Man would be more of a plot point than it ended up being.) He even had the reactor thing taken out of his chest.

In any event that seems like a really wasteful symbolic gesture! Especially considering all the rare elements involved in making the suits and reactors. 

Tony Stark doing something wasteful and overly showy? I'd say that's not entirely out of character.

The last scene of the movie shows him salvaging stuff from his old workshop, including a shot of him looking intently at a screwdriver (symbolism!). The scene finishes with the last line in his voice over narration in the film: "The one thing you can't take away... I am Iron Man."

I think the implication that, while he may have turned over a new leaf in some ways, he's far from done with his superhero persona is pretty clear.

[RumHam]

23 minutes ago, Jon AS said:

Tony Stark doing something wasteful and overly showy? I'd say that's not entirely out of character.

The last scene of the movie shows him salvaging stuff from his old workshop, including a shot of him looking intently at a screwdriver (symbolism!). The scene finishes with the last line in his voice over narration in the film: "The one thing you can't take away... I am Iron Man."

I think the implication that, while he may have turned over a new leaf in some ways, he's far from done with his superhero persona is pretty clear.

Right, as I said they were never trying to fool the audience into thinking he wouldn't be back. We already knew he'd be in Avengers 2. I just figured he'd be drawn back in during that first act of that movie, rather than off screen in between. 

Anyway even if he got back to work immediately building suits and the Iron Legion, I still think the destruction of the suits at the end of Iron Man 3 works as an excuse for Captain America not calling him during Winter Soldier. Provided Cap was aware of it and not too much time had passed. 

Now why Hawkeye wasn't in Winter Soldier is still anyone's guess. 

[Bastard of Boston]

2 hours ago, protar said:

I wasn't actually asking for spoilers ya know, I was just musing. I mean I know this isn't my thread so I can't stop you talking about events I haven't seen yet, but I'd rather you didn't direct spoilers at me. So it would be nice if you deleted or spoiler tagged that.

My bad, I assumed you didn't care since you've been following the goings on while not watching.

[protar]

10 hours ago, Bastard of Boston said:

My bad, I assumed you didn't care since you've been following the goings on while not watching.

From this point I'd rather remain unspoiled where I can. There's still a lot I didn't know. For example I had a vague memory of May doing something fishy, but I had no idea if she was HYDRA or a red herring. I knew Deathlok existed but I had no idea where his character was/is going. etc. etc. No worries though.

[Leofric]

17 hours ago, RumHam said:

Now why Hawkeye wasn't in Winter Soldier is still anyone's guess. 

They answered that in Age of Ultron,  he was back on the farm doing remodeling and knocking up his wife.

[RumHam]

25 minutes ago, Leofric said:

They answered that in Age of Ultron,  he was back on the farm doing remodeling and knocking up his wife.

Oh yeah how could I forget! I guess it makes sense that when shit hits the fan the guy who fights with the bow and arrow isn't the first one they call. 

[protar]

I finished the first season, it was an enjoyable finale. General thoughts:

• I'm happy with where they're taking Ward. He clearly is conflicted here, and they toned down the evil smirking in this episode.
• I'm very sad to see Garret go. He was a very compelling and charismatic villain. His anti-climactic end was very funny though.
• No idea what the symbols Garret and Coulson are writing are, so that's one area where I'm in the dark Presumably Inhuman related.
• Speaking of which really looking forward to the Inhuman stuff. Don't know if that's season 2 or 3. And don't necessarily mind a spoiler on that particular question. 

[lmanion]

Bit of both mainly s2 figuring out what the writing is. Show keeps getting better really starts on an upward curve from the episode turn turn turn near the end of s1

[Jon AS]

5 hours ago, protar said:

I'm very sad to see Garret go. He was a very compelling and charismatic villain. His anti-climactic end was very funny though.

Isn't that the scene where Coulson shoots Garret, delivers a one-liner and walks away without giving a crap about the recently murdered person lying right at his feet?

Not that Coulson not caring about anyone but his most immediate entourage is entirely out of character...

5 hours ago, protar said:

• Speaking of which really looking forward to the Inhuman stuff. Don't know if that's season 2 or 3. And don't necessarily mind a spoiler on that particular question. 

It basically starts immediately with season 2 (though it only properly kicks into higher gear in the second half) and is still ongoing.

[Martini Sigil]

I always took for granted that the reason why other superheroes aren't involved in every storyline, is that there off doing some other superhero shit. As it pertains to AoS ... post Winter Soldier, the Avengers --and Cap in particular-- are under the impression that Shield is over and done... Now that Fury has dragged the old Helacarrier out of mothballs.... I think maybe we'll get some mentions/acknowledgement of one another's existence here & there

[protar]

I've been watching Season 2 at a slower pace than Season 1. But I'd say I'm enjoying it more. Glad they made the shift to one continuous story rather than the rather uninspired monster of the week format. Whitehall doesn't really hold a candle to Garret in terms of being an interesting villain, but Skye's dad is already shaping up to be a crazy and interesting bad guy. Talbot as well, though in a different sense. I like Talbot's character because he's an antagonist who isn't evil. He has every reason to distrust SHIELD.

I'm really liking Fitz' story this season. I certainly don't know what it's like to have brain damage, but I relate to Fitz a lot. He has a lot of anxiety and awkwardness in social interactions, and unrequited love is basically the story of my life  Despite his disability, and his non-action guy status the show never belittles him, or reduces him to being a dead weight. Quite the opposite.

I met Bobbi as well. I've heard she has a lot of importance going forward, but didn't actually know what she looked like, so her being introduced to us as a HYDRA mole was actually a fun twist for me. Hasn't made a huge impression yet, but she seems cool enough.

[Jon AS]

2 hours ago, protar said:

I like Talbot's character because he's an antagonist who isn't evil. He has every reason to distrust SHIELD.

Sadly, one of the big things the show has been continuously dodging since its first episode is an examination of the moral and ethical issues connected with SHIELD. It was bad in season one when Coulson kidnapped people, dragged them halfway around the world then dropped them off in a foreign country without money, passport or the ability to use electronic devices. Or when he threatened to murder someone as soon as he was in a position to get away with it. By season two this has been taken up to another level, as Coulson and friends are now operating without any legal oversight, so they're kidnapping, imprisoning and murdering people based on Coulson's whims.

Talbot really should be the hero of this story...

[protar]

On 07/02/2016 at 4:00 PM, Jon AS said:

Sadly, one of the big things the show has been continuously dodging since its first episode is an examination of the moral and ethical issues connected with SHIELD. It was bad in season one when Coulson kidnapped people, dragged them halfway around the world then dropped them off in a foreign country without money, passport or the ability to use electronic devices. Or when he threatened to murder someone as soon as he was in a position to get away with it. By season two this has been taken up to another level, as Coulson and friends are now operating without any legal oversight, so they're kidnapping, imprisoning and murdering people based on Coulson's whims.

Talbot really should be the hero of this story...

I mean to an extent the vigilantism question is inherent to superhero stories. But I agree, SHIELD has done some pretty morally ambiguous things and I'm not sure if the show deliberately makes Talbot sympathetic enough for me to consider those actions to be explored and challenged.

Anyway, I finished the Terrigenesis episode, so from here on out I am largely unspoiled. It was pretty good, probably would have been more suspenseful if I'd gone in completely blind. Tripp's death was confirmed, couldn't quite remember if I came across that spoiler before, but he never made a huge impression on me anyway. Same goes for Hunter and Morse honestly. They're decent characters, but they don't exactly grab me as fan favourites. I'm not seeing Bobbi carrying her own show just yet. I am liking Mack though. At first he was just an accessory to Fitz - but even then I liked him a lot just because it was nice seeing Fitz bond with someone, someone who accepted him. Then he got the beginnings of an arc - challenging Coulson's authority and worrying about his stability. I'm hoping that hasn't been dropped.

I have to say that one of this show's strengths is in its villains. GarreTt in season 1 was hugely enjoyable and now Ward, Skye's Father, Raina and Whitehall (though he's just died) make a very compelling villain ensemble. Plus Agent 33 has the beginnings of being an interesting character. It just struck me in this episode, because they were all there in the HYDRA compound, and none of the villains had fully aligned goals. I love shifting allegiances, good guys teaming up with bad guys, bad guys with different agendas teaming up etc. and the show is delivering. 

[The BlackBear]

Absorbing man will be back. http://screenrant.com/agents-of-shield-absorbing-man-season-3-midseason-premiere/

They're doing Secret Warroirs and have Slingshot coming in. Creel in the original is the father to a Secret Warror: Stonewall. He's not been cast so it seems unlikely, but it'd still be nice to see it nodded at.

[Jon AS]

On 12.2.2016 at 11:02 PM, protar said:

I mean to an extent the vigilantism question is inherent to superhero stories. But I agree, SHIELD has done some pretty morally ambiguous things and I'm not sure if the show deliberately makes Talbot sympathetic enough for me to consider those actions to be explored and challenged.

The thing is that SHIELD originally was an agency operating under some kind of government oversight. Even then Coulson did shitty things, but the show's blanket excuse was that he had the sanction of various governments. When they transitioned into the post-Winter Soldier world, they didn't change anything about the way they operate, only now the team is supposed to also be showing up the people who are actually tasked with doing the job SHIELD was created to do in the first place. People like Talbot. And no, I don't think the show aims to explore and challenge this at all, we're supposed to root for Coulson, not question whether he should be doing this job in the first place.