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

MargeS

What's the chances this will get blocked on the Sky service as it's been broadcast on channel 4 tonight?

pixelburp

Bacchus wrote: »

He's got a bit of a cult following from the fans over the course of the movies.

With regards to the comments saying it looked cheap or dated compared to the rest of TV, I wonder is it just that it is a very bright, chirpy show that it gives that impression? Take a few recent critically acclaimed shows, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Mad Men. They all have varying levels of dark themes and gritty realism. [...]

No, it's not about gritty realism at all, it's about the fact the direction, lighting, cinematography from the pilot was all quite bland and lacking any of the cinematic flourishes you see with modern TV drama. It's not all about the Breaking Bads of this world or their tone; most marquee shows go out of their way to be as slick with presentation as any Hollywood production - just look at a lot of HBOs output for an example. This isn't about being gritty but the realisation that TV has to / want to compete with middle-tier cinematic productions and get away from looking like ... well, a mere television show.

Agents of SHIELD looked like a 90s throwback because it seemed to ignore most of the evolution that has taken place in television over the last few years; it's not just about content or the tone of these shows - the base production values has increased such that even the most modest of shows can look cinematic. My favourite genre TV show is Doctor Who; as bright and chirpy as things get, yet the cinematography is so impressive & the direction so slick that it puts Agents to SHIELD to shame. And all on a budget that's likely a fraction of the Marvel production.

Pepe LeFrits

I thought it was pretty poor. It looked cheap, the story involving the hooded man and his kid was humdrum, and the cast bar Coulson were bland; too shiny and pretty, too one-dimensional.

When you've got a big screen budget to pull off the over the top comic book stuff, it can work. This doesn't. It reminded me of Mutant X more than anything else.

Chloe Bennet is ridiculously lovely looking, though.

FreudianSlippers

pixelburp wrote: »

Dismissing the critics? that's a bit unfair; I think it's reasonable to ask questions of Whedon; this thread shouldn't be the reserve of Whedonites only (especially as he's not writing most of the scripts iirc), and it's fair to discuss his writing styles & why he seems to fill his casts with the same umbrella-group of archetypes. It's not simply a case of not liking Whedon - clearly the man does a good line in snarky characters that can add zest to scripts - but just for once I'd like to see him try something new, move out of his comfort zone a little. Of course, it'd be completely silly to dismiss a show based on its pilot, but maybe that was one of my problems with this episode - it felt like cookie-cutter Whedon, like he wasn't even trying; maybe that's enough for some, but I was disappointed.

That's not what I was saying really. I'm saying that people who actively don't like Whedon were never going going to like the show. He was very limited in films, if you felt you would like he show because you liked Whedon's film, it is likely that you won't like the show.

AlphaMull

Can any of you folks who have seen it tell me if its suitable viewing for a 10 year old who has seen all the Marvel movies?

It's Marvel so surely it's fine. Just a slight concern as it's being broadcast after 9 PM.
Thanks!

ScumLord

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Chloe Bennet is ridiculously lovely looking, though.

Most hackers are good looking athletic women.

AlphaMull wrote: »

Can any of you folks who have seen it tell me if its suitable viewing for a 10 year old who has seen all the Marvel movies?

It's Marvel so surely it's fine. Just a slight concern as it's being broadcast after 9 PM.
Thanks!

I don't remember any violence.

SherlockWatson

ScumLord wrote: »

Most hackers are good looking athletic women.

I don't remember any violence.

Yeah I'd say its as safe as houses anyway, nothing shown at all really.

stiffler123

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not what I was saying really. I'm saying that people who actively don't like Whedon were never going going to like the show. He was very limited in films, if you felt you would like he show because you liked Whedon's film, it is likely that you won't like the show.

I liked Buffy, Avengers movie and Angel etc but the pilot for Agents of Shield was pretty bog average. Dollhouse was crap too. Not everything the guy touches turns into gold.

pixelburp

AlphaMull wrote: »

Can any of you folks who have seen it tell me if its suitable viewing for a 10 year old who has seen all the Marvel movies?

It's Marvel so surely it's fine. Just a slight concern as it's being broadcast after 9 PM.
Thanks!

There was one moment with a close-up of a charred, burnt corpse (it was in the foreground of the picture while the cast played out the scene behind it) so I dunno whether that counts in terms of no-nos for your kid; otherwise it was all quite PG and safe

wampyrus77

rte and channel 4 are i dont care for netfilx because its too much money on top other bills ive pay

James74

There is also a scene near the start were the new agent dishes out a bit of a hammering to a few baddies. It's a bit Bourne-lite, but there is a very quick bit where he kick a guy a few times which my nine year old daughter thought was "too sore".

The biggest problem she had with it though was the lack of superheroiness. She's a mad Marvel movie fan, and this just wasn't enough "like those". I did warn her before we watched that Ironman and Black Widow wouldn't be in this, but unlike most here she loved the

hover car

.

Patty O Furniture

AlphaMull wrote: »

Can any of you folks who have seen it tell me if its suitable viewing for a 10 year old who has seen all the Marvel movies?

It's Marvel so surely it's fine. Just a slight concern as it's being broadcast after 9 PM.
Thanks!

You should be ok, as this is the time & its broadcast before the watershed & i assume its aiming at the whole family to sit down and watch it.

Time - 20:00 to 21:00 (1 hour long).
When - Friday 27th September on Channel 4

Also its the same time on RTE2 on Sun@8pm

RobbingBandit

Still scratching my head about Agent Coulson,that background story better be interesting. Tahiti... Ha!

Pepe LeFrits

ScumLord wrote: »

Most hackers are good looking athletic women.

That's how I picture it when I hear about Anonymous anyway.

Forgot to mention, but :rolleyes: at the pointless include of the woman in her bra at the start.

wampyrus77

i know one puzzles me since coulson is coming back from the dead how come he isnt zombie

brennan1979

Won't be back for Episode 2.

wampyrus77

wampyrus77 wrote: »

rte and channel 4 are i dont care for netfilx because its too much money on top other bills ive pay

I thought that you had gold bullion that paid so much interest you could live off it?

wampyrus77 wrote: »

i know one puzzles me since coulson is coming back from the dead how come he isnt zombie

Are you serious or simply trying to troll the thread?

Mitch Connor

Enjoyed as a light kids show.

Only the pilot, so will be interesting to see if later filmed episodes will get a bump in production values.

wampyrus77

ok going give a break from wind waker for to watch Agents Of Shield i need an hour free to recharge gamepad because i dont the money to afford the battery and game yet

Cookiemunster

It was alright. Nothing special. I'll give it a few eps to see does it get better.

Dman001

Meh, thought it was quite average, what I was expecting from Network television really. I was hoping though that we would see something "special" seeing as Whedon was involved. The set looked quite cheap, the script wasn't great in places and could be very cheesy at times. I know it's TV, so I wasn't expecting a movie-type set with huge budgets. But I was expecting a bit more than that. They also seem to be veering towards a "Superhero of the week" type set up, which I can't stand. I feel it gets old and boring after a while.

That said, The Avengers were always a bit of fun - it was never the gritty atmosphere that Batman brought. The show was a but of fun, and didn't take itself too serious. I really respect what they are doing too, bridging the gap between cinema and TV.

wampyrus77

yes the avengers was good, but shield shouldnt they didnt formed the avengers, Captain American, Ironman and thor with help from spiderman and hulk formed the avengers in comics and avengers and shield are enemies in comics even so they are on same side

Kess73

Wondering if Coulson is a LMD. The bit near the start where Hill and the Doctor are talking about him made me think that.



Edit: Just looked back through the thread and seems someone else had the same idea.

Patty O Furniture

Will Agent Hill appear in further ep or only the pilot?

evilivor

The kid from The Fades was really annoying in this.

Optimus Prime

Kess73 wrote: »

Wondering if Coulson is a LMD. The bit near the start where Hill and the Doctor are talking about him made me think that.



Edit: Just looked back through the thread and seems someone else had the same idea.

Im still going with Cyborg, heard a rumour he is someone called Vision, but i dunno who that is.

Im sticking with my cyborg theory, my wife was watching it last night and when the doors are pushed off the van by the bad guy when he has skye, everyone ends up on the ground except coulson he does this Matrix style dodge of the van door, its blink and you miss it but he clearly bends backwards with Neo fast reflexes to avoid it.

flazio

I thought it was great fun, and that's what passes for entertainment with me, fun.
I understand why some people are wishing it had a grittier undertone (e.g. Dollhouse's prostitution) but sadly TV execs aren't fans of pre watershed grit, hence the many axings of great series before time. Netflix and the like are now showing this up but in the mean time the Network television scope hasn't changed much.
It's one episodes, there's more to come. I'm on board.

wampyrus77

they cant do that to vision because vision isnt cyborg he is android with soul of wonderman inside him only reason he goodie because he has soul of wonderman inside him without the soul of wonderman he still servant for Ultron. when wonderman and nearly died from ultron attack and then Ant-Man transfer his soul to android vision to persevere him, someday Ant-Man will return wonderman to natural body until then his soul stays inside android vision, and there's difference between android and cyborg.

wampyrus77

wampyrus77 wrote: »

they cant do that to vision because vision isnt cyborg he is android with soul of wonderman inside him only reason he goodie because he has soul of wonderman inside him without the soul of wonderman he still servant for Ultron. when wonderman and nearly died from ultron attack and then Ant-Man transfer his soul to android vision to persevere him, someday Ant-Man will return wonderman to natural body until then his soul stays inside android vision, and there's difference between android and cyborg.

Oh sweet Jesus. Look it's an adaptation and as such one hopes that the writers will do something a little more than simply slavishly work off existing stories. The most boring adaptations are ones like Sin City which feels little more like a live action motion comic

conorhal

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Enjoyed as a light kids show.

Only the pilot, so will be interesting to see if later filmed episodes will get a bump in production values.

I think that's crystalized my view of it, it's a live action saturday morning cartoon.
That said, I can't quite write it off after one episode, I thought Hannibal was a pretty awful 'Criminal Minds- Baltimore with a serial killer of the week' format, but it improved greatly as it went along.