Agents of Shield


Television

1,351 to 1,400 of 4,975 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>

I am inclined to believe that the blue guy was a Kree, if only because it makes a good GoTG tie in.


Also I am not sure if we can take Sif's word on aliens not visiting Earth. The Asgardians had no clue who or what the Chitauri were or allied to, and I got from that conversation that alien visitation of any sort was rare/unheard of. However, Peter Quill and Rocket Raccoon both show this to not exactly be the case.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
I am inclined to believe that the blue guy was a Kree, if only because it makes a good GoTG tie in.

That's not a good thing, especially since I'm fairly sure the movie is going to be a failure on the scale of the Green Lantern movie, both in terms of critical reception and at the box office.

I really question what was on Marvel's minds when they chose to green light t his project. Captain America and the Avengers are characters with broad appeal. The Guardians of the Galaxy in it's recent incarnations, are a group that only comic nerds can love. The only thing that might save it is that they might be hoping that Karen Gillan's casting may bring the Dr. Who crowd in.


Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Is anyone going to bring up the fact that Colsons crusaders went and murderhobo'd two shield guards doing their job (and probably on colsons orders at that) just to save one shield agent?

It was also to find out some more about the Colson resurrection mystery.

You mean prying into classified documents? Doesn't shield normally arrest people for that sort of thing?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Is anyone going to bring up the fact that Colsons crusaders went and murderhobo'd two shield guards doing their job (and probably on colsons orders at that) just to save one shield agent?

It was also to find out some more about the Colson resurrection mystery.
You mean prying into classified documents? Doesn't shield normally arrest people for that sort of thing?

There should have been an investigation of some sort - even if that "fell apart" due to HYDRA awakening.

Also, I notice that Fury did not seem too upset that Colson murdered either two S.H.I.E.L.D. agents or Fury's own men. (That is a pretty major flaw - even for us violence tolerant Americans.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I am inclined to believe that the blue guy was a Kree, if only because it makes a good GoTG tie in.

That's not a good thing, especially since I'm fairly sure the movie is going to be a failure on the scale of the Green Lantern movie, both in terms of critical reception and at the box office.

I really question what was on Marvel's minds when they chose to green light this project. Captain America and the Avengers are characters with broad appeal. The Guardians of the Galaxy in it's recent incarnations, are a group that only comic nerds can love. The only thing that might save it is that they might be hoping that Karen Gillan's casting may bring the Dr. Who crowd in.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that assessment. Despite the fact Green Lantern was utterly unmatchable in its failure, GotG has gotten mostly positive reaction thus far, greater than any GL had in advance.

Karen Gillan, while I'm a fan of her generally, is a footnote compared to the overall appeal of the film. James Gunn is an inspired choice to direct and perfect for it given his past superhero films and the fact he was already knowledgeable about the characters involved.
People unfamiliar with the GotG comics are anticipating it as a new standard of space-fi that could meet the standards of the original Star Wars films.
Yeah, it's the riskiest of Marvel Cinematic Universe films thus far, no question. But their foundation is solid and GotG would have to be Howard the Duck to do as bad as Green Lantern did.

Incidentally : New Trailer!

Cthulhudrew wrote:

In re: Skye and her "monstrous" parents, and her connection with Raina's mysterious employer.

There has been a lot of speculation in the past that she may be Jessica Drew (aka, Spider-Woman). In the comics, Jessica was raised by her father on Wundagore Mountain. Her father was the partner of a brilliant geneticist, Herbert Edgar Wyndham- aka, the High Evolutionary.

The High Evolutionary, as one might naturally assume, was obsessed with evolution of species (Raina seems to be enthralled by this concept), and his servitors were evolved animals known as the New-Men; and bipedal animals would naturally appear monstrous to normal people.

So, this might all be further support of the Jessica Drew theory.

Eh... I really don't think they'll do that. For one thing what they've provided doesn't track for it if her "parents" were "monsters."

For another, Johnathan Drew was just human and working to save his daughter's life from radiation poisoning. It's not unusual for canon to be dramatically re-written to fit what ever goal they have in mind, (Jessica Drew in the Ultimate universe is a clone, for example) but I think Skye as Jessica Drew doesn't really work.
Wundagore Mountain certainly offers other credible possibilities, but from what the story has laid out so far alone it also is not a solid match. Raina (who has no other "mysterious employer" other than Garret) has insinuated that Skye's origins could put her in China with the "monsters" as a child. Wundagore is in eastern Europe.

Still, not entirely impossible, just not likely.
And I think, if they are trying to build her into an Avengers character, I may be disappointed anyway. I don't really want to see Skye become any character we know a lot about. I'd prefer she be her own thing that they wrote specific for her, with a foundation in existing canon.
Don't get me wrong; Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, Wasp, etc... I want to see them done in the MCU.
I just don't want to see Skye made to "fit in" to any of them.
I believe the story will be more satisfying if they don't attempt to force fan-service and just give us something we can be a fan of instead.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

SeeDarkly_X wrote:
I believe the story will be more satisfying if they don't attempt to force fan-service and just give us something we can be a fan of instead.

Of course, if they want to add more fanservice, who are we to stop them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I really question what was on Marvel's minds when they chose to green light t his project. Captain America and the Avengers are characters with broad appeal. The Guardians of the Galaxy in it's recent incarnations, are a group that only comic nerds can love. The only thing that might save it is that they might be hoping that Karen Gillan's casting may bring the Dr. Who crowd in.

I have at least one friend who hasn't read comics in years, doesn't watch Dr. Who, and was entirely unfamiliar with the Guardians of the Galaxy comic, but the trailer alone got him to go hunt down a bunch of their recent run to read.

I have no idea how it will do, honestly. But if it is a good movie - as all the Marvel in-house movies have been, thus far - I wouldn't be surprised if word of mouth spreads and gets it a decent showing. The Marvel movies have worked well because they are polished films that blend humor, action and solid casting, and this seems well-suited to do the same. Green Lantern didn't fail because of space battles, it failed because it was a bad movie whose production and promotion was a mess.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Also, I notice that Fury did not seem too upset that Colson murdered either two S.H.I.E.L.D. agents or Fury's own men. (That is a pretty major flaw - even for us violence tolerant Americans.)

You know, I was one of those most bothered by how things played out in Coulson's raid on the Guest House. But the revelations that emerged in the later half the season helped alleviate how much the team could be blamed, at least for me. Remember that it was Garrett and Ward who actually did the killing of those Agents. That changed my perspective on that scene quite a bit.

Now, Coulson definitely earned more than a few marks for incompetence in letting that come to pass (not to mention letting himself get manipulated into the assault in the first place, and blindly bringing along the big enemy with him.)

The Exchange

Lord Fyre wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Is anyone going to bring up the fact that Colsons crusaders went and murderhobo'd two shield guards doing their job (and probably on colsons orders at that) just to save one shield agent?

It was also to find out some more about the Colson resurrection mystery.
You mean prying into classified documents? Doesn't shield normally arrest people for that sort of thing?

There should have been an investigation of some sort - even if that "fell apart" due to HYDRA awakening.

Also, I notice that Fury did not seem too upset that Colson murdered either two S.H.I.E.L.D. agents or Fury's own men. (That is a pretty major flaw - even for us violence tolerant Americans.)

On the flip side of that, Colson seemed to have forgotten how mad he was at Fury for the TAHITI project. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the season finale did a bad job with the various tensions that were building throughout the season.

As for the "prying into secret information part"... SHIELD are not a group of paladins. During this season most agents were, at some point, being very hostile towards other agents. I'm sure Fury of all people can understand that the way he structured his organization, and the way he encourages his underlings to think, will sometimes result in them doing things like breaking into bases and stealing classified information. He's sure not going to give Colson too much trouble for that, given the hectic nature of those last few days of SHIELD. Also, Colson is the only hope to restore SHIELD. So I feel pretty sure Fury will let this one slide.


Lord Snow wrote:
On the flip side of that, Colson seemed to have forgotten how mad he was at Fury for the TAHITI project. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the season finale did a bad job with the various tensions that were building throughout the season.

Coulson's flip-flopping on how he felt about Fury was definitely a weak part of the second half of the season, especially the point at which he was desperately believing in Fury above all others, while simultaneously being enraged at May for following Fury's orders.

But the final resolution of it seemed fine, at least in light of what had happened to SHIELD. Fury's explanation of, "I brought you back because you were one of the only people I could trust" carries a lot more weight when betrayal by those closest to him brought down his entire secret agency and left Coulson as one of the few people who could pick up the pieces.


SeeDarkly_X wrote:
...GotG would have to be Howard the Duck to do as bad as Green Lantern did. Incidentally : New Trailer!

blasted mcblaster blast! Dead link was brought to my attention after the edit window closed. Here's an active better link that CapeCodRPGer provided.


I am not worried about GotG flopping. To the average movie-goer, Iron-man was a complete unknown before the movie. Marvel movies haven't been making even the majority of their money from comic book fans, they just provide free publicity/hype if a project is good.

Dark Archive

MMCJawa wrote:
I am not worried about GotG flopping. To the average movie-goer, Iron-man was a complete unknown before the movie. Marvel movies haven't been making even the majority of their money from comic book fans, they just provide free publicity/hype if a project is good.

That's patently false. There have been Iron Man cartoons going back to 1966. Children were exposed to the character outside of comics for forty years before the movie came out. This means that adults were aware of Iron Man, too. Did he have the name recognition of the X-Men, Batman or Superman? No, but he was a known quantity to movie goers.

GotG is unknown outside of comic fans. It's unknown to many comics readers. I used to read comics 20 years ago and one of the titles I read was GotG. The movie being made has no visible relation to that book. Will I go see it? Yes Will it be good? I hope so. Will it be GotG? No, not as I knew them.


drayen wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I am not worried about GotG flopping. To the average movie-goer, Iron-man was a complete unknown before the movie. Marvel movies haven't been making even the majority of their money from comic book fans, they just provide free publicity/hype if a project is good.

That's patently false. There have been Iron Man cartoons going back to 1966. Children were exposed to the character outside of comics for forty years before the movie came out. This means that adults were aware of Iron Man, too. Did he have the name recognition of the X-Men, Batman or Superman? No, but he was a known quantity to movie goers.

GotG is unknown outside of comic fans. It's unknown to many comics readers. I used to read comics 20 years ago and one of the titles I read was GotG. The movie being made has no visible relation to that book. Will I go see it? Yes Will it be good? I hope so. Will it be GotG? No, not as I knew them.

GotG's visible connection to the 20 year old GotG comic? Yondu, played by Michael Rooker.

James Gunn collected the series, so I expect we'll see more nods to it, but that team wouldn't be relevant to attempt in the current MCU anyway.

This era's GotG has appeared in at least two separate Avengers cartoons to date, so they HAVE in fact been introduced to a broader audience than the original (future) team ever was. While I fully understand that is minimal compared to Iron Man's previous media presence, it is significant and current.

Another thing to note however is that the previous (future) incarnation of GotG was not a huge seller so the overall awareness of that team may well be actually less than that of the new team. I don't have many figures to draw from, but I can tell you that in 1995, GotG was ranking between 144-150 for the 3-4 months before they were cancelled after 60+ issues.

By comparison, the latest GotG title ranked #1 for its first issue in March '13 against every other title in the industry and has fluctuated in the top 25 ranks since.
The GotG title (with members of the current cast prominent) just before that ran for 25 issues and fluctuated between 50th-100th ranking before cancellation.
Yes, meager in terms of other better known titles, but again significant in terms of the previous (future based) GotG title and how recognizable they might be.

Also, the core of Iron Man's story WAS unfamiliar to the broader audience watching it. The reason for that is simply that movie-viewers are a much broader market than comic readers, and while Iron Man had appeared in many various cartoons over the years, cartoons are also not known to have a tremendous viewership that in anyway rivals movie-goers. I would lay money down that more people have brought the 3 Iron Man films than have ever brought (or even tape recorded) any Iron Man cartoons (and many of them have likely never brought an Iron Man comic book.) So while many might be familiar with the name and basic idea, Iron Man was still pretty fresh to the average population when it opened. Not "completely unknown." But also not as familiar as Spiderman or even the Hulk.


LordSnow wrote:
As for the "prying into secret information part"... SHIELD are not a group of paladins. During this season most agents were, at some point, being very hostile towards other agents. I'm sure Fury of all people can understand that the way he structured his organization, and the way he encourages his underlings to think, will sometimes result in them doing things like breaking into bases and stealing classified information. He's sure not going to give Colson too much trouble for that, given the hectic nature of those last few days of SHIELD. Also, Colson is the only hope to restore SHIELD. So I feel pretty sure Fury will let this one slide.

If sky had hacked it, sure. But you KILLED two people doing it... and you don't even get a slap on the wrists? It doesn't even get MENTIONED????

Dark Archive

And just for fun, Agent Phil Coulson's FASERIP stats

Spoiler:

Fighting Excellent (20)
Agility Excellent (20)
Strength Good (10)
Endurance Excellent (20)
Reason Good (10)
Intuition (20)
Psyche (10)

Health 70
Karma 45 (plus 5 from being part of a team)

Resources Monstrous (pre Captain America Winter Soldier)

Resources Incredible (after events of Captain America Winter Soldier)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh will you let it go? It's done. It wqs morally wrong. Enough.


I think it makes sense that Coulson doesn't blame Fury much over the Tahiti program. Since it was revealed that Coulson was in charge of Tahiti... he clearly shares in the blame.

And Fury isn't going to get too upset over Coulson raiding the Tahiti base since he knows Coulson was mind wiped and was only seeking answers.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus that
"It was only to be used in case of a death of an Avenger"
"Exactly"
Really bought Coulson.


SeeDarkly_X wrote:

This era's GotG has appeared in at least two separate Avengers cartoons to date, so they HAVE in fact been introduced to a broader audience than the original (future) team ever was. While I fully understand that is minimal compared to Iron Man's previous media presence, it is significant and current.

Also, the core of Iron Man's story WAS unfamiliar to the broader audience watching it. The reason for that is simply that movie-viewers are a much broader market than comic readers, and while Iron Man had appeared in many various cartoons over the years, cartoons are also not known to have a tremendous viewership that in anyway rivals movie-goers.

I'll give you "current", but I dispute your use of the word "significant" in the first paragraph above, especially given that you more or less dismiss public awareness of cartoons altogether in the second paragraph. Decades of Iron Man cartoon appearances aren't significant, but a couple of random guest appearances are?

Full disclosure: The previous (future) GotG are the ones I grew up with. I have no knowledge of or interest in this current bunch, and no plan to see the movie.

Sovereign Court

Your loss.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I did my share of comic collecting and reading (Marvel, DC, and independents), I never picked up a single GotG comic... and I'm super excited for the GotG movie. Sure, I think Gunn is a smart director based on his past films. And Marvel Studios' films generally hold up. But two things convinced me:

1) Gunn, if not an comics fanboy like Raimi, seems to really respect the characters and the material, and is smart enough not to try to change what works about them.

2) That first trailer... it had everything I had ever wanted in a summer blockbuster Farscape movie. I know I'm never going to get Moya's family on the big screen, but GotG seems to hit all the same damn notes.


Hama wrote:
Your loss.

Your opinion.


drayen wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I am not worried about GotG flopping. To the average movie-goer, Iron-man was a complete unknown before the movie. Marvel movies haven't been making even the majority of their money from comic book fans, they just provide free publicity/hype if a project is good.

That's patently false. There have been Iron Man cartoons going back to 1966. Children were exposed to the character outside of comics for forty years before the movie came out. This means that adults were aware of Iron Man, too. Did he have the name recognition of the X-Men, Batman or Superman? No, but he was a known quantity to movie goers.

GotG is unknown outside of comic fans. It's unknown to many comics readers. I used to read comics 20 years ago and one of the titles I read was GotG. The movie being made has no visible relation to that book. Will I go see it? Yes Will it be good? I hope so. Will it be GotG? No, not as I knew them.

I think you are overestimating the impact Iron man has had on the public. I consider myself pretty genre savvy, but never was into comics. I had no clue who Iron man was, other than a song lyric. I vaguely recognized the character, but thought he was a robot.

I am 34, and don't really recall any Iron Man comic from my formative years growing up, unlike say X-men and Spiderman. I hazard a bet that very few of the people who saw Iron Man in theater were that familar with the character.

At any rate, from what I can tell, GotG is being pitched as a "star wars" esq movie...it's not getting pitched towards comic fans, but more the people who like seeing dogfights and aliens.


Hama wrote:
Oh will you let it go? It's done. It wqs morally wrong. Enough.

Morally wrong is fine. What ward did was morally wrong too but it made sense for the character. This isn't moral outrage its nerd rage at the bad writing when you have the entire universe treat your main characters like the main characters in a tv show.

"This hacker girl we've known for a month in trouble, kill people to save her! She's special!" is pushing it but acceptable for the main cast. For people that haven't even met her to find that thinking not even worth mentioning is taking her mary sue powers to Franklin Richards levels.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:


2) That first trailer... it had everything I had ever wanted in a summer blockbuster Farscape movie. I know I'm never going to get Moya's family on the big screen, but GotG seems to hit all the same damn notes.

My dad saw the trailer and said "#($*ing starscape ripoff."

I fell over laughing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Iron man may have been in the public consciousness a bit more than Guardians of the Galaxy, but as a long time comic fan now in my 40's I never had a very favorable impression of Iron Man. His comics were not big sellers and neither were the Avengers. Both were considered risky as movie properties. There is a reason that Spider Man movies came first then X-men and Fantastic Four.

Marvel made Iron Man and Avengers into hits by making great movies. Guardians of the Galaxy now has two advantages, a decade of good marvel movies that have only gotten better and the fact that it is "not just a comic book movie" and has a chance to draw sci-fi fans as well.


Damon Griffin wrote:
SeeDarkly_X wrote:

This era's GotG has appeared in at least two separate Avengers cartoons to date, so they HAVE in fact been introduced to a broader audience than the original (future) team ever was. While I fully understand that is minimal compared to Iron Man's previous media presence, it is significant and current.

Also, the core of Iron Man's story WAS unfamiliar to the broader audience watching it. The reason for that is simply that movie-viewers are a much broader market than comic readers, and while Iron Man had appeared in many various cartoons over the years, cartoons are also not known to have a tremendous viewership that in anyway rivals movie-goers.

I'll give you "current", but I dispute your use of the word "significant" in the first paragraph above, especially given that you more or less dismiss public awareness of cartoons altogether in the second paragraph. Decades of Iron Man cartoon appearances aren't significant, but a couple of random guest appearances are?

Full disclosure: The previous (future) GotG are the ones I grew up with. I have no knowledge of or interest in this current bunch, and no plan to see the movie.

Don't confuse "significant" with "more significant than."

I fully acknowledged Iron Man's wider media presence.
And I thought I was clear that GotG cartoon appearances were "significant" with respect to the original team never being featured in a cartoon. The significance either Iron Man or GotG has from those sources is within the context of cartoon viewers alone. (The two toons GotG were in ALSO featured Iron Man.) It's about context.
I wasn't matching one against the other in terms of "most significant." I was demonstrating that your claim that "GotG is unknown outside of comic fans." & "unknown to many comics readers" doesn't take a few things into account.

And yes cartoon viewers alone aren't the greater majority of movie viewers. But they are, at least, a small portion of that audience rendering "unknown" as simply inaccurate for both you and MMCJawa to claim.
Especially when you, who state freely you read comics 20 years ago while admitting having no interest or knowledge of the current book, are debating the point of what comic readers are aware of with someone who currently does read and collect comics and has for nearly 40 years. Not meaning to say "I'm so much better blah blah I'm a douche," or whatever; simply noting that if you are not currently invested you might not have as much information as you need to make certain claims.
"You" being unaware isn't "everyone" being unaware, if you take my meaning.
I also own the previous (future) GotG series from the 90's. In that, we're brothers. ;)
It's a shame you don't plan to see the movie. I think Gunn is an incredible and fun film-maker (though he has largely only done low-budget films.) I would encourage you to check out a film he did called The Specials. It is the singular reason I think he is so cut out for this film specifically. I think you might end up surprised, but you might have to table the notion that is should be like the previous (future) team of Guardians. (They are showing up in the current run of GotG books as well, BTW. Their story isn't over.)

Mike Franke wrote:

Iron man may have been in the public consciousness a bit more than Guardians of the Galaxy, but as a long time comic fan now in my 40's I never had a very favorable impression of Iron Man. His comics were not big sellers and neither were the Avengers. Both were considered risky as movie properties. There is a reason that Spider Man movies came first then X-men and Fantastic Four.

Marvel made Iron Man and Avengers into hits by making great movies. Guardians of the Galaxy now has two advantages, a decade of good marvel movies that have only gotten better and the fact that it is "not just a comic book movie" and has a chance to draw sci-fi fans as well.

Also this. Good points Mike.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

While I did my share of comic collecting and reading (Marvel, DC, and independents), I never picked up a single GotG comic... and I'm super excited for the GotG movie. Sure, I think Gunn is a smart director based on his past films. And Marvel Studios' films generally hold up. But two things convinced me:

1) Gunn, if not an comics fanboy like Raimi, seems to really respect the characters and the material, and is smart enough not to try to change what works about them.

2) That first trailer... it had everything I had ever wanted in a summer blockbuster Farscape movie. I know I'm never going to get Moya's family on the big screen, but GotG seems to hit all the same damn notes.

1) Gunn IS a comics fan. Again... see The Specials. ^_^

2) Word came out in February and again in April that a new Farscape film was in the works. Don't know if that means "big screen" or not... but it could happen.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Arno Stark and Recorder 451... I hope at some point in the future they touch on that in the MCU... it would provide a direct cause for Tony's involvement in space...


SeeDarkly_X wrote:


Especially when you, who state freely you read comics 20 years ago while admitting having no interest or knowledge of the current book, are debating the point of what comic readers are aware of with someone who currently does read and collect comics and has for nearly 40 years.
"You" being unaware isn't "everyone" being unaware, if you take my meaning.

It's a shame you don't plan to see the movie. I think Gunn is an incredible and fun film-maker (though he has largely only done low-budget films.) I would encourage you to check out a film he did called The Specials.

Your reply suggests that you think drayden and I are the same person. I've been reading comics more or less continuously since 1969, though my awareness of DC and Marvel continuity is peripheral at best these days; each company made decisions I wasn't happy with, both related to what I felt were unnecessary and comprehensive reboots. In Marvel's case, I prefer to pretend the Ultimate universe (Earth-1610) simply doesn't exist. DC just couldn't control itself; Infinite Crisis / 52 / One Year Later / Final Crisis / Flashpoint / New 52 / New(er) 52...

Change is good. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, over and over again, is just stupid.

I've seen The Specials. I found it moderately amusing. I plan to get around to "Super" at some point as well. Can't say how well I'll like it, obviously. Gunn's body of work as listed by IMDB doesn't suggest to me I'd enjoy much of his stuff.


Damon Griffin wrote:
Your reply suggests that you think drayden and I are the same person.

You... are not wrong. I did. And I'm a bit embarrassed by my oversight. Don't know how I did that. My apologies on any point directed at you, meant for him by my confusion.

While I make that specific mistake, my points still hold their overall meaning... when directed appropriately. :P (oops! again sorry.)

Damon Griffin wrote:

I've been reading comics more or less continuously since 1969, though my awareness of DC and Marvel continuity is peripheral at best these days; each company made decisions I wasn't happy with, both related to what I felt were unnecessary and comprehensive reboots. In Marvel's case, I prefer to pretend the Ultimate universe (Earth-1610) simply doesn't exist. DC just couldn't control itself; Infinite Crisis / 52 / One Year Later / Final Crisis / Flashpoint / New 52 / New(er) 52...

Change is good. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, over and over again, is just stupid.

On the DC point, we are in full agreement. DC is beyond (if you'll pardon that pun) ridiculous at this point in that regard and has destroyed or dismissed so much as to be near unrecognizable from what I'd loved about it.

Marvel has, in contrast, has maintained a distinct separation of their multi-dimensional framework well enough that you CAN ignore the Ultimates line to no ill effect when reading their core line. Various "ret-cons," "reality distortions," and the like may have changed a few things you preferred in that universe, but the overall stories haven't been dismissed outright. They stand as part of the ongoing tales.

Damon Griffin wrote:
I've seen The Specials. I found it moderately amusing. I plan to get around to "Super" at some point as well. Can't say how well I'll like it, obviously. Gunn's body of work as listed by IMDB doesn't suggest to me I'd enjoy much of his stuff.

"Moderately amusing" is fair. Especially understanding that it was Gunn's early, low-budget work. Surely you might recognize his unrealized potential from it. It has a style that I appreciate on many levels and am excited to see how he does with such a larger project that ALSO happens to be part of a franchise I am a huge fan of (The MCU, more so than Guardians.)

"Super" has a very different (and even darker) tone but still lends to his understanding of comic-book principles that will work well in a film like GotG.
I agree regarding his low-budget Troma work; and it doesn't offer as much in terms of illustrating how appropriate he might be for the GotG chair, but The Specials certainly does in my opinion.

We got way off topic for the SHIELD thread though, didn't we?
I think that's my fault too. :P
-comfortable admitting I'm wrong-


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
"This hacker girl we've known for a month in trouble, kill people to save her! She's special!" is pushing it but acceptable for the main cast. For people that haven't even met her to find that thinking not even worth mentioning is taking her mary sue powers to Franklin Richards levels.

Wasn't that person Garrett? The guy who would later be revealed as having gone through a lot of nasty stuff in order to get his hands on what was in there?


Grey Lensman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
"This hacker girl we've known for a month in trouble, kill people to save her! She's special!" is pushing it but acceptable for the main cast. For people that haven't even met her to find that thinking not even worth mentioning is taking her mary sue powers to Franklin Richards levels.
Wasn't that person Garrett? The guy who would later be revealed as having gone through a lot of nasty stuff in order to get his hands on what was in there?

actually this is a good point.

Which characters made what decisions during that episode.

Who tried to talk it out with the guards there vs. who decided to blow open the doors? Who went for the lethal shots?

That episode might look a bit different with Hindsight.


Greylurker wrote:
That episode might look a bit different with Hindsight.

heh. I just couldn't help mysel....
OMG did I just figure out Patton Oswald?
Probably not... but now I kind of wish he was!

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
LordSnow wrote:
As for the "prying into secret information part"... SHIELD are not a group of paladins. During this season most agents were, at some point, being very hostile towards other agents. I'm sure Fury of all people can understand that the way he structured his organization, and the way he encourages his underlings to think, will sometimes result in them doing things like breaking into bases and stealing classified information. He's sure not going to give Colson too much trouble for that, given the hectic nature of those last few days of SHIELD. Also, Colson is the only hope to restore SHIELD. So I feel pretty sure Fury will let this one slide.

If sky had hacked it, sure. But you KILLED two people doing it... and you don't even get a slap on the wrists? It doesn't even get MENTIONED????

I agree. It should have been mentioned. The ending in this season was rushed. As others pointed out, Ward and Garret did the killing. Also Colson did agonize over the killings for a couple of episodes after that. Fury has reasons to let the matter go. A 20 seconds conversation on the last episode would have been enough to sum the issue, as far as I'm concerned, and it's a shame we didn't get even that.

A thought just occurred to me. Why didn't Colson ask Fury what the blue alien thing is? Fury has to know, and that information would seem to be very important to Colson.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

He didn't ask what the blue alien thing is because they don't want the audience to know yet.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
He didn't ask what the blue alien thing is because they don't want the audience to know yet.

Exactly! lol. I basically stopped questioning "plot devices" after watching Lost.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And if he had? The conversation would have gone something like this.

PC: "And one more thing, sir. What the hell is that blue alien in the Guest House?"

NF: "We don't know."

PC: "Is that the truth? Or just another lie to protect your secrets?"

NF: "You won't believe me when I say it's the truth -"

PC: "You're right about that -"

NF: "But it is the truth."

And then Phil gets the Cube of Command, and verifies that SHIELD has no clue where the Guest House alien came from. Either way, we're still in the same boat - no information on what the blue-skinned alien is beyond what the writers want us to know for now.


Mike Franke wrote:

Iron man may have been in the public consciousness a bit more than Guardians of the Galaxy, but as a long time comic fan now in my 40's I never had a very favorable impression of Iron Man. His comics were not big sellers and neither were the Avengers. Both were considered risky as movie properties. There is a reason that Spider Man movies came first then X-men and Fantastic Four.

Marvel made Iron Man and Avengers into hits by making great movies. Guardians of the Galaxy now has two advantages, a decade of good marvel movies that have only gotten better and the fact that it is "not just a comic book movie" and has a chance to draw sci-fi fans as well.

This is a huge point that I think needs to be emphasized.

I have long said that RDJ should get some serious accolades for what he did with Iron Man. He made him A-list. He made him a household name.

Prior to that movie, the comics SUCKED... nobody had any idea what to do with Iron Man. He would pop up in shows occasionally, then they would be canceled. His stories always revolved around the alcoholism and/or Losing his company or tech.

He was a founding member of the Avengers... but then he quit. I am AMAZED how often I hear people talk about rebooting Iron man with a new actor when RDJ quits... Iron man was NEVER the all important staple that people think he is now. When the actor quits... he doesn't NEED to be recast... they could just move on to OTHER avengers.

Now days, every version of the Avengers has to have Iron Man, and he is always the 'leader.' In the old days, he may have PAID for a lot of the stuff... but Cap was the leader. Or they rotated the chairman status... Tony didn't have the head for teamwork.

It really does boggle the mind. I collected from the mid 80's and seriously, Iron man was NEVER popular. He was CLASSIC... but never known or popular. CERTAINLY not integral...

That all came about due to the awesomeness of that first movie, and the actor making him memorable.

Really the cartoons of the 60's and even the one in the 90's was pretty irrelavent to his known status. I was a fan and I couldn't even watch those things... ;)


Lord Snow wrote:


A thought just occurred to me. Why didn't Colson ask Fury what the blue alien thing is? Fury has to know, and that information would seem to be very important to Colson.

I think there was more to that converstation then the audience was shown. We kind of came in, right in the middle of Coulson chewing out Fury.

Then he goes on to explain what the experiment was for and how it should have brought back an Avenger....

Except, as far as we knew, HE didn't remember ANYTHING about TAHITI project. We know from the video that Coulson was in charge and wanted it shut down... but he couldn't remember anything about it...

Now he seems to.

I'm curious how much he and Fury talked about... or how much he remembers now. If he REMEMBERS what the alien was... then he had no need to question anyone about it.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor

Iron Man came back to the Avengers several time after his first departure. Ran the team for at least one stretch. Other than that, not sure how you get "not popular" out of a run as long as Iron Man's. Wolverine-level? No. But there's not a lot of comic book properties that hot. Want to pick an a hero no one knew what to do with and got cancelled all the time, try Doctor Strange. *That* would have been an obscure B-list superhero to hang the first Marvel movie on.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Iron Man came back to the Avengers several time after his first departure. Ran the team for at least one stretch. Other than that, not sure how you get "not popular" out of a run as long as Iron Man's. Wolverine-level? No. But there's not a lot of comic book properties that hot. Want to pick an a hero no one knew what to do with and got cancelled all the time, try Doctor Strange. *That* would have been an obscure B-list superhero to hang the first Marvel movie on.

Yep, he ran the team occasionally, helped start the west coast side... but he also had several stretches where he wasn't even in the armor, and most people in the books didn't realize it was a new guy...

Armor Wars was huge, Demon in the Bottle were huge... other then that, his stories were lackluster at best. He has few memorable stuff. He was 'big business' in a world where people wanted 'big business' to be the bad guys...

They kept throwing everything they could to see what would stick... and nothing really did. By the end of the 90's they had replaced him with a younger version of himself, and rewrote his whole history before completely tossing that idea too without much explaination.

It was a series that was filled with restarts that nobody really complained about... because he wasn't the wolverine/spiderman/even captain America popular.

He always got a spot when there was a poster of the 'big guns,' but he wasn't popular or well known. People knew of him... but didn't know any of the details.

Honestly, I think that's why they were able to make so many changed in the movie WITHOUT fanboys throwing a fit. They ditched the secret Identity, They turned Jarvis into an automated CPU... Mandarin?? That got some kickback... but most of the people I knew didn't know anything about mandarin except he had rings...

Personally, I LOVED the movie version of Extremis... I absolutely hated the comic version. That was one more 'lets power him up... see if that works' concept that I didn't care for.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, part of Extremis was "This guy is a genius-level inventor. Really, he should invent something now and again."

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor

You know Captain America got replaced too, right? :) And heck Wolverine had his healing factor broken for about a decade, his adamantium ripped out, and more. I think you may just have a grudge against Iron Man. Like most other comics (including even long term successes like the X-Men and Superman), Iron Man had ups and downs, and his share of goofy twists that didn't work. Remember energy superman?

Real B-list heroes can't hold a title. Iron Man looks to have had his running from 1968 to now. Iron Man's low A-list, to be sure (though really long-term no one holds a candle to the big three plus Spider-Man), but despite attempts to spin the movie as somehow a minor comic book character, he's only minor if you restrict major to the absolute biggest.

SHIELD's a good example of a comic property no one had heard of before the movies, despite the big comics presence.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Iron Man came back to the Avengers several time after his first departure. Ran the team for at least one stretch. Other than that, not sure how you get "not popular" out of a run as long as Iron Man's. Wolverine-level? No. But there's not a lot of comic book properties that hot. Want to pick an a hero no one knew what to do with and got cancelled all the time, try Doctor Strange. *That* would have been an obscure B-list superhero to hang the first Marvel movie on.

Numbers can be interesting.

Here are some numbers:
1,274 - # of Appearances of Dr. Stephen Strange (Earth-616)
2,892 - # of Appearances of Iron Man (Anthony "Tony" Stark) (Earth-616)
3,006 - # of Appearances of Wolverine (James "Logan" Howlett)(Earth-616)
3,306 - # of Appearances of Captain America (Steven Rogers) (Earth-616)
4,001 - # of Appearances of Spider-Man (Peter Parker)(Earth-616)
Source of Data

Popular? Shrug. Hard to say.
PUBLISHED? We can clearly see that Wolverine isn't all that far ahead of Iron Man in that department... and we're not even talking about the various alternate universe versions.

Oh... and Doctor Strange? He had a movie before Iron Man. It's not good. But it happened in 1978.

I'm sure there are numbers that would connect sales figures with those appearances to offer some kind of legitimate indicator of "popularity."
I'm not going to look it up... Not sure if "publishing" is a a fair measure or popularity or not... Also not sure popularity is all that important in this context.

Here's these additional numbers and why I think that:
78 - # of Appearances of Guardians of the Galaxy (Earth-616)
(That's over a run of 6 years. And they have a movie.)
894 - # of Appearances of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Earth-616)
(That's over a run of 49 years. And they have a second season.)

The fact is there has been a dynamic change in the movie making industry that sees the value of putting these characters on the big screen and they are in a position to do it really well, better than ever previously done.
They're making things we love come to life in ways we can appreciate. When they were popular for how long or why doesn't really matter.

Shadow Lodge

SeeDarkly_X wrote:


Numbers can be interesting.
Here are some numbers:
1,274 - # of Appearances of Dr. Stephen Strange (Earth-616)
2,892 - # of Appearances of Iron Man (Anthony "Tony" Stark) (Earth-616)
3,006 - # of Appearances of Wolverine (James "Logan" Howlett)(Earth-616)
3,306 - # of Appearances of Captain America (Steven Rogers) (Earth-616)
4,001 - # of Appearances of Spider-Man (Peter Parker)(Earth-616)
Source of Data

I'm not sure how much I trust those numbers. They seem very low for some characters. Spidey, for example. Spidey was freaking EVERYWHERE during the 80s. He seemed to show up in every single Marvel title at least 2-3 times a year, above and beyond the dozens of Spider-Man titles. Wolverine was the same way throughout the 90s (and they barely scaled back Spidey during that time). And only 894 for SHIELD? That also seems pretty low.


Comics are mostly once a month right? So appearing in ~3000 comics is huge; That is a dedicated decades long presence.

Compare that to the entire run of Dragon Magazine from 1976 to 2007 which numbered 359 issues.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

"Spidey, for example. Spidey was freaking EVERYWHERE during the 80s. He seemed to show up in every single Marvel title at least 2-3 times a year, above and beyond the dozens of Spider-Man titles."

Heh, i remember Marvel Team UP issues were basically a random matchup of some superpowered being in the marvel universe be it great or small....and Spiderman.

1,351 to 1,400 of 4,975 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Television / Agents of Shield All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.