|
OK, this episode was absolutely fantastic. Action packed, full of significant twists and turns, and some good special effects (Sky seems to climb into the higher ranks of power, I think I need to start taking her seriously as a super hero).
NotShield is interesting. They make a valid point in that Coulson is a dangerous choice to be the one in charge (We as an audience know they are likely wrong about that, but from their point of view the stance is very logical).
Their main disagreement with Fury seems to be about treatment of super powers and super high technology. Fury is putting all his eggs in the super power basket, while NotShield seem to be more about trying to eliminate everything that is beyond their control.
This hearkens back to the first Avengers movie - Fury is the one who came up with the Avengers initiative, and when the aliens invaded Earth he was the one who tried to give the heroes a chance to win without nuking Manhattan, while the council didn't trust them to succeed. He is trying to acquire and use powerful individuals and artifacts, NotShield just want all of that gone.
I tend to agree with Furys' high risk, high reward approach. You can't eliminate the presence of all super powers, and you can't protect yourself against the bad ones unless you have some good ones on your side. There are many ways in which the approach leads to disaster, but all other approaches would leave Earth defenseless against all that other nonsese that will come along later in the story.
Also, did anyone else noticed that the concave in the hidden wall of the cabin Sky was in was punched into it by the Hulk?
Yes...they also mention the place as 'The House Banner Built' later in the episode.
someone had a phtoto from the Ed norton Hulk movie of Banner meditating in that same cabin
What I want to know is why/when did Fury order Bobbi on that suicide mission?
She was treating it like it was 'his last wish' and they keep saying Fury is dead... but Fury being 'killed' was what sent Hydra out of the Shadows...
did he really give her that chip with an 'ohhh if I die and SHIELD gets compromised... find this particular ship and sink it?' order??
I'm guessing she was given orders to destroy the ship (Fury knew shit was going down before it went down, even if he didn't know particulars) and then in hindsight it became clear it was his "last wish".
Like I said before they never sank the ship with this dangerous cargo and I hope that decision will come back to haunt them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before they never sank the ship with this dangerous cargo and I hope that decision will come back to haunt them.
How dare they... try to stay alive after the situation on the ground changed beyond what the person who gave them their orders could have predicted. What do they think they are, main characters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before they never sank the ship with this dangerous cargo and I hope that decision will come back to haunt them.How dare they... try to stay alive after the situation on the ground changed beyond what the person who gave them their orders could have predicted. What do they think they are, main characters?
There's no indication that Fury expected that to be a suicide mission.
Let's look at this in a different light; there's a war on, and the commander in chief orders (just before his apparent death) that a vessel carrying top secret cargo be scuttled to prevent that cargo from falling into enemy hands. However, the commander of the ship, not trusting the CiC, chooses on his own, to defy his commander's last order and not scuttle the ship. Meanwhile, the enemy WINS! The commander of the ship then discovers that he can't access the cargo (possibly a weapon) without the keys the CiC passed on to his LEGAL successor. So he sends agents to undermine that successor and steal the keys all the while claiming to be the REAL successor. Meanwhile, the legal successor has made massive inroads into destroying the enemy and has been accepted by the legitimate military, while the commander of the vessel is fixated on destroying citizens who had no connection whatsoever with the assault on the ship or the war.
Hm, sounds like treason to me.
There's no indication that Fury expected that to be a suicide mission.
If he didn't, thats all the more reason to change plans. The engineer told her she'd never set that thing off and still be able to get out in time. If my boss handed me a detonator and forgot to set the timer for long enough for me to outrun the explosion I'd have more than a few words for him. (and if he was dead that conversation would involve drinking a lot of Gatorade beforehand)
Let's look at this in a different light; there's a war on, and the commander in chief orders (just before his apparent death) that a vessel carrying top secret cargo be scuttled to prevent that cargo from falling into enemy hands. However, the commander of the ship, not trusting the CiC, chooses on his own, to defy his commander's last order and not scuttle the ship.
Because he thought that take the ship and prevent it from falling into hydras hands were mutually exclusive. Once the Calvary arrives and starts doing really (suspiciously?) well in taking back the ship, ideally what you'd do is call back and say "Hey look, I think we can keep this stuff out of hydras hands AND you know, not kill a hundred loyal shield agents and a really expensive aircraft carrier". But that wasn't possible, so they made a decision because they're the ones on the ground with the information to make that decision.
How many times does the hero NOT find a third option when given the choice to kill a whole bunch of good guys or succeed at the mission?
Meanwhile, the enemy WINS! The commander of the ship then discovers that he can't access the cargo (possibly a weapon) without the keys the CiC passed on to his LEGAL successor.
Both operations are going without congress' sanction at this point so the whole concept of a legal sanction is a bit moot.
So he sends agents to undermine that successor
You mean keep an eye on the guy that came back from the dead with alien DNA and by every indication came back wrong and immediately started poking around with something that made the nuclear stockpile look like a firecracker? Hell to the yes.
and steal the keys all the while claiming to be the REAL successor. Meanwhile, the legal successor has made massive inroads into destroying the enemy and has been accepted by the legitimate military, while the commander of the vessel is fixated on destroying citizens who had no connection whatsoever with the assault on the ship or the war.
We don't know what successes othershield has had. They've got an aircraft carrier and the stuff still so they're not doing that badly.
Disobeying the direct order of a superior officer, while serious, does not constitute treason. To satisfy a charge of treason the offender must either make war against the US or "adhere to" the enemy and them give aid and comfort.
Disobeying the order with the intent of having the ship its crew or cargo fall into enemy hands would have been treasonous, but poor judgment is not, no matter what the outcome.
Kinda hard to prove intent in court.
I could see a case like that going either way.
Kinda hard to prove intent in court.
I could see a case like that going either way.
We didn't execute that spyplane pilot for not killing himself under orders. Killing the bad guys, saving 100 of your crewmen and saving an aircraft carrier full of toys the government now gets to play with is a good start for RUNNING for congress, not getting indicted by it.
We didn't execute that spyplane pilot for not killing himself under orders. Killing the bad guys, saving 100 of your crewmen and saving an aircraft carrier full of toys the government now gets to play with is a good start for RUNNING for congress, not getting indicted by it.Kinda hard to prove intent in court.
I could see a case like that going either way.
On the other hand, failing to kill the bad guys and thus handing over the carrier full of toys to them while disobeying direct orders looks far, far worse.
Hence why getting indicted for treason is a distinct possibility in the case of failure. Hard to prove intent.
Hence why getting indicted for treason is a distinct possibility in the case of failure. Hard to prove intent.
Hence the crews resolve to do it or die trying.
Hence why getting indicted for treason is a distinct possibility in the case of failure. Hard to prove intent.
Indictments are easy. Convictions might not be, but you can't just set aside the question of intent because proving it might be hard; it's called "burden of proof" for a reason and as always, it's on the prosecutor.
Why go for a hard-to-prove treason charge? You shouldn't have any trouble with failure to obey the orders of a superior officer, dereliction of duty, failure to safeguard classified materials and probably several more. Plenty to have the guy reduced in rank, dishonorably discharged and/or imprisoned. No need to execute him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be operating from the assumption that they have all the information, like you do.
Look at it from the outside perspective.
What you know:
-They were given an order to blow up the ship.
-They disobeyed said order, willingly.
-The enemy took control of the ship and its cargo, killing numerous personnel in the process.
That can very easily look like treason. And people generally try to prosecute someone for the crime they think they're guilty of, unless there's a big reason to think they would not be convicted for such.
Combine that with sheer human spite ("This man gave the enemy valuable cargo and indirectly killed 100 people! Including my friend Major Bob Genericson!") and it would be almost inevitable that would be the charge.
Meanwhile, all you have in the person's defense is "I didn't mean to turn over the cargo. I just meant to disobey orders".
And you can't prove that one way or the other. A judgement call needs to be made. Is this person telling the truth? Or is she bullshitting for a lesser sentence?
You seem to be operating from the assumption that they have all the information, like you do.
I'm assuming a government thats roughly as rational as our own, which is already past the boundaries of believable fiction.
They certainly had the most information.
Look at it from the outside perspective.
If your outsider is fox news and completely distorts the facts and leaves things out, sure. But there's a reason that Obama wasn't impeached for being Kenyan and Hillary for setting the Benghazi embassy on fire.
The enemy took control of the ship, THEN
two orders (a suicide mission)was given to rescue Commander Adama and blow up the ship up
Then the person who gave the order died, doing gods know what to shield chain of command.
The orders became contradictory. Commander Adama refused to to be evacuated.
Conditions on the ground changed. Instead of only having one option to blow up the ship it became possible to fight of hydra, save the ship, and not kill 100 of our own. Carrying out the mission under those circumstances would have been mass murder.
I'm sorry, but no. Any objection to that simply isn't rational even for a politician.
Combine that with sheer human spite ("This man gave the enemy valuable cargo and indirectly killed 100 people! Including my friend Major Bob Genericson!") and it would be almost inevitable that would be the charge.
You've got that backwards. Those 100 people can walk into your hearing and all say "I'm alive because of these people". Thats going to trump orders from a corpse.. and a semi disgraced one at that.
Meanwhile, all you have in the person's defense is "I didn't mean to turn over the cargo. I just meant to disobey orders".
The cargo didn't get turned over. Like I said, SUCCEEDING when you change the plan carries a lot of weight. Dying because you change the plan renders the charge kind of moot.
Yes, I watched the show.
You, however, obviously have not been following the conversation, which was about if they had disobeyed orders AND FAILED.
I'm still uncertain who SHIELD originally answered to in the first place. The show implies that they're connected to the U.S. military and/or government, while the movies (even though they adopt "homeland" for the "H") make it seem independent of any one government.
Yes, I watched the show.
You, however, obviously have not been following the conversation, which was about if they had disobeyed orders AND FAILED.
Then you're dead and they probably won't know if you died trying to do the suicide mission or not, unless hydra feels like providing them with a highlight reel.
Interesting episode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another great episode, so much going on in this one. It looks like next week we finally see what happened to May on that mission she will not talk about.
|
Finally caught up after missing last weeks episode due to a busted DVR. Very interesting....
One thing that was bothering me about the hidden place they took Skye - not a lot of inhumans (so far) who've had very visible alterations due to the Terrigen Mist. Hopefully, they'll introduce more.
Loved seeing Deathlok again! And I'm glad to see he was working for Coulson all this time.
Skye's mom - wasn't she vivisected?
Watch out Dr. Inhuman. If Ward finds out you've got a thing with Skye, he's gonna be pissed.
Fitz - why did I suddenly get the feeling, after watching that cab scene, his mental recovery may have been a bit further along than anyone realized?
Mack - I still think you're an asswipe, and can't wait to see Deathlok kick the living shit out of you. At least Bobbie seems a bit more conflicted about betraying people who trusted her.
Cabin in the woods = Hulk House. "Hulk like rustic décor."
@Dragon78 - I think the one argues against the other, don't you? :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Maybe it's just something like the GH serum where it just works the once or offers limited aid.
Ohh also is anyone else interested in finding out how the other Inhumans are prepped if you don't use a Diviner? From what Lincoln said it seems that the Diviners are either never used in normal transformations or very little at best.
Does anyone know how many episodes were are getting this season?
remember avengers 2 has two inhumans in it under active HYDRA experimentation... :)Avengers 2 will be out soon, maybe there will be a "big reveal" in the series as well.
Have they said those two are Inhumans? I don't think Inhumans are going to become the catch all for people with powers in the MCU.
John, I think it's been said that since 20th Century Fox owns the license to the X-Men, they also hold the only license to the term 'mutant' and are not permitting any other companies to use the term. That's why Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans in the upcoming Avengers/Ultron film.
John, I think it's been said that since 20th Century Fox owns the license to the X-Men, they also hold the only license to the term 'mutant' and are not permitting any other companies to use the term. That's why Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans in the upcoming Avengers/Ultron film.
Yes they are not mutants...but that does not mean they are Inhumans either. It seems to me that they gained their powers by Hydra experimenting on them with the gem(a infinity stone) in Loki's scepter/spear.
You might be right they could be Inhumans...I just did not hear Marvel officially saying so officially and wondering id they did say so.
** spoiler omitted **
Think back to the flashback of when Gordon got his powers. He had been preped for it and and it was still a pretty big pile of chaos, panic and teleporting into walls for him.
So teenager + sudden Lightning man.
probably = Freak out.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
It's hard to say how much of that could just be bad writing, like the whole real-SHIELD argument about all the secrecy being bad and wanting more transparency despite being absolutely *more* secretive and *less* transparent than Coulson's SHIELD.
Every single thing they say is pretty much 100% in opposition to every single thing they DO. They are pretty much following the Hydra playbook, for that matter, it's bizarre that Olmos/Gonzalez would think that May, or *anyone,* would believe a word he's saying, since it's just flat out 180 degrees from to what his organization is actually doing.
"I would never shoot someone in the face."
"You literally just shot me in the face."
"But we are completely opposed to that sort of thing, which Coulson does all the time."
"Coulson has never shot me in the face. And you just did. Are you from some sort of Bizarro universe?"
It feels like really inconsistent writing (like Coulson's existence being a 'level seven' secret, that he blabs to every single person they meet in the first season), and not some sort of, 'Ha ha, they were Hydra all along, and half of them didn't know it!'
John, I think it's been said that since 20th Century Fox owns the license to the X-Men, they also hold the only license to the term 'mutant' and are not permitting any other companies to use the term. That's why Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans in the upcoming Avengers/Ultron film.
Yes they are not mutants...but that does not mean they are Inhumans either. It seems to me that they gained their powers by Hydra experimenting on them with the gem(a infinity stone) in Loki's scepter/spear.
You might be right they could be Inhumans...I just did not hear Marvel officially saying so officially and wondering id they did say so.
Yep...there is absolutely no reason to assume Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are Inhumans. In fact the evidence we have so far says they are NOT.
They are definitely building the inhumans up to fill the "mutant" niche, both on the show and currently in the comics.