Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread

As others have said, I think that we, like Fitz, are being shown once and for all that Ward is not going to be redeemed at least not any time soon. I can't wait to see what Fitz will think of Ward after he and Simmons are fished out. I mean they were begging for their lives and Ward just did the damn thing like he couldn't even hear them.

Earlier in the episode when Ward killed the deer, he mentioned that Buddy would take off runing (to retreive the fallen prey) whenever he heard the shot. Ward fired the pistol knowing that Buddy would run, then finished the job with the rifle because it was less difficult, as Christopher has mentioned. I don't see any reason for Garrett to have shot the dog.

Keep the faith, baby!

 

I saw the rifle thing as not having to look Buddy in the eye when he did it. Just like he couldn't turn around to face Fitz and Simmons.

 

The logic you people use sometimes is truly mindboggling.

That truly is one of the most convoluted and completely-pulled-out-of-the-ass interpretations of a scene I've ever seen around here. And there have been some real beauties, so that's saying something.

I'm still laughing at the people who are now trying to convince themselves that Coulson didn't murder his own men a few episodes back. (Even better, trying to rationalize that he wasn't in command, he had no say in the matter, and that he totally hadn't gone rogue with blood in his eyes at the time, too.) It's downright hilarious.

But I digress. Seriously, that's some ridiculous stretching there, to the point of being absolutely absurd.

And you're right, Garrett had no reason to shoot the dog. Because, you know, he's not a fucking psychopath whatsoever who'd do it just to teach Ward a lesson.

 

I am not sure where you are getting your information, maybe from some "survivalist" forum?

This is the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Atttack, and their reports. Their conclusions mirror my own education and training (college level) with electronics and wiring.

Here is a link to their relevant study; I hope you find it enlightening.

If a circuit is closed, it is generally safe from EMP. An electric surge will not effect anything that is not a complete circuit, for the simple reason that there is nowhere for electricity to flow. If your flashlight is turned off, there is no circuit and it will not burn out. There may be an exception with micro-circuits because of the small gap between connections.

For the same reason that we ground ourselves before taking components out of static bags, an uncircuited micro device could burn out from a sudden charge because of the small gap. This is like the spark from your finger when you walk accross a carpet and touch something that is grounded. From the research of the Commission it is not actually clear what the level of threat is.

Cars that were turned off, even with modern electronics, were not affected by EMPs.

What I find surprising is that you consider these threats real and complain that "And it's called fiction for a reason" but you don't complain that a device from supposedly the 1950s or so, that is less than the size of a pocket watch, can contain enough power to send an EMP with enough voltage to even burn out a lightbulb.

Let's all suspend our disbelief for the sake of a good adventure story, but please don't try to argue that there is any real threat from these type of devices.

 

(pops popcorn)

 

The whole dog thing was indeed pretty ambiguous. My first thought also was that Garrett was spying in on the scene, and Ward let Buddy live. Upon review, I'm no longer so sure, but neither did I see that I was necessarily wrong, either.

 

Micro-tesseract powercell? I mean Hydra must have left hundreds of those things lying around by the end of the war, no?

 

Why, thank you.

In most well written 48 or so minute T.V. shows there is almost nothing shown that is meaniingless. We see Ward aim the gun at Buddy (looking at Ward innocently) point blank and we see the emotion take over Ward. He can't do it. We are then shown him pointing the gun into the air firing, then we see a shot of Buddy's hindquarters taking off right after the shot. That scene might not make sense without the prior one when we are told how Buddy reacts to the sound of a gunshot. What we are being told is that Ward does have a certain amount of humanity remaing, just not THAT much.

Next, we are shown Buddy lined up in the scope of Ward's rifle and then (I believe) we hear a shot.

Now, it is possible that Garrett shot the dog, but until we are told that and given a reason for it (and if we are told Garrett was the shooter, I think we'll get a reason), it doesn't make sense. My ead on Garrett is that he is a cold blooded killer when he needs to be, but doesn't kill when he doesn't have to. If Garrett did kill Buddy, then I will have to reassess my view of who Garrett is.

So unless you think the scenes with the deer and the dialogue about Buddy's reaction to gunfire and the scenes which show Ward trying to kill Buddy were meaningless, then please give us your interpretation of what those scenes and dialogue meant.

 

Nope. We expect to hear one, but it cuts to a hiss-chunk sound as present-day Ward pulls a lever of some kind.

For the record.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Okay, I'm obscessing about his now.

Normally, in these types of scenes, we are shown the prey through the rifle scope, then the camera cuts to the shooter and we see the shooter take the shot. That didn't happen here.

But if Ward was holding the rifle when Buddy was in the scope and STILL couldn't pull the trigger, that's like showing us the same scene twice. I don't see the producers doing that, ergo, Ward shot Buddy -- right?

 

I disagree, that is the absolute natural interpretation of that scene, at least it was for me. I didn't even consider the possibility of it playing out any other way. You have to look at it in context of the scene that was going on in the present during the flashback. They were absolute 1 to 1 mirrors of each other. Garrett told him to kill something he had an attachment to, because attachments were weaknesses, and he does it both times, but both times he does it in as a detached way as possible because he has what Garret has taught him is a weakness.

Interpreting the scene to think that he let Buddy go would mean the show was trying to say Ward attachment to Buddy was strong enough to disobey Garrett and let him live, but his attachments to Fitz Simmons were unequal, because he was willing to drop them in the ocean.

 

I can't believe some people don't get it. It seemed rather blatantly obvious that Ward killed Buddy. He initially couldn't up close, but he recognized his weakness and was able to compensate by doing it from a distance. Same with FitzSimmons. He couldn't look at them until after he pulled the lever. Fitz was even shouting "turn around" and "look at me".

Ward flat out admits his weakness out loud. And then we see how he compensates by shooting Buddy from a distance and getting rid of FitzSimmons without actually having to shoot them in the face.

 

That said, I just went back and rewatched the pertinent scenes. There was some impressive writing ambiguity in this one. Thumbs up for the writers.


Garrett: "Where's all that trust and loyalty lead? Abandoned in the woods or dumped at the pound?"


Ward: "Takes off running everytime I take a shot out here. That deer was 1800 meters out. Gonna take him a while to find it."


Garrett: "Take care of Buddy".


After which we see Ward eventually firing his gun in the air. I can see how the intention would be to lead some people to believe that "abandoned in the woods" was a legitimately believeable outcome.










Garrett: "Put down Fitz and Simmons."


Well, on the off chance that he didn't kill Buddy, then perhaps his hope was that he was abandoning FitzSimmons in the ocean, where possibly they'd survive in the wild. He certainly followed "Put down" to the letter. Considering that they were in a cargo container, if they survived the fall, presumably there would be some supplies in there that would help them get by until rescue.


He did after all admit that he cared about them and that it was a weakness of his.



I don't know. I used to be 100% certain that Ward killed Buddy and then meant to kill FitzSimmons, but now there's some doubt creeping in there.




On the other hand, wouldn't it be a shocker if Fitz and or Simmons died in the fall? For all we know, Agents Of Shield was always meant to be a single season show right from the very start. Either to simply end and be replaced by a new Marvel show (Agent Carter), or to be sort of continued in a new show that also stars 1 or 2 surviving members of the AOS cast. The folks behind AOS are obviously very good at keeping secrets when they want to. Perhaps their final secret is that the season finale was always intended to be the series finale too. (And to be truly final.)

 

We don't know if Ward killed Buddy. I rewatched it. The noise you hear when the scene switches back to the Bus is NOT a gun shot (though it was supposed to almost sound like one). It is the release sequence of the module Fitz-Simmons are in. It was Ward's weakness with Buddy, and it's his weakness now. He knows the module will survive the fall. But he can honestly say to Garrett that he got rid of them.

EDIT: This reply and the one above were typed at the same time.

 

But that was deliberate parallelism. The sound of the shot blended into the sound of the lever being pulled because they were both the same thing: Ward going ahead and delivering the deathblow despite his reluctance. The whole point is that the Buddy scene is symbolic of the Fitz/Simmons scene.

 

Regarding Fiz and Simmons, the art piece for this episode shows them alive in the container underwater.

 

Also, it's entirely possible the network vetoed an explicit depiction of a shot sound effect, plus reaction shot of Ward looking out from the scope. Wasting anonymous humans is one thing, but wasting a lab could bring in unwanted complaints, particularly as this show (mostly) aims for a family audience.

 

If so it bodes well for the dog since there's no way in Hell Fitz/Simmons are dead.

 

These is when we find out that one or both of Fitssimmons is an Atlantean double agent?

Fitz would freak the shit out if everyone on the team turned out to be a double agent except him.