Agents of SHIELD: Season 3 - Discussion (SPOILERS LIKELY)

[Marsden]

There were a couple of things that could have been considered nods AoS in CW. Vision, while not saying the word "Inhuman" did comment on the explosion of powered people in recent years. Also, the brainwashing techniques invented by Johann Fenhoff (Known as "Dr. Faustus" in the comics"), seen in AoS, Agent Carter and the last two Cap movies, had similar phraseology attached-- "Happy to comply" and "compliance will be rewarded" in AoS, "Ready to comply" in CW. That might be me connecting completely unconnected stuff, but both things made me think of AoS during the movie.

I'm sorry if I'm remembering something that didn't happen, but I thought I saw a caption or note or sign that identified the place where they were reactivating Bucky to be Winter Soldier in the beginning was a Leviathan operation. I better go back and watch it again.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'm sorry if I'm remembering something that didn't happen, but I thought I saw a caption or note or sign that identified the place where they were reactivating Bucky to be Winter Soldier in the beginning was a Leviathan operation. I better go back and watch it again.

No, there was a HYDRA logo in the building.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Except Whedon has said in interviews that he basically ignored the show in making Age of Ultron. I think the "old friends" he referred to were meant to be specifically the people who were crewing the Helicarrier with him. IIRC, he delivered that line just before we cut to a shot showing the full crew on the bridge with him, so the reference was probably to them. They were former SHIELD agents who had come together to help him out unofficially. Sure, you can easily plug the show's version of SHIELD into that, but I don't believe it was meant to be specifically a reference to the show.

I seem to recall him saying in interviews that he specifically didn't want to directly acknowledge that Coulson was still alive because his death was an important dramatic motivation for the Avengers that shouldn't be undone. And I agree that the scene was designed to play innocuously to the audience members not in the know, as you suggest, yet I don't really find it believable that he didn't have it in mind at all, especially in combination with Fury's earlier line about being "not the Director of anything anymore." (He personally appointed Coulson to that position in the first season finale of AoS.) Revealing not only that S.H.I.E.L.D. still existed in some form, but also that Fury wasn't the Director of it really only seems to make sense to me as a veiled reference to the events of the show.

Of course, without knowing the exact timeline of when one Whedon brother came up with that idea for Ultron (and/or at what point the specific phrasing of the line was added and finalized in the script) with respect to the timeline of the other and Tancharoen developing that idea for the show, it's hard to tell. But it seems less plausible to me that they didn't at all discuss and toss this kind of stuff around as both projects proceeded in parallel, than that they did at least a bit.

That could be because CW was written by the same pair of authors who created and executive-produced Agent Carter, Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely. It's easier to get that kind of continuity within a single author's or author team's work.

Or maybe it's just happenstance. "Comply" is a pretty common word, after all.

Here again, the former seems more plausible on its face to me than the latter. (But I'd also say that plotline on Agent Carter was probably done as a loose tie-in to The Winter Soldier in the first place, so the river was ultimately still flowing the same direction, even if it picked up some identifiable sediment from passing through the TV show's neck of the woods. And in the broadest sense, I suppose that applies to the AoS situation as well.)

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Fury's earlier line about being "not the Director of anything anymore." (He personally appointed Coulson to that position in the first season finale of AoS.) Revealing not only that S.H.I.E.L.D. still existed in some form, but also that Fury wasn't the Director of it really only seems to make sense to me as a veiled reference to the events of the show.

Or he was just pointing out that SHIELD is gone and thus he isn't running anything anymore becuase of that.

 

[Christopher]

I seem to recall him saying in interviews that he specifically didn't want to directly acknowledge that Coulson was still alive because his death was an important dramatic motivation for the Avengers that shouldn't be undone. And I agree that the scene was designed to play innocuously to the audience members not in the know, as you suggest, yet I don't really find it believable that he didn't have it in mind at all, especially in combination with Fury's earlier line about being "not the Director of anything anymore." (He personally appointed Coulson to that position in the first season finale of AoS.) Revealing not only that S.H.I.E.L.D. still existed in some form, but also that Fury wasn't the Director of it really only seems to make sense to me as a veiled reference to the events of the show.

But looking at it outside the context of the show, it didn't necessarily have to be a formal SHIELD organization that maintained the Helicarrier. It could've just been whatever private organization Fury had assembled, and a bunch of ex-SHIELD agents informally working with him to maintain the carrier in case of emergency. As I recall, the answer to the question "Is that SHIELD?" is "It's what SHIELD was supposed to be." Which could be taken either way in terms of whether the Helicarrier crew actually did embody a current incarnation of SHIELD.

Although it certainly makes more sense in the context of the show's version of events. But then, much of my career as a Star Trek novelist entails making sense of plot points that didn't necessarily make sense in the original work. So just because it seems like a natural connection doesn't prove that the movie script was meant to suggest it -- just that the show's writers were good at making it seem that way.

Of course, without knowing the exact timeline of when one Whedon bother came up with that idea for Ultron (and/or at what point the specific phrasing of the line was added and finalized in the script) with respect to the timeline of the other and Tancharoen developing that idea for the show, it's hard to tell. But it seems less plausible to me that they didn't at all discuss and toss this kind of stuff around as both projects proceeded in parallel, than that they did at least a bit.

Again, though, we're talking a year and a half to two years of lead time from movie script to release. When Joss Whedon was coming up with the climax of events in Sokovia, Jed and Maurissa were probably still working out what to do with Centipede and the Clairvoyant. So "in parallel" is not an accurate characterization. The moviemaking process is an order of magnitude slower.

And sure, the brothers must've talked, but it's hard to grasp just how all-consuming the filmmaking process could be. Look at any interview with Joss Whedon after AoU wrapped -- he was totally wiped out, visibly and audibly exhausted. It seemed like making this movie virtually broke him. I'm not sure he could've coped with having to coordinate with AoS on top of everything else. To all indications, he did his own thing (aside from setting up Civil War and Infinity War) and the show followed his lead. That seems the most likely scenario to me.

(But I'd also say that plotline on Agent Carter was probably done as a loose tie-in to The Winter Soldier in the first place, so the river was ultimately still flowing the same direction, even if it picked up some identifiable sediment from passing through the TV show's neck of the woods. And in the broadest sense, I suppose that applies to the AoS situation as well.)

Again, AC was created and executive-produced by the screenwriters of all three Cap movies, so it's not surprising they could have a bit closer coordination there. Of course, AC had different showrunners, but Markus & McFeely may have had a hand in plotting the Leviathan thing.

 

[Gaith]

The post-credits scene wasn't there for Civil War's benefit, it was there for Spider-Man: Homecoming's benefit. Those tag scenes are usually previews of future movies, meant to promote them and generate buzz for them.

But the Spidey post-credits scene, while cute, gave us exactly nothing the movie itself didn't. It wasn't like the Mjolnir tag, or the Strucker/twins one, that way. And I imagine that those who care enough to sit through the whole credits are already perfectly aware that Coulson is alive and well on TV.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It gave them an excuse to end a Captain America film with SPIDER-MAN WILL RETURN...which was pretty cool. I'm the type who'll sit through the end credits of a Bond film just to see the line that was based on.

 

[Christopher]

But the Spidey post-credits scene, while cute, gave us exactly nothing the movie itself didn't.

I think it did. It gave Peter's arc in the film a bit of resolution. He pretty much disappeared from the narrative after the big fight. There were moments when I was thinking "What the heck happened to Spidey? Will we see him again?" So it was good to give him a wrap-up scene along with the other characters.

And I imagine that those who care enough to sit through the whole credits are already perfectly aware that Coulson is alive and well on TV.

All the more reason why it would be pointless to shoot a tag scene telling them something they already know.

It gave them an excuse to end a Captain America film with SPIDER-MAN WILL RETURN...which was pretty cool.

Exactly. It's basically the movie version of "Coming up in our next thrilling episode...". It doesn't matter what was in the movie before it; it's about setting up the next movie. They want people to walk out of the theater feeling anticipation for what comes next.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

All the more reason why it would be pointless to shoot a tag scene telling them something they already know.

I don't think it's about telling them that which they already know. It's about giving closure to this outstanding thing in the Marvel universe where there are people still unaware Phil Coulson is still alive.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it's about telling them that which they already know. It's about giving closure to this outstanding thing in the Marvel universe where there are people still unaware Phil Coulson is still alive.

But a tag scene at the end of a movie about something else would be a terrible, terrible way to drop a bombshell like that. Unless you can make it a focus of the movie's story -- which is not going to happen -- it makes more narrative and dramatic sense just to let his death stand as far as the movies are concerned. Bringing a character back from the dead can invalidate the impact of their death, unless you can tell the story in a way that preserves the weight and consequences of the event. A weekly TV series telling that story over an entire season could achieve that goal. A throwaway tag scene in an unrelated movie, merely undoing Coulson's sacrifice in passing and not taking the time to make that reversal meaningful, would be unconscionably awful and insulting to the audience.

Here's the thing: Not every member of the audience is required to have an identical experience. Part of the reason for expanding a universe into different media is to appeal to different audiences, to give them options to experience it in different ways. And it shouldn't be mandatory for anyone to follow every last thread of continuity if they don't want to. They should be able to follow just one series, or just two, or however many interest them. Or even just watch a single movie and nothing more. Those of us who choose to follow everything get a fuller experience, but also a more convoluted and scattershot one. And if someone chooses to enjoy a more targeted and streamlined experience, then the universe should be designed in such a way that they're able to do so and still feel their experience is complete.

So don't worry about other people not knowing Coulson's alive. The franchise is designed so that they don't need to know that unless they watch Agents of SHIELD.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Or he was just pointing out that SHIELD is gone and thus he isn't running anything anymore becuase of that.

But looking at it outside the context of the show, it didn't necessarily have to be a formal SHIELD organization that maintained the Helicarrier. It could've just been whatever private organization Fury had assembled, and a bunch of ex-SHIELD agents informally working with him to maintain the carrier in case of emergency. As I recall, the answer to the question "Is that SHIELD?" is "It's what SHIELD was supposed to be." Which could be taken either way in terms of whether the Helicarrier crew actually did embody a current incarnation of SHIELD.

I'm not saying any of that's not true; it certainly is. I'm not arguing that the existence or events of the show can be "proved" just by what's in the film. I'm just saying I don't believe Whedon didn't have the show at least vaguely in mind when he made his specific choices of how to present this scenario in the film.

Again, though, we're talking a year and a half to two years of lead time from movie script to release. When Joss Whedon was coming up with the climax of events in Sokovia, Jed and Maurissa were probably still working out what to do with Centipede and the Clairvoyant. So "in parallel" is not an accurate characterization. The moviemaking process is an order of magnitude slower.

I'm on the same page with you there, but isn't it also true that little tweaks are sometimes made to minor elements in a script all the way up to and even into filming? And my recollection is that Whedon's involvement with both the Avengers sequel and the show were announced together, although it goes without saying that the timing of the announcement doesn't necessarily tell us the timing of the development or writing of specific story elements.

And sure, the brothers must've talked, but it's hard to grasp just how all-consuming the filmmaking process could be. Look at any interview with Joss Whedon after AoU wrapped -- he was totally wiped out, visibly and audibly exhausted. It seemed like making this movie virtually broke him. I'm not sure he could've coped with having to coordinate with AoS on top of everything else.

It hardly need involve any but the most cursory and informal "coordination." Hypothetically, it doesn't seem to me it'd take more than Jed e-mailing Joss and saying "hey, Maurissa and I were thinking of maybe having the season end with Fury making Coulson director, wouldn't that be cool?" for him to be aware of that. Moreover, here's an interview with Jeff Bell where he confirms as much:

Really, it’s me Jed and Maurissa, supervising all of the creative decisions. Last year, before Joss was doing Avengers he was part of that and we pitched to him, but he’s busy with Avengers now, though he knows what we’re doing. Now it’s us taking what we’re doing to Marvel and ABC and saying “This is what we think is cool.” Mostly they say “Yay, we think that’s cool too.”

Again, AC was created and executive-produced by the screenwriters of all three Cap movies, so it's not surprising they could have a bit closer coordination there. Of course, AC had different showrunners, but Markus & McFeely may have had a hand in plotting the Leviathan thing.

Right, and Joss Whedon was also a co-creator and executive producer of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., so I don't see the distinction you're drawing there.

But the Spidey post-credits scene, while cute, gave us exactly nothing the movie itself didn't. It wasn't like the Mjolnir tag, or the Strucker/twins one, that way. And I imagine that those who care enough to sit through the whole credits are already perfectly aware that Coulson is alive and well on TV.

As said, it makes sense for the movies to promote other movies. It doesn't make sense for them to promote the TV shows. Because it's the movies—not the TV shows—that are the driving force of the franchise which sustains everything else. If the TV shows go away, the movies remain unaffected. If the movies go away, the TV shows all go with them.

I don't think it's about telling them that which they already know. It's about giving closure to this outstanding thing in the Marvel universe where there are people still unaware Phil Coulson is still alive.

That would be the opposite of "closure" as far as the general filmgoing audience (and, in-universe, the Avengers) are concerned.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying any of that's not true; it certainly is. I'm not arguing that the existence or events of the show can be "proved" just by what's in the film. I'm just saying I don't believe Whedon didn't have the show at least vaguely in mind when he made his specific choices of how to present this scenario in the film.

Maybe he did, but I don't think he had to. It's possible he didn't.

It hardly need involve any but the most cursory and informal "coordination." Hypothetically, it doesn't seem to me it'd take more than Jed e-mailing Joss and saying "hey, Maurissa and I were thinking of maybe having the season end with Fury making Coulson director, wouldn't that be cool?" for him to be aware of that. Moreover, here's an interview with Jeff Bell where he confirms as much:

Actually that seems to confirm the opposite. The last sentence and a half in your quote states explicitly that once Joss Whedon began work on the sequel, he was no longer participating in a direct dialogue with the AoS staff, that the conversation was just between them and Marvel. Yes, it says Whedon knew what they were doing, but it doesn't prove that he thought it mattered to his process.

Right, and Joss Whedon was also a co-creator and executive producer of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., so I don't see the distinction you're drawing there.

Well, for one thing, Markus & McFeely aren't directing their movies as well, so they have more time to devote to the shows. For another, Whedon is on record that he made a specific choice to ignore AoS and Coulson's resurrection because acknowledging it would undermine the impact of Coulson's death as far as the movie franchise is concerned. Markus & McFeely are not on record expressing any desire to disregard anything from Agent Carter.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Actually that seems to confirm the opposite. The last sentence and a half in your quote states explicitly that once Joss Whedon began work on the sequel, he was no longer participating in a direct dialogue with the AoS staff, that the conversation was just between them and Marvel. Yes, it says Whedon knew what they were doing, but it doesn't prove that he thought it mattered to his process.

While there were things that got tweaked as it went along thanks to the availability and chemistry of certain actors, the whole first season of AoS was planned out in advance around the events of The Winter Soldier. Since Whedon directed the pilot, his participation most certainly continued through the stage where making Coulson the Director was likely conceived. And how would he know what they were doing past that point if there were no dialogue whatsoever? And how can something that someone knows truly not play any role on any level in their thought process?

 

[Christopher]

While there were things that got tweaked as it went along thanks to the availability and chemistry of certain actors, the whole first season of AoS was planned out in advance around the events of The Winter Soldier. Since Whedon directed the pilot, his participation most certainly continued through the stage where making Coulson the Director was likely conceived.

Yes, obviously, but I thought we were talking about the plot point of Coulson and SHIELD readying the Helicarrier seen in Age of Ultron.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Yes, obviously, but I thought we were talking about the plot point of Coulson and SHIELD readying the Helicarrier seen in Age of Ultron.

Yes, sorry, I did start there before remembering and realizing that the "not the Director" thing was a clearer example, but I think the two should be taken together in context of each other. As I did specify initially, I've never disputed that the particular circumstances of Coulson's personal involvement with the hellicarrier were more than likely invented for AoS after the fact in response the film. But in my eyes, that doesn't negate that Whedon was very obliquely acknowledging the show he and his brother helped to create and develop simply by acknowledging the existence of S.H.I.E.L.D. remnants (beyond just Fury personally) and having them play any role in the film at all despite the organization's seemingly total collapse in TWS. I also believe this does not really contradict him having "basically ignored" it, if in fact he did say that. It just means he didn't literally, wholly ignore it in the sense of it not even entering his mind and/or informing his writing choices to even the slightest degree.

(I apologize if I'm seeming overly argumentative and moving the goalposts, as I do agree with many more of your points than I would quibble over.)

 

[RJDiogenes]

BTW, you are one of my favorite posters, even if I can only discern your meaning in maybe half of your posts.)

That's pretty normal.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Just jumping in, but the value of mentioning the TV show in some way, like a post-credit scene, far outweighs the probable "negative".

Say a million people go to the movie and see the scene and go to themselves " what was that?" In their heads. If they say anything outside of themselves, it would probably be to their friend in the seat next to them. And that friend will most likely say " I don't know" and then promptly forget about it. or, that friend might explain to them what Agents of Shield is about.

But it's only fifty thousand Agents of Shield fans tweeted or posted on Facebook about how excited they were about the tie-in, that would become a trending topic on social media and create lots of FREE positive Buzz.

and the post-credits scene is really for the hardcore fan anyway, who might be watching Agents of Shield already, or would then be excited to see the TV show

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think people also overestimate the explanation needed. I think people who don't watch Agents of SHIELD do have at least a very vague sense of it, so they probably know Phil Coulson is alive. Those who don't probably barely remember who he was in the first place.

 

[Christopher]

Just jumping in, but the value of mentioning the TV show in some way, like a post-credit scene, far outweighs the probable "negative".

In some way, sure, it's possible. But the post-credits scenes would not be a good place to do that. And just tossing in an offhand "Hey, Coulson's alive" somewhere would be horrible, stupid, inept, self-destructive writing. Giving FitzSimmons or May a cameo somewhere, having Bobbi show up as a former agent, pitting Spider-Man against D'Onofrio's Wilson Fisk without specifically mentioning his Daredevil backstory, those could work. But it has to be something that plays organically as part of the movies' universe, rather than a clumsy, distracting intrusion from the TV branch.

Say a million people go to the movie and see the scene and go to themselves " what was that?" In their heads. If they say anything outside of themselves, it would probably be to their friend in the seat next to them. And that friend will most likely say " I don't know" and then promptly forget about it. or, that friend might explain to them what Agents of Shield is about.

But it's only fifty thousand Agents of Shield fans tweeted or posted on Facebook about how excited they were about the tie-in, that would become a trending topic on social media and create lots of FREE positive Buzz.

I don't think confusing people with a non sequitur that's only there to set up some extraneous plot point is going to generate good buzz. I mean, that's what Thor's visions in Age of Ultron were, a preview of coming attractions that didn't connect to the story being told, and that part is widely considered the weakest part of the film. And while there are plenty of parts of Batman v Superman that were lambasted by critics and fans alike, one of the most universally panned bits was the scene where Wonder Woman watched video clips of the other superheroes who would show up in future movies, because it was just a random insertion that didn't connect meaningfully to the film itself. A story's first priority should always be its own internal needs. Hinting at something outside the story should only be done if it doesn't undermine or distract from the story itself.

and the post-credits scene is really for the hardcore fan anyway, who might be watching Agents of Shield already, or would then be excited to see the TV show

Again, if they already know about the show, then they don't need to be informed of it. No way in hell would Marvel waste the valuable real estate of a post-credits scene for something so unnecessary. The movies make far more money than the shows, so they will always be the priority. And with the recent management split between Marvel's movie and TV divisions, the odds that the movies will ever incorporate anything from the shows have become even lower than they already were.

 

[JD]

Honestly, at this point the movies and TV shows are so disconnected, both from a business and story perspective, I'm starting to think the show/movie crossovers will continue to be a on sided thing. Since they still take place in the same universe the shows will continue to feature stuff from the movies, but that will be it. I'm thinking we'd probably be a lot more likely to see Hawkeye or Cap on AoS than to see Daisy working with the Avengers.
I'd be a lot more interested in a crossover between AoS and the Netflix shows, and since those handled by ABC Studios and Marvel's TV division that seems a lot more likely.