Joss Whedon's S.H.I.E.L.D to ABC!

[Reverend]

More recently I've been getting the impression that some companies are now paying attention to how many people record or stream, but some are still a little slow to wake up and smell the 21st century.

People who record the show (and skip the ads) don't count, and shouldn't count. Streaming, though (since that has ads which fund the network) ought to be incorporated nowadays. I'm curious as to whether they do or not...

From what I've read, I get the impression that advertisers are very much aware they people are actively avoiding adverts, which is why there's been a steady rise in in-show advertising (those annoying little pop-ups about other shows) and more significantly, product placement. Sure it's always been there, but I've seen it pushed much more aggressiveness in American shows over the last 4-5 years.

With that in mind, I'd say people who record by whatever means should count, I'm just not sure if they *are* counted.

Heck, it's not like I pay attention to the commercials when I'm watching live TV anyway. I either mute the sound, change the channel, or go over to the computer or out to the kitchen while an ad is on. I generally see all advertising as intrusive and annoying and try to avoid it as much as possible. Honestly, I don't understand why advertisers think shoving things aggressively in our faces will make us be more interested in them. It just alienates me and drives me away.

Desperation? As a culture we've been exposed to this kind of advertising for coming on three or four generations now. Longer if you count the pre-TV radio days. As a result we've become more and more conditioned to ignore it. The only way for new brands to get any kind of purchase is to grab attention any way they can. Even if it's annoying, from their perspective at least it's made an impact and that can mean life or death for some products.

 

[Set Harth]

SLJ reiterates his desire to be involved with AoS, saying it would "legitimaize" the show, but apparently there are issues with such happening.

It would be cool if this were all mis-direction and he had a cameo in the pilot.

My layman's understanding would surmise that his 9-deal theatrical contract is an apple.

Doing something on TV, would be an orange contract. So broker a separate deal for TV.

Clearly it must be more complicated than that though.

Yeah, I don't get it.

Why would his contract prevent him from appearing in tie-in material set in the same universe?

 

[Nerys Myk]

SLJ reiterates his desire to be involved with AoS, saying it would "legitimaize" the show, but apparently there are issues with such happening.

It would be cool if this were all mis-direction and he had a cameo in the pilot.

My layman's understanding would surmise that his 9-deal theatrical contract is an apple.

Doing something on TV, would be an orange contract. So broker a separate deal for TV.

Clearly it must be more complicated than that though.

Yeah, I don't get it.

Why would his contract prevent him from appearing in tie-in material set in the same universe?

Because TV and movies usually require different contracts. And the rights/license for a TV series are separate from the movies. Even the animated TV rights can be separate from live action and film.

 

[JD]

I'm young a big NCIS fan, so I am rather frustrated with where this is airing. I'm definitely watching both, one live and one streaming online, I'm just not sure which will be which yet.

 

[Set Harth]

Because TV and movies usually require different contracts.

I mean, I get that he would need a new contract for the TV series, but why would his contract for the films expressly forbid participation in such a series?

 

[Mister Fandango]

It doesn't seem to be stopping Clark Gregg.

 

[ATimson]

It doesn't seem to be stopping Clark Gregg.

Maybe Gregg didn't have any more MCU movies under contract, while Jackson does - it's possible that they wouldn't be apples and oranges, contractually. In that case, Marvel may not want to use Jackson at his movie rates for what amounts to a cameo.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It doesn't seem to be stopping Clark Gregg.

They killed off his character in the movies.

 

[Christopher]

They killed off his character in the movies.

That has no bearing on contractual commitments. Of course, the studio wouldn't necessarily have to pick up the contractual option to use him -- the contract is more for their benefit, to ensure an actor's availability if they do want to use that actor. But the contract wouldn't become void just because of the character's fictitious death in a movie, since characters can always be resurrected or at least appear in flashbacks.

Maybe Gregg didn't have any more MCU movies under contract, while Jackson does - it's possible that they wouldn't be apples and oranges, contractually. In that case, Marvel may not want to use Jackson at his movie rates for what amounts to a cameo.

I don't think a TV appearance would fall under the movie appearance contract's terms. It would be a separate negotiation. Although a star of Jackson's caliber would be expensive for a TV show. Except that given his level of fandom, he might be willing to, say, do an uncredited appearance and get paid scale.

As for Gregg, consider that it was Marvel's decision to have him killed off in this movie. I have a suspicion that it was their plan all along to spin Coulson off into a TV series and that they killed him off in the movies to enable him to branch off into a parallel, mostly separate track.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, I don't think the holdup has anything to do with his movie contract limiting him so much as the need to negotiate a new contract. That's always delicate.

 

[Reverend]

^Indeed and since Marvel are becoming notorious for lowballing, I doubt they're willing to pay Jackson what he probably wants without some serious negotiation.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

As for Gregg, consider that it was Marvel's decision to have him killed off in this movie. I have a suspicion that it was their plan all along to spin Coulson off into a TV series and that they killed him off in the movies to enable him to branch off into a parallel, mostly separate track.

I love that in the comics world one can speculate a character was killed off because they have further plans for him.

 

[Mister Fandango]

It doesn't seem to be stopping Clark Gregg.

They killed off his character in the movies.

No, Nick said he was killed in order to rally everyone behind a cause, but evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It doesn't seem to be stopping Clark Gregg.

They killed off his character in the movies.

No, Nick said he was killed in order to rally everyone behind a cause, but evidence suggests otherwise.

In Universe, he might have. In the real world they (Marvel Studios) killed him off. Not sure if that's related to him being on the TV show

 

[Mister Fandango]

So Agents of SHIELD is a prequel, too? And it's completely unrelated to Marvel? And despite specifically being stated that it's sharing continuity with the movies, it's not sharing continuity with the movies? And despite Clark Gregg himself saying that his character has "come back from the dead" even if he, as an actor, doesn't know the details thereof because its been classified in-universe?

I'm all kinds of confused.

 

[Christopher]

So Agents of SHIELD is a prequel, too?

No, it's a sequel. In the official trailer, we see a character saying that Coulson was killed before "the Battle of New York," only to be surprised to discover Coulson alive.

And it's completely unrelated to Marvel?

It's a production of Marvel Television and it has the Marvel logo atop its logo. It's based on an organization and a character created and copyrighted by Marvel. It's definitely related to Marvel.

And despite specifically being stated that it's sharing continuity with the movies, it's not sharing continuity with the movies?

It's in the same continuity as the movies; it's just telling an independent set of stories. Much like, say, Star Trek: Voyager was in the same universe as ST:TNG but was separate from it because it dealt with different characters and situations. So they're in continuity in that they share a common background reality and a common history, but they're not directly sharing characters or storylines. We won't be seeing Tony Stark or Bruce Banner or Black Widow in the show, most likely.

 

[P0sitr0nic]

Actually ill bet any future contract for the big movies of Marvel will include at least bit appearances in their shows. However many end up being made. One now, 3 next year perhaps?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

He really was confused!

 

[Mister Fandango]

No, it's a sequel. In the official trailer, we see a character saying that Coulson was killed before "the Battle of New York," only to be surprised to discover Coulson alive.

Yes, I know. But apparently, Coulson was killed off. Permanently. Completely and utterly. People in this thread said so. Despite, you know, that being patently untrue, both in the Avengers (again, Fury only said he was dead to rally everyone and provided manufactured evidence to "prove" it) and in this continuing storyline.

So clearly it must be a prequel or not part of the same continuity at all. Even though it's not a prequel. At all.

It's a production of Marvel Television and it has the Marvel logo atop its logo. It's based on an organization and a character created and copyrighted by Marvel. It's definitely related to Marvel.

Nope, it can't be. Marvel killed Coulson off, thus if Coulson is actually alive, this can't be a Marvel production. Clearly.

It's in the same continuity as the movies; it's just telling an independent set of stories. Much like, say, Star Trek: Voyager was in the same universe as ST:TNG but was separate from it because it dealt with different characters and situations. So they're in continuity in that they share a common background reality and a common history, but they're not directly sharing characters or storylines. We won't be seeing Tony Stark or Bruce Banner or Black Widow in the show, most likely.

Nope, people in this thread have decreed that Coulson was undisputedly killed off in Avengers, thus if he's alive in this show, it can't be the same continuity. Even though he wasn't and it is.

(<whoosh!>)

And best of all, since Coulson is dead in the Avengers continuity, which appearently has no bearing on this show (despite the fact that it's the same continuity and these people are just flat out wrong, but admitting that is nigh impossible), there's no way in hell his actor could still have a contract for the movies and one for the television at the same time. Why, that alone is impossible to imagine, by Jove.

EDIT: Before replying, you may want to look at the two threads this is all in response to. Helpful link #1 and helpful link #2.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I said he was killed off in Avengers. Didn't say anything about it being permanent, SHIELD being a prequel or being in a different continuity. I also said I was unsure if the death in Avengers was related to him being on the TV show.

Not sure what the problem with my post about contracts is .