^ Somehow that looks like it belongs in the porn parodies thread.
Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
I know people call Jane an ignorant slut from time to time, but c'mon man, she's a lady.
I really enjoyed that episode, there were only a couple of negative things for me.
1. I don't really like the formula of "introduce a gadget in the first couple of minutes then use it in the climax" every episode.
2. Touching eyes really freaks me out so I had to look away from the screen quite a bit
But overall I liked that episode a lot. There were a few moments where I lol'd and a couple of nice little twists. Did anyone else think that Ward looked a lot like Clark Kent in the glasses?
1. I don't really like the formula of "introduce a gadget in the first couple of minutes then use it in the climax" every episode.
2. Touching eyes really freaks me out so I had to look away from the screen quite a bit
But overall I liked that episode a lot. There were a few moments where I lol'd and a couple of nice little twists. Did anyone else think that Ward looked a lot like Clark Kent in the glasses?
Yes. Yes, I did.
It would have been really funny if somebody had said that.
It would have been really funny if somebody had said that.
In response to trekkiebaggio, I completely agree on the eye thing. I can watch movies where people get cut in half, or saw their own arm off, but I can't watch any form of eye-surgery.... 
Yeah, I don't think this follows the formula of introduce at the beginning, use in the climax. It was really just used throughout.
Would you rather they used it without introducing it first?
2. Touching eyes really freaks me out so I had to look away from the screen quite a bit
I actually had to go through multiple eye surgeries in my late teens to deal with a retinal melanoma, so I've actually had needles stuck into my eye like that on a number of occasions. So this brought back some unpleasant memories for me. My father was just as squeamish about watching it as you guys are, but I actually had to go through it.
I suppose it's a natural reflex to be hypersensitive about eye damage, given how important and vulnerable our eyes are. The brain tends to react the same way to the feelings and responses of others as it does to its own, so our dismay at seeing others' eyes subjected to trauma no doubt reflects our instinct to protect our own eyes from harm.
Lots of men in glasses look like Clark Kent. That's kind of the idea behind Clark Kent -- that he's a nondescript everyman.
Of course not, but it seems like in the episodes so far they've mentioned a little gadget at the beginning just so it can be used towards the end.
However, I did like the foreshadowing of the conversation between Ward and Coulson when Ward said something along the lines of, "It must have been hard to be betrayed by someone you trained."
But they used it in the middle too. Does that make a difference or do you just not like them introducing something at the beginning so they can then use it at any point later on? In fact, I didn't even remember them using it at the end.
It's basically the time-honored Bond formula. We know that any gadget that Q takes time to introduce onscreen will figure into the plot later.
^It's older than that -- it's basically Chekhov's Gun. "If there is a gun on the wall in the first act, it must be used in the third." Or rather, the corollary, which is that if you need to use a gun in the third act, you'd better show it on the wall in the first.
Perhaps the most blatant use of the trope was in Mission: Impossible, where each episode would open with the team discussing their plan and showing off the equipment they'd be using to carry it out -- usually starting mid-conversation so the audience wouldn't know how or why the gadgets would be used until the time came.
Perhaps the most blatant use of the trope was in Mission: Impossible, where each episode would open with the team discussing their plan and showing off the equipment they'd be using to carry it out -- usually starting mid-conversation so the audience wouldn't know how or why the gadgets would be used until the time came.
It's just something that irks me a little bit, maybe I'm just nitpicking.
By the way, has anyone seen any screen grabs or detailed descriptions of what's in Coulson's office? I'm sure there must be some easter eggs in his in his collection of things.
By the way, has anyone seen any screen grabs or detailed descriptions of what's in Coulson's office? I'm sure there must be some easter eggs in his in his collection of things.
^Perhaps even resurrection-related clues....
Generally, yes, but Bond would be the more immediate precedent in this genre...the dramatic need to introduce a gadget that doesn't necessarily exist in the real world.
A gun on a desk randomly for no reason innocently... That's checkov's gun.
"Hey I built a trank gun for to shoot people with, so why don't you shoot people with it when we go out on a mission to shoot people?" Less so.
I hope they continue to use the same props? Which would require the producers to only rewrite scripts a little bit to include props they didn't know would exist when they commissioned subsequent future scripts that haven't arrived back yet from the writers farm.
"Hey I built a trank gun for to shoot people with, so why don't you shoot people with it when we go out on a mission to shoot people?" Less so.
I hope they continue to use the same props? Which would require the producers to only rewrite scripts a little bit to include props they didn't know would exist when they commissioned subsequent future scripts that haven't arrived back yet from the writers farm.
In response to trekkiebaggio, I completely agree on the eye thing. I can watch movies where people get cut in half, or saw their own arm off, but I can't watch any form of eye-surgery....
Having had surgery on my eye I have a huge "eye thing" though the scene in AoS this week wasn't that bad. What *really* gets me is a scene from a first-season episode of House where we get a "TMI Cam" shot of a PotW getting a shot in their eye including a nice "piercing/puncturing" sound when the needle breaks the iris. :squirm:
trekkiebaggio said:
I've tried to look also, but have so far only noticed a WWII nostalgia that would be consistent with his character in Avengers.
But to be honest, I don't think this show has Easter eggs; the few things I've noticed (like Morgan le Fey and The Controller) are big stretches and speculation on my part. So far, I feel that the Marvel license has been squandered on this show. It's likely not the fault of the writers and producers; I'm sure they're being boxed in and constantly told no because the studio wants to save something for features. But the synergy with the features that I hoped for ... it just isn't there for me at four episodes in. They tell us they're in the Marvel Universe, but it doesn't feel like they're in the Marvel Universe. This could really be just any old Hollywood product at this point.
Maybe that will change, but for me this has so far felt more on the Star Wars Christmas Special side of the scale than the Stargate SG-1 side. The characters are there; but it doesn't feel plugged in.
Dude, that is harsh.
I get what you're saying, another little thing that bugs me is the need for them to justify why they're not contacting SHIELD.
They're spies.
Someone is always watching.
Someone is always watching.
Similar threads
- Poll
