Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread

[Guy Gardener]

Austins Powers was something I did in the theatre with a dozen friends and two dozen beer nearly a score years ago.

All I remember is that so called delete scene.

My son recently asked for me to download the theatrical releases of lord of the rings which were an hour there abouts shorter than the Directors cut extended DVD releases, because he barely had the strength to sit through 9 hours of that shite, gods forbid 12.

Most movies should be carved down to 20 minutes.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

What's the picture on the right? Is that a version of Ronan the Accuser?

Yeah, that's Ronan from Guardians of the Galaxy. More specifically, it's his toy.

I'm assuming the license system isn't "it's better to have not tried at all than to have tried and failed."

The licence system is this... As long as you're still using it, it's yours. If you go X amount of time without using it, it reverts to the original owners.

Companies will put out a shitty movie, direct to video, whatever, to keep the rights, because, one, they may have plans for down the road, or two, they might be able to resell the rights (or partial rights, or limited rights, or short term rights.) for a packet to someone who thinks they can do something with those rights.

But that's the thing. I haven't heard of any Sub-Mariner movie. Fantastic Four had two movies and still has a clear clock requiring them to do something. Daredevil had a movie and then the rights reverted. I'm guessing the time interval is longer for Namor because the only other explanation is that the clock doesn't really start until the first movie is made and that doesn't make sense.

 

[bbjeg]

Not a deleted scene, unless America got a less fantastic version than the real world.

Wow. You've been so deprived, I could have sworn you were American.

 

[Guy Gardener]

That's because of the small penis.

 

[Mister Fandango]

But that's the thing. I haven't heard of any Sub-Mariner movie. Fantastic Four had two movies and still has a clear clock requiring them to do something. Daredevil had a movie and then the rights reverted. I'm guessing the time interval is longer for Namor because the only other explanation is that the clock doesn't really start until the first movie is made and that doesn't make sense.

Or they just flat-out bought the rights.

 

[Guy Gardener]

So the only way they can make any money is that they are waiting for marvel to buy Namor back.

It's like in Monopoly when you start mortgaging your properties, and even after you're back in the black, you don't really feel any compulsion to buy Old Kent Road (Mediterranean Avenue.) back from the bank when the endgame is in sight

 

[Reverend]

It's possible that Marvel may have offered to buy it back, but Universal's asked was too high? Either way, as others have said, not having the rights to Namor may not mean they can't do *something* Atlantis related. Depends on the terms of the contract.

I still think the Kree is the most likely origin of that corpse, not Atlantis, but Sky's identity is very much up in the air.

Just to explore other possibilities, besides Atlantis, what other Earthly yet 084 worthy origins could she have? Given her ethnicity I think Wakanda can be ruled out (besides, aren't they all just normal humans?) What about The Savage Lands? Is that just a realm out of time, or do the humans there have any unusual abilities? Could she have something to do with K'un-L'un? Is there anywhere else?

The only other possibilities I can think of are mutant (which they can't really use), Asgard/nine realms (unlikely), time traveller or some biotech experiment, either Hydra, AIM or SHIELD themselves. Maybe whatever is behind TAHITA...but that would seem a little too coincidental.

 

[trekkiebaggio]

There are also the Inhumans.

 

[Reverend]

^Aren't they just the Kree version of the super-soldier program? That could work.

 

[bbjeg]

I made a thread for it but I think the Inhumans are Universal's answer to Fox's X-men.

 

[Greg Cox]

What's the picture on the right? Is that a version of Ronan the Accuser?

Yeah, that's Ronan from Guardians of the Galaxy. More specifically, it's his toy.

I'm assuming the license system isn't "it's better to have not tried at all than to have tried and failed."

The licence system is this... As long as you're still using it, it's yours. If you go X amount of time without using it, it reverts to the original owners.

Companies will put out a shitty movie, direct to video, whatever, to keep the rights, because, one, they may have plans for down the road, or two, they might be able to resell the rights (or partial rights, or limited rights, or short term rights.) for a packet to someone who thinks they can do something with those rights.

But that's the thing. I haven't heard of any Sub-Mariner movie. Fantastic Four had two movies and still has a clear clock requiring them to do something. Daredevil had a movie and then the rights reverted. I'm guessing the time interval is longer for Namor because the only other explanation is that the clock doesn't really start until the first movie is made and that doesn't make sense.

I'm just speculating here, but it's possible there's some sort of renewal clause where Universal has the option of extending the license by making additional payments . . . .

Chris Columbus was trying to get a Namor movie off the ground several years back, but I guess it sank into Development Hell.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I have this feeling that DC and Marvel will conspire to double team us cock blocking each other by releasing the Submariner and Aquaman movies almost right on top of each other if not the same opening weekend.

 

[DarthPipes]

The Legal Geeks weigh in on Coulson and companies actions and made a strong case against them.

http://thelegalgeeks.com/blog/?p=5897

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Legal Geeks weigh in on Coulson and companies actions and made a strong case against them.

http://thelegalgeeks.com/blog/?p=5897

I wonder how well this so-called "strong case" would stand up in court.

Assuming there's even an authority with jurisdiction, would the people running the Guest House like to be questioned on the witness stand about whether the lab itself was a legal facility and the guards had a legal right to be there in the first place, armed as they were? Those are assumptions that the Legal Geeks accepted without question. How could you legally trespass on a facility that should not legally exist?

 

[Captain Qwert Jr]

How could you legally trespass on a facility that should not legally exist?

Because by your own admission it exists. As do the two murdered guards.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

How could you legally trespass on a facility that should not legally exist?

Because by your own admission it exists. As do the two murdered guards.

Hehehe, no. Again, like murder, trespass is a legal term. What rights does a squatter have to defend their claim?

 

[Mister Fandango]

Hehehe, no. Again, like murder, trespass is a legal term. What rights does a squatter have to defend their claim?

Why do you continue to assume that's the case? Just because Coulson didn't know who owned the facility, that doesn't mean no one did.

For example, you have no idea who owns the house I'm living in right now, or if I'm even a squatter. Does that mean you have the right to burst in and put a bullet in my head? (Hint: No, you don't.)

For an even better example, you stumble across the entrance to a nuclear launch site. You don't know that, of course, as all you see is a locked door with a keypad. Does that mean you now have the right to break in and kill anyone you encounter because you had no idea it was a nuclear launch site owned and operated by the US Government? (Hint: No, you don't.)

Ignorance. Is. Not. A. Legal. Defense.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Hehehe, no. Again, like murder, trespass is a legal term. What rights does a squatter have to defend their claim?

Why do you continue to assume that's the case? Just because Coulson didn't know who owned the facility, that doesn't mean no one did.

For example, you have no idea who owns the house I'm living in right now, or if I'm even a squatter. Does that mean you have the right to burst in and put a bullet in my head? (Hint: No, you don't.)

For an even better example, you stumble across the entrance to a nuclear launch site. You don't know that, of course, as all you see is a locked door with a keypad. Does that mean you now have the right to break in and kill anyone you encounter because you had no idea it was a nuclear launch site owned and operated by the US Government? (Hint: No, you don't.)

Ignorance. Is. Not. A. Legal. Defense.

People are throwing around terms like trespass and murder, and they don't even know if they legally apply. That's my point.

 

[Mister Fandango]

And my point is that both apply until proven that they don't. They knowingly and willingly broke into a facility in a hostile manner and murdered two security guards in the performance of their job, which they knew without a doubt since they had already interacted with them before the break-in.

Once again: Ignorance is not a legal defense. And yes, that is what you're claiming. Complete and utter ignorance.

And no, just because they were claiming they had someone in need of medical care (with no actual evidence that this was the case, mind you), the guards were under no legal requirements to offer aid. Feel free to have a look at some of the situations in which they might be required to do so; none of which apply here. The closest one is, and emphasis is mine: "Property owners have a duty to rescue inviteeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property."

 

[Captain Qwert Jr]

People are throwing around terms like trespass and murder, and they don't even know if they legally apply. That's my point.

You have it backwards.

Story-wise, You have to lay down a crap-load of ground work before you can declare the laws don't apply here. And I mean a huge english system measurement crap-load, not a puny metric system crap-load. They didn't even try.

As presented, Legally, morally, and ethically there is no ambiguity here.