• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread

Some people's definition of "filler episodes" persistently baffles me. Most seem to think "filler" is anything that's not directly advancing the main plot.
To my way of thinking, "filler" means the episode does *nothing* but kill time. It is not bottle shows with a focus on character ahead of plot, nor is it world building episodes.

QFT. I can't even imagine thinking "Still" (for example) is a filler episode. I think it's also used by people to mean "episodes focusing on characters I don't like."
 
a subtle reference to Paxton's (small) role in Terminator? I'm pretty sure he was the punk that Arnold punched through the stomach in a similar manner.
No, Paxton is the one who gets thrown backwards into the gate. Brian Thompson is the one penetrated by a Terminator hand. That said, I still made the same connection you did. :)
 
Some people's definition of "filler episodes" persistently baffles me. Most seem to think "filler" is anything that's not directly advancing the main plot.
To my way of thinking, "filler" means the episode does *nothing* but kill time. It is not bottle shows with a focus on character ahead of plot, nor is it world building episodes.

QFT. I can't even imagine thinking "Still" (for example) is a filler episode. I think it's also used by people to mean "episodes focusing on characters I don't like."
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.
 
Some people's definition of "filler episodes" persistently baffles me. Most seem to think "filler" is anything that's not directly advancing the main plot.
To my way of thinking, "filler" means the episode does *nothing* but kill time. It is not bottle shows with a focus on character ahead of plot, nor is it world building episodes.

QFT. I can't even imagine thinking "Still" (for example) is a filler episode. I think it's also used by people to mean "episodes focusing on characters I don't like."
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.

This. I'll boil it down even more: an episode is an episode.
 
Some people's definition of "filler episodes" persistently baffles me. Most seem to think "filler" is anything that's not directly advancing the main plot.
To my way of thinking, "filler" means the episode does *nothing* but kill time. It is not bottle shows with a focus on character ahead of plot, nor is it world building episodes.

QFT. I can't even imagine thinking "Still" (for example) is a filler episode. I think it's also used by people to mean "episodes focusing on characters I don't like."
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.

Well it's just semantics, but I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. When I think "filler", I think (badly done) clips shows, or episodes that have no storytelling value, either in terms of plot, character or thematically - though I fully admit that's highly subjective.

So yeah, by my personal definition, filler episodes are very rare on good tv shows, but they do exist.
 
QFT. I can't even imagine thinking "Still" (for example) is a filler episode. I think it's also used by people to mean "episodes focusing on characters I don't like."
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.

Well it's just semantics, but I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. When I think "filler", I think (badly done) clips shows, or episodes that have no storytelling value, either in terms of plot, character or thematically - though I fully admit that's highly subjective.

So yeah, by my personal definition, filler episodes are very rare on good tv shows, but they do exist.

Personally I think it's a show that isn't part of any continuing narrative that also does not contain any particularly insightful character work. As such, it could be removed from the viewing schedule without missing a beat.
 
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.

Well it's just semantics, but I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. When I think "filler", I think (badly done) clips shows, or episodes that have no storytelling value, either in terms of plot, character or thematically - though I fully admit that's highly subjective.

So yeah, by my personal definition, filler episodes are very rare on good tv shows, but they do exist.

Personally I think it's a show that isn't part of any continuing narrative that also does not contain any particularly insightful character work. As such, it could be removed from the viewing schedule without missing a beat.

The thing is, that describes every episode of most of our favorite 60s prime time TV dramas. Mission impossible, Trek, Mannix, WW West, Hawaii 5-0, etc, etc...
 
Well it's just semantics, but I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. When I think "filler", I think (badly done) clips shows, or episodes that have no storytelling value, either in terms of plot, character or thematically - though I fully admit that's highly subjective.

So yeah, by my personal definition, filler episodes are very rare on good tv shows, but they do exist.

Personally I think it's a show that isn't part of any continuing narrative that also does not contain any particularly insightful character work. As such, it could be removed from the viewing schedule without missing a beat.

The thing is, that describes every episode of most of our favorite 60s prime time TV dramas. Mission impossible, Trek, Mannix, WW West, Hawaii 5-0, etc, etc...

I then probably should've prefaced what I said with "In a serialized show...".

I recently saw an interview with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse talking about LOST. They basically said "Eventually you do an episode about how Jack got his tattoos."
 
There's no such thing as filler episodes. A good episode is a good episode, and a bad episode is a bad episode.

Well it's just semantics, but I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. When I think "filler", I think (badly done) clips shows, or episodes that have no storytelling value, either in terms of plot, character or thematically - though I fully admit that's highly subjective.

So yeah, by my personal definition, filler episodes are very rare on good tv shows, but they do exist.

Personally I think it's a show that isn't part of any continuing narrative that also does not contain any particularly insightful character work. As such, it could be removed from the viewing schedule without missing a beat.
"Filler" is not a term I have ever used to describe an episode of any show. I believe that every TV episode, whether part of an arc or standalone, was meant to be good and stand on it's own. That to me, automatically means it's not filler (and I'm describing 'filler' as an episode presented to just fill a slot in the show's schedule).

Actual "filler" to me would be something like airing a rerun and making it a part of the shows allotment of episodes because the staff can't think of 22 stories or 13 or 8, even. This, I don't think, is possible. What many are describing as "filler" are simply episodes (usually standalones) that they just don't like.
 
I don't think Agents of SHIELD had any filler episodes but they do exist and standalone episodes aren't the same thing. A standalone may not follow any arc or current plot, but it has a goal. A filler episode is that episode when two people get trapped somewhere, when the team goes on vacation, or they're otherwise unable to continue forward and there's no plot, goal, or any connection to any story arc. I like them because you learn about the character on a more personal level.
 
In olden days filler was shitty episodes we didn't like.

When we got smarter it was obvious cost effective (cheaper) episodes.

And when they producers got smarter, and started planning season long stories, filler wis the shitty out of sequence bullshit that has nothing to do with the ongoing story that is dominating the landscape... Case in point they had three awful episodes of Supernatural that had nothing to do with the angel civil war or Dean being overcome by the mark of Kane. It was literally filler because they didn't have enough story content with the major plot to last out till sweeps.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ward was being taken away by soldiers. If Coulson and Skye talked about what "we" would do, I assume they meant the US government.

But there is no SHIELD. SHIELD at this point is six people, a plane, and a guy with lanyards. They don't have the resources to deal with Ward, and Ward has committed many crimes on US soil and against US police officers and military personnel.


But Coulson's team are being treated as terrorists by the U.S. government, so who are they turning him over to without turning themselves in? Do they leave him tied up on the steps of the FBI building and hope to hell the feds know what to do with him?

The situation's a little more nuanced than that. It's not as if every SHIELD agent has been thrown in jail -- we saw that wasn't the case with Black Widow and Maria Hill. Rather, they wanted everyone to come in for questioning and investigation.

I'd like to know what it means for Fury to turn SHIELD over to Coulson if there is no SHIELD. The team may have access to secret bases and unclaimed resources, but they're still a bunch of rogue agents. They'd be operating without the official sanction of the U.S., the U.N., or whoever is supposed to oversee SHIELD.
  • If they try to rebuild SHIELD without turning themselves in — even if they succeed— they're simply building a rogue agency.
  • If they turn themselves in, they're just rogue agents who are now under investigation.
  • Even if they're cleared, there's no reason for anyone to grant them the authority. I'm sure the whole concept of SHIELD is being reconsidered. If it does get restarted, it would be under tight control. A group of agents who obviously don't like to follow orders (and half of whom have questionable backgrounds) would be about the last ones considered.
Fury himself is about the only person with enough authority and force of will to make it happen. But he'd have to come back from being "dead" to do it.

I'm sure something will make it happen — otherwise the show's title would have to become "Agents of Nothing". It's just that what we've heard so far doesn't mean much.
 
I'd like to know what it means for Fury to turn SHIELD over to Coulson if there is no SHIELD. The team may have access to secret bases and unclaimed resources, but they're still a bunch of rogue agents. They'd be operating without the official sanction of the U.S., the U.N., or whoever is supposed to oversee SHIELD.

There'll be as much of SHIELD left as is necessary to drive the plot.

  • Where'd the chopper Fury was on come from?
  • Who is watching over Fitz?
  • Who was going to take away Garrett's body?
  • Where is Ward going to be locked up?

Some of these are easier than others - random three-letter agencies can answer everything but the first pretty easily. There are obviously enough vestiges of SHIELD left (we certainly see not everybody turning HYDRA in CA: TWS) that they can some assets and resources still floating around.
 
I'd like to know what it means for Fury to turn SHIELD over to Coulson if there is no SHIELD.

Fury didn't turn SHIELD over to Coulson. He entrusted Coulson with the responsibility and the tools to create a new SHIELD from the ground up. Although those tools include some of Fury's leftover resources like Koenig #2 and his base.

And presumably part of Coulson's work will involve talking to governments and convincing them to lend their support, or at least accept his group's legitimacy. That's the whole point of starting all over from scratch. The old SHIELD was so fatally compromised that, as Captain America recognized, it had to be torn down completely. Coulson's job is not to continue or restore that SHIELD -- it's to create something entirely new to take its place, something untainted by its corruption.

Of course, it'd be easier to sell the world on that if they didn't call it SHIELD -- but then they'd have to change the name of the show.


If they turn themselves in, they're just rogue agents who are now under investigation.

Except they just averted a coup of the US military, if not the government. I think that would establish their bona fides and bring the investigations (of them, at least) to an end.


Fury himself is about the only person with enough authority and force of will to make it happen. But he'd have to come back from being "dead" to do it.

Or turn the responsibility over to his trusted right hand, a man he considered so indispensable that he overcame death itself to bring him back.
 
Watched the season finale tonight on DVR and thought it was a great end to a great series of episodes once the series picked up somewhere after the winter hiatus.

Lots of neat developments and reveals, I really suspect Fitz is really "gone" or at least way out of the picture, effectively being "Whedoned" to some degree or another. He "may" be back, but I sort of doubt it. His death was supposed to mean something but, then again, it was Fury who made the claims about what happened to Fitz, so...

I doubt Culson is really going to be the director of SHIELD as it picks back up, it seems more likely to me Fury is going to be running a puppet regime on some level or another. ;)

I hope Patton Oswalt's character is more of a regular next season I really enjoyed him who I dub Agent Lanyard.

I suspect we'll also see Ward again too but maybe in an advisory capacity as he'll likely find himself "in the fridge" or some other holding facility.

I'm surprised Graviton was hinted at or suggest more as they showed us the Gravitonium.

I was "almost" expecting Ward to help out Skye in the cubical farm there, having seen how over the edge Garret had gone. But I guess it's more true to story rather than going to a trope to keep him "evil." The fight between Ward and Mae was great and sort of suspenseful with the introduction of the power saw and table saw. I actually winced when Mae used the nail-gun on Ward's foot. YIKES!

Speaking of wincing, shivers went up my spine and I almost had to mute the audio as Garrett etched the diagram into the glass using a nail. Ugh, a sound right up there with nails on a chalkboard.

Good finale, overall I really enjoyed the season despite falling off the boat for a bit, but will certainly be back next season and for Agent Carter. I'll check in here from time-to-time as the discussion rolls on.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top