But the movie references are half the fun...especially if you drink every time they say "Romanoff"!
It better be vodka.
But the movie references are half the fun...especially if you drink every time they say "Romanoff"!
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.
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.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.
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.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."
Hayley Atwell answers some questions about Agent Carter and reveals that the first season order is for eight episodes:
Hayley Atwell answers some questions about Agent Carter and reveals that the first season order is for eight episodes:
Is that 8 episodes out of shield's 22 or 30 total?
Hayley Atwell answers some questions about Agent Carter and reveals that the first season order is for eight episodes:
Is that 8 episodes out of shield's 22 or 30 total?
Agent Carter is it's own show. It gets 8 episodes. Shield gets 22 episodes.
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.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."
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.
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.
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...
"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).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.
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.
I'd like to know what it means for Fury to turn SHIELD over to Coulson if there is no SHIELD.
If they turn themselves in, they're just rogue agents who are now under investigation.
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.