That's a vicious lie, it hurts terrible!
But... but... there is proof right here!!!!
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCzZsnsB-1U[/yt]
Agents of SHIELD - Season 2 Discussion Threads. (Spoilers Likely)
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
But... but... there is proof right here!!!!
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCzZsnsB-1U[/yt]
That's cool. Maybe now May will loosen up a bit in Season 3. 
I mean in the newer comics. Wouldn't be the first time a comic altered a character's appearance to match an actor playing that character. IIRC, Alfred was the first one, back in the 1940s.
There will probably be a little of that too. From what I gather they're already tweaking things to echo the MCU at least somewhat.
Interesting that they are using "Daisy" going forward rather than "Skye". especially since the comic just went out of its way to give Daisy the "Skye" nick-name.
Very interesting indeed. It seems like she's okay, whatever happened to her. I'm looking forward to the new season. Especially the new green cast member. 
I can't help but wonder if the new rival organization headed up by Constance Zimmer's mystery character is S.W.O.R.D., they've done so much stuff with aliens and alien influences that I'm shocked it hasn't already popped up. Which would mean that she most likely make her Abigail Brand.
Last edited:
This is a few months late, but I ran across these two entries on an Agents of SHIELD Tumblr fan site that I think offer an interesting point about Simmons's character arc this season.
For all the shit Simmons gets from some fans about her assertion that the team needed to consider killing Raina in "Aftershocks," no one seems to have a problem with Fitz's arguing in favor of killing Agent Victoria Hand in "Turn, Turn, Turn" -- even though Fitz in fact understood even less about the situation in "Turn, Turn, Turn" than Simmons did in "Aftershocks" and was actually wrong about his presumption that Hand was Hydra; and even though Fitz's argument was based on a fear that Hand might kill Simmons, whereas Simmons's argument was based in part on the fact that Raina had just killed agents of SHIELD.
On top of that, for all the flak Simmons gets over her threat to kill Ward if she ever sees him again in early Season Two, no one seems to remember Fitz declaring that he wanted to actively torture Garret in "Turn, Turn, Turn" either. Or to hold that against him.
So I think it's interesting to see how a lot of fans who were judging Simmons so negatively were holding her to a double standard that they didn't apply to Fitz.
For all the shit Simmons gets from some fans about her assertion that the team needed to consider killing Raina in "Aftershocks," no one seems to have a problem with Fitz's arguing in favor of killing Agent Victoria Hand in "Turn, Turn, Turn" -- even though Fitz in fact understood even less about the situation in "Turn, Turn, Turn" than Simmons did in "Aftershocks" and was actually wrong about his presumption that Hand was Hydra; and even though Fitz's argument was based on a fear that Hand might kill Simmons, whereas Simmons's argument was based in part on the fact that Raina had just killed agents of SHIELD.
On top of that, for all the flak Simmons gets over her threat to kill Ward if she ever sees him again in early Season Two, no one seems to remember Fitz declaring that he wanted to actively torture Garret in "Turn, Turn, Turn" either. Or to hold that against him.
So I think it's interesting to see how a lot of fans who were judging Simmons so negatively were holding her to a double standard that they didn't apply to Fitz.
There's a difference between taking out a (perceived) immediate threat that's already actively trying to murder you and everyone around you in the here and now and executing someone based on their genetic make-up or because you don't like them.
Granted, the thing with Ward was probably justified in a purely pragmatic sense, but it's still unethical.
Granted, the thing with Ward was probably justified in a purely pragmatic sense, but it's still unethical.
Also, Fitz's dark moments were mostly confined to specific scenes, whereas Simmons had a slow burning buildup of general bigotry that made her dark moments stand out much more and feel far less like she might eventually get past them.
It wasn't abot genetic make-up though, or the fact she didn't like her.
Simmons wanted to kill Raina, and was weary of other superhumans, because of the threat they could be. Fitz, however, wasn't sure if Hand really was HYDRA, but since she threatened Simmons, he wanted her dead. His desire to torture Garrett was based on emotion, while Simmons (although ofcourse very angry at him) it was more based on realising he is still a great threat, and would be better of dead.
You mean like how Raina killed multiple SHIELD agents with her bare hands?
You're taking it out of context. That conversation was after Raina had escaped and Simmons was suggesting that killing Raina "may not be the worst thing" not because she was a killer, but because of what she'd found in her blood work. The words "horrific", "contagion" and "eradicated" came into play.
The crux of it though is what she said to Skye earlier: "I was so curious about powers, about unearthly biology, wondering where it might lead, hoping to better understand it, control it. I should have been trying to terminate it. Erase it from existence.--It's a plague, Skye. All of it. It only ever brings us death."
Whether she sees it that way or not, what she's promoting here is genocide.
And you are taking her words out of context, because you are making it seem as though Simmons understands at this point that the Inhumans exist as a community and as a race of people. She does not understand this yet.
At this point in the narrative, all Simmons knows is that something happened in the temple which altered Raina's DNA and killed Tripp. The idea that it was a plague is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, because literally all she knows is that it altered two people -- one killed and one turned into a creature that killed agents of SHIELD with her bare hands.
So when she's saying it's a plague, she's not thinking it's a metaphor. She's not thinking, "These people are inferior and a threat and we gotta kill all these people." She's thinking there's a legitimate, communicable illness which could kill innocent people. Her understanding of the situation is erroneous.
Did she have prejudices? Certainly. And she worked through them and got over them. But this does not make her a proponent of genocide.
And it doesn't change the fact that Simmons is being held to a standard of morality for her statements in "Afterlife" to which Fitz is not being held for his statements in "Turn, Turn, Turn."
I think Simmons is being picked on and blamed for entirely too much.
They didn't know what was in that temple, it could have been some type of plague that kills many changes a few, as per hundreds of other novels/movies we've seen things like that happen. She was concerned with stopping a genocide, not creating one.
They didn't know what was in that temple, it could have been some type of plague that kills many changes a few, as per hundreds of other novels/movies we've seen things like that happen. She was concerned with stopping a genocide, not creating one.
Similar threads
