What it could tell us is that solid WOM got the less than faithful and those who had dropped the show to check it out. That's another theory.
Let's see what this weeks Live numbers are, see if that goes up. That might back this theory.
Agents of Shield - Season 4
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
What it could tell us is that solid WOM got the less than faithful and those who had dropped the show to check it out. That's another theory.
Let's see what this weeks Live numbers are, see if that goes up. That might back this theory.
God, this is depressing to me. I HATED the A Team. I have a close friend who I cannot get to even sample Shield because it looks too much like the A Team. He hated that show as well. Even joking around about "similarities" makes me cringe.
I know, to each his own.
(A Team)
"Jeffrey". Mace?
God, this is depressing to me. I HATED the A Team. I have a close friend who I cannot get to even sample Shield because it looks too much like the A Team. He hated that show as well. Even joking around about "similarities" makes me cringe.
I know, to each his own.
I know how you feel. I was never an A-Team fan. Knight Rider, yes. A passing interest in Air Wolf, yes. But A-Team, nope!
Dare I admit that it took me at few minutes to figure out what "WOM" was?
World Of Marvel? Monster Of Week, backwards?
Yep. Jeff Mace.
Sorry I am late...but the "gratuitous" scene was totally unnecessary, and no one would have noticed it NOT being there.
My 11 year old actually had a question answered by Chloe Bennet at C2E2, after she called her and another little girl up after they cutoff questions and sent the last ones to their seats.
So we REALLY Like Chloe, but my daughter would NOT like that scene ...
It's a shame if they are trying to compete with the Marvel Netflix series...it was better as a more all ages show
I assume we'll find out why Could on was demoted. It doesn't make sense, but in terms of keeping him back in the action, it DOES make sense.
My 11 year old actually had a question answered by Chloe Bennet at C2E2, after she called her and another little girl up after they cutoff questions and sent the last ones to their seats.
So we REALLY Like Chloe, but my daughter would NOT like that scene ...
It's a shame if they are trying to compete with the Marvel Netflix series...it was better as a more all ages show
I assume we'll find out why Could on was demoted. It doesn't make sense, but in terms of keeping him back in the action, it DOES make sense.
If you think the shot of Chloe at the beginning the episode can be considered gratuitous, then you must realize that Agents of Shield has been doing gratuitous since episode 1.05, which showed just as much skin and lasted longer. Where were the complaints then?
Last edited:
Just... wow.
How can you people even say things like that with a straight face? Have you even seen the Netflix shows? Seriously? Because what you just said is exactly parallel (if a bit hyperbolic) to saying that one scene of Leia kissing Luke in A New Hope was gratuitous, but the entire series of Game of Thrones was family friendly. (Pun only partially intended.)
Edit: Sorry, after rereading what you wrote, I realized I misread a bit. I thought you were implying that the Netflix series were a 'more all ages show,' but that's not what you were saying at all. My bad.
Last edited:
This is seriously starting to feel like talking to a brick wall.
Guys. It's not an issue of showing skin or not showing skin, how much skin is shown or for how long. It's the way in which it is done in this particular instance and why it is done.
I feel part of the miscommunication here seems to stem from the fact that some people are apparently under the impression that "gratuitous" is a synonym for "explicit" or "outrageous". It's not. It's dictionary definition is simply "Done without good reason; uncalled for." and that is all I am suggesting here.
When people talk about gratuitous violence, they're not talking about how much blood splatter or guts are on display but how and why that violence is used within the context of the story. Just because a show or a movie has a violent or sexual scene in one place, doesn't automatically mean they're justified in doing the same thing in another place, regardless of context.
Context. Matters.
As I've already explained previously, this very episode has an excellent example of that since it actually features a much more *explicit* scene with Aida that is decidedly *not* gratuitous. It makes sense, it adds something to the scene and it's not done simply because they can. It's justified. The earlier shot of Daisy? Not so much. It's just thrown in there because "hey look, she's all sexy and grown up now!" They can do better than that.
Another reason I feel is that there's been so much push back at the mere *suggestion* that seeing a woman's bare skin might not be OK under any and all circumstances is solely because she's a woman and those pushing back are straight men.
To those who can't see why this is a problem I say: play those two scenes back in your mind but instead of Daisy, have Coulson gearing up and instead of Aida standing there, have Mac. All of a sudden, a shot of an agent putting their underwear on from that high angle seems a little out of place and yet the naked android still makes sense, no?
Guys. It's not an issue of showing skin or not showing skin, how much skin is shown or for how long. It's the way in which it is done in this particular instance and why it is done.
I feel part of the miscommunication here seems to stem from the fact that some people are apparently under the impression that "gratuitous" is a synonym for "explicit" or "outrageous". It's not. It's dictionary definition is simply "Done without good reason; uncalled for." and that is all I am suggesting here.
When people talk about gratuitous violence, they're not talking about how much blood splatter or guts are on display but how and why that violence is used within the context of the story. Just because a show or a movie has a violent or sexual scene in one place, doesn't automatically mean they're justified in doing the same thing in another place, regardless of context.
Context. Matters.
As I've already explained previously, this very episode has an excellent example of that since it actually features a much more *explicit* scene with Aida that is decidedly *not* gratuitous. It makes sense, it adds something to the scene and it's not done simply because they can. It's justified. The earlier shot of Daisy? Not so much. It's just thrown in there because "hey look, she's all sexy and grown up now!" They can do better than that.
Another reason I feel is that there's been so much push back at the mere *suggestion* that seeing a woman's bare skin might not be OK under any and all circumstances is solely because she's a woman and those pushing back are straight men.
To those who can't see why this is a problem I say: play those two scenes back in your mind but instead of Daisy, have Coulson gearing up and instead of Aida standing there, have Mac. All of a sudden, a shot of an agent putting their underwear on from that high angle seems a little out of place and yet the naked android still makes sense, no?
Last edited:
And what, pray tell, is wrong with a bit of eye candy every now and again?
Did you guys lose your shit during, say, this scene in Civil War? He didn't need to be wearing a shirt that revealed his arms so "gratuitously." He could have just as easily been wearing a baggy shirt, a jacket, or just about anything else. But nah, then you wouldn't get the eye candy.
Or how about this scene, or this scene, or this scene, or the other countless scenes along the same line?
So who's the one being sexist now?
Congratulations on not only missing the point, but also proving it. Well done that man!
What? That it's okay to "exploit" men, but not women when it comes to offering some harmless eye candy from time to time?
Sorry, you're the blind one here.
Where exactly did I say anything of the sort?
Also: bravo on combining an ad hominem and straw man argument in one post. How efficient of you.
Pretty much your entire previous post. Even though you're clearly oblivious to it.
Or what, showing off a man's physique and masculinity is fine. Showing off a woman's physique and feminity, however, results in pages upon pages of nutty people losing their shit over it. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Last edited:
Hmm... interesting, if kind of slow moving episode. I twigged to the new Director's identity as soon as they said his name, but I couldn't figure out how/if they would adapt the character. Makes for interesting possibilities.
And the Ghost Rider portion of the episode continues to intrigue. I'm curious about the reactor and the book and how they might be related. Sounds like we might get a magic/technology linkage like many people expected.
I'll bet good money that one of the four remaining researchers in that picture is Robbie's uncle Eli. And that he's probably the one who screwed over the rest of them. Maybe some origin story stuff for next week? Can't wait. I'm digging this season so far.
And the Ghost Rider portion of the episode continues to intrigue. I'm curious about the reactor and the book and how they might be related. Sounds like we might get a magic/technology linkage like many people expected.
I'll bet good money that one of the four remaining researchers in that picture is Robbie's uncle Eli. And that he's probably the one who screwed over the rest of them. Maybe some origin story stuff for next week? Can't wait. I'm digging this season so far.
Similar threads
