In the article above, they quote the release saying that "the series" will center on Coulson, not just the pilot.
Joss Whedon's S.H.I.E.L.D to ABC!
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
I've seen instances where casting can go right up to the wire. For instance, Benedict Cumberbatch and Noel Clarke weren't announced as cast members of Star Trek Into Darkness until eight days before principal photography began. Casting announcements for Whedon's Dollhouse mostly came out in the last month before pilot filming began.
A prequel unnecessarily limits story possiblities. And before anyone starts, I am not trying to criticize the concept of prequels, which I believe have their place as a legitimate storytelling option. However, in the case of this SHIELD series, I think having it set before the Avengers movie limits the story possibilities and that setting it after frees things up and allows the show to go in any potential direction.
^
I don't disagree, but having it as a prequel makes coming up with some fantastical excuse for Coulson headlining it moot.
And while I agree with you in general about how limiting prequels can be, I think this project could also be limited if it runs concurrent to the Marvel films because it could be hemmed in by the events or potential events of those films. Similar to how the Superman Returns and Dark Knight folks influenced Smallville, this might also happen to SHIELD.
I don't disagree, but having it as a prequel makes coming up with some fantastical excuse for Coulson headlining it moot.
And while I agree with you in general about how limiting prequels can be, I think this project could also be limited if it runs concurrent to the Marvel films because it could be hemmed in by the events or potential events of those films. Similar to how the Superman Returns and Dark Knight folks influenced Smallville, this might also happen to SHIELD.
There doesn't have to be a fantastical excuse. People in real life have survived comparable impalement injuries if they got medical treatment in time. And we didn't actually see Coulson's death; it was announced off-camera by Fury, a character that we know for a fact was willing to lie in order to manipulate the Avengers' emotions. So there could be a perfectly naturalistic explanation for Coulson's survival, the seeds for which were already planted in the film itself.
Sure, but to retcon it like that takes away from the emotional resonance of that announcement in the film. I hate how death is so mutable in comics and I hoped it wouldn't happen on the TV show. Perhaps Coulson's popularity trumps the poignancy of his death announcement, but I don't think the guy is needed to do a SHIELD show. Coulson's part was well played and the character was well used to connect the dots. But those dots are connected now; Coulson served his purpose and 'died' with honor in the Avengers. That was enough for me.
Plus, retconning it along those lines just make Nick Fury extra-douchey when just saying he was injured and hanging on to life instead could've had nearly the desired effect of rallying the Avengers.
Heck, I was surprised when Coulson didn't turn up alive at the end of The Avengers. Not only was it blatantly telegraphed by having the death off-camera, but I figured that Whedon was deliberately subverting the fans' expectations about Whedon killing off fan-favorite characters, that he was playing into that assumption in order to fake us out by having it turn out to be a ploy of Fury's.
I was wrong about the latter part (in fact, it wasn't even Whedon's idea to kill -- or "kill" -- Coulson, but came from on high), but I'm not sure it would be a retcon; again, they made a point of keeping his reputed moment of death off-camera, which is usually a dead giveaway, and these films are being made by people who seem to have a whole master strategy planned out for their productions. It's not really a retcon if they planned it that way all along; it's just a revelation of something hidden.
I was wrong about the latter part (in fact, it wasn't even Whedon's idea to kill -- or "kill" -- Coulson, but came from on high), but I'm not sure it would be a retcon; again, they made a point of keeping his reputed moment of death off-camera, which is usually a dead giveaway, and these films are being made by people who seem to have a whole master strategy planned out for their productions. It's not really a retcon if they planned it that way all along; it's just a revelation of something hidden.
The First Rule of Science Fiction:
If you didn't see the body, they're not really dead.
If you didn't see the body, they're not really dead.
Dude works on a floating aircraft carrier. "Real life" ain't exactly a factor here.
Next question?
There are a lot of supposedly realistic shows and movies wherein the lead characters suffer serious injuries, often multiple times, and are able to recover fully and stay on the job with no loss of performance. So yeah, it'd be fanciful compared to real life, but within the range of accepted breaks from reality in fiction.
^ Jack Bauer 'died' twice in 24 and was back in action within an hour (in the series continuity), while Tony Almeida died in Season 5 and came back for season 7.
So for a show set in a world which features Norse Gods (sorry, aliens), super-serum-powered soldiers and gamma powered monsters, this shouldn't be a big deal.
So for a show set in a world which features Norse Gods (sorry, aliens), super-serum-powered soldiers and gamma powered monsters, this shouldn't be a big deal.
That's nothing: also on 24, Nadia went back and forth on her romantic feelings between Doyle and Milo no less than three times over the course of four hours on Day 6. I mean, I realize they only work in the CTU, but would it kill these people to concentrate on their jobs during a crisis situation?
^Not quite germane to the whole Coulson-back-from-the-dead thing though...
Point taken.