• 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!

Marvel's Most Wanted (Agents of SHIELD spin-off)

I don't know what ABC friendly gets you. Agent Carter (particularly season two) may be the most ABC-friendly show there is and its ratings are awful (I suspect the key demos may be even worse).
 
Touche. However they could also include Fortune on Agents of Shield. I don't think they need to dilute the brand in this fashion.
And spending time on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. focusing on someone who is neither an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. nor their adversary wouldn't dilute the brand?

I'm not seeing any downsides to them making this its own show, personally. People watching AOS will generally give the new show a chance; but you're more likely to gain new audience share by launch it as a new show. And it's distinct enough to be a new show.
 
And spending time on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. focusing on someone who is neither an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. nor their adversary wouldn't dilute the brand?

I'm not seeing any downsides to them making this its own show, personally. People watching AOS will generally give the new show a chance; but you're more likely to gain new audience share by launch it as a new show. And it's distinct enough to be a new show.

When I was watching AoS, Bobbi was one of the best parts. So why take her out of the picture, put her on another show, and perhaps spread themselves too thin? How much of a groundswell is there for Bobbi and Hunter to have their own shows anyway?
 
Why don't we look at the ratings for the show and then we'll know how much people want to watch it.

Agents of SHIELD is moving towards the Secret Warriors. I think it's becoming in danger of becoming overcrowded. This decision is smart considering that.
 
This isn't the first time that ABC has been interested in a Mockingbird show, however the AoS version of Mockingbird is far more faithful than the previous version would have been. IIRC, that version would have had Bobbi in college training to be a spy. It always sounded to me more like "Felicity" meets "Alias" than anything else.
 
When I was watching AoS, Bobbi was one of the best parts. So why take her out of the picture, put her on another show, and perhaps spread themselves too thin? How much of a groundswell is there for Bobbi and Hunter to have their own shows anyway?
Fair points and questions, but as AJ notes, the show already has a full and likely growing roster, and it's not as though Morse has had much character work there lately anyhow. What does strike me as particularly bold is building an adventure show around an established and relatively stable (at least recently) couple; has that ever worked before?

All told, replacing Agent Carter with this seems to make a lot of sense. Moving to the West Coast has been great for keeping AC's second season fresh, but it's hard to see how the show could similarly reinvent itself for a third season without going international, and thus dramatically upping the period production costs in the process.
 
What does strike me as particularly bold is building an adventure show around an established and relatively stable (at least recently) couple; has that ever worked before?

There were McMillan and Wife and Hart to Hart, but those were more detective shows. They tried it with Undercovers, but that didn't last long. Still, a lot of shows that start out with the couple not together still manage to last for years after they do get together, e.g. Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Castle, and I think Chuck.
 
I just really can't see this working on its own. They're good to be part of an ensemble, but their own show? It's not like Agents of SHIELD is getting good ratings as it is.
While they could be better, live #s anyway, it gets a solid boost in the L+3 and L+7 numbers. Networks are realizing, albeit slowly, that it's not 1985 and we don't have to be in front of the TV that night or miss out forever on 'Who shot JR'.
Nearly every tracking model had AoS as a lock for a S4 renewal and it was early renewed. Clearly it's ratings DOOM & GLOOM that often are cited online aren't accurate.
 
It would be neat if they throw Silver Sable into the mix.

Hmm, who has the rights to her? She's originally a Spider-Man character, after all. I know Marvel and Sony have joint custody of Spidey now, but how does that affect Marvel's use of characters from his stable? Are they able to use Spidey characters in something that Sony doesn't co-produce?
 
Dominic Fortune, who's being played by Delroy Lindo, had dealings with her. She'd make a good addition to Hunter and Mockingbird's A-Team.
 
Last edited:
That would be cool. She's originally a Spidey character, but so was Wilson Fisk, so who knows where the cards have fallen? :)

I think the difference is that Fisk went on to become inextricably associated with Daredevil, so that their rights went together. (Much as how Wolverine's rights go with the X-Men rather than the Hulk.) Kingpin appeared in the Daredevil movie from Fox while they still held the rights, and that was a year after the start of Sony's Spider-Man film series. Silver Sable, meanwhile, has only appeared onscreen in three different Spider-Man animated series (voiced by Mira Furlan in the '90s series, Virginia Madsen in the 2003 MTV series, and Nikki Cox in The Spectacular Spider-Man, though in that version she was reimagined as Silvermane's daughter). Granted, live-action movie rights and animated TV rights don't necessarily align (Kingpin did appear in the MTV Spidey cartoon, voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan, in fact), but it seems to suggest that Sable, unlike Kingpin, is still regarded as a Spider-Man supporting character.
 
Hmm, who has the rights to her? She's originally a Spider-Man character, after all. I know Marvel and Sony have joint custody of Spidey now, but how does that affect Marvel's use of characters from his stable? Are they able to use Spidey characters in something that Sony doesn't co-produce?

The easiest way to think about it is Sony has the right to Spider-Man (it's not technically a joint right), but Sony allows Marvel to use characters on a case-by-case basis (with Marisa Tomei apparently in Civil War, they clearly can use more than just Spider-Man if allowed).

That being said, they weren't even allowed to put Spider-Man in commercials without working out a separate deal for that. Given that, there's no automatic "hey, Spider-Man's back, we can use him again." It's a sign of hope that things can be worked out, but that's it. I assume things have even more barriers for using Sony characters on TV because first they have to run things by Marvel movie side (since Feige is producing the Spider-Man movie) and then Sony would have to agree.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top