|
Oasx posted:It took me a few seconds to even realize that it was another actor playing the role. It is a weird thing that with a show with so many good actors on it, they picked someone who at best is a mediocre actor as the lead. Well technically it was Dushku who had the deal with Fox, so there wouldn't have been a show without her as lead. She approached Whedon and got him involved, and from there he found a bunch of actors that were more capable of the versatility the show would require.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
ShakeZula posted:Well technically it was Dushku who had the deal with Fox, so there wouldn't have been a show without her as lead. She approached Whedon and got him involved, and from there he found a bunch of actors that were more capable of the versatility the show would require. It's pretty bizarre to think they cast 2-3 people who had the range to pull off Orphan Black levels of acting to support a mostly mediocre main cast. Dollhouse probably tops the charts for wasted acting potential from a network TV show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
The Dollhouse was an almost perfect example of a Whedon show. The first season was bad*. The second season picked up a little and then, just before it got cancelled, the final few episodes were just outstanding. Those last few episodes made all the stupid lovely ones worthwhile. And they're what I think about any time I watch a show that starts off poorly, that hope it might just give us that one scene everyone else has already mentioned. That scene where Enver's character took on the personality of Topher the amoral nerd and gave a performance that should have earned him an award the size of a house. *No, it was loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
The thing is, Eliza Dushku can be effective...at playing Eliza Dushku. She's like Clooney or Pitt, a person with a lot of charisma but not much range. And the tragedy of Dollhouse was that the show was all about range. You needed a chameleon, an actor who can switch personae at the drop of a hat. And Dushku was never going to be able to do that. Such a shame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:The thing is, Eliza Dushku can be effective...at playing Eliza Dushku. She's like Clooney or Pitt, a person with a lot of charisma but not much range. And the tragedy of Dollhouse was that the show was all about range. You needed a chameleon, an actor who can switch personae at the drop of a hat. And Dushku was never going to be able to do that. I think Pitt has a fair amount of range. Not a lot, but as far as Movie Star actors go he's not bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I think Pitt has a fair amount of range. Not a lot, but as far as Movie Star actors go he's not bad. That's fair. He's got more than Clooney, less than Depp. And more, sadly, than Dushku. Which was the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Pitt's range, from the movies I've seen of him, seems to basically be "crazy", "charming", "Generic Dude with generic emotions". I never saw Benjamin Button so maybe he did something in that movie that was different. Castle Radium posted:Loeb was co-showrunner with Jesse Alexander for Seasons 1-3, before they were both fired. Not that it made any difference, because I'm convinced no-one involved in running that show had any clue what they were doing, least of all the creator. Tim Kring is like the equivalent of some guy who bullshits their way into a high-powered job, and then spends the whole time making a massive fort out of cushions. Hmmm, was it Fuller who came back and said the he felt that his characters had be violated beyond repair or something to that effect? I just remember and article around season 4 or 5 with someone who help create the show saying that the show was essentially ruined, with the implication that it was mostly Loeb's fault. I remember the Heroes thread discussing all of this at some point but all the little details in my head are muddy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:The thing is, Eliza Dushku can be effective...at playing Eliza Dushku. She's like Clooney or Pitt, a person with a lot of charisma but not much range. And the tragedy of Dollhouse was that the show was all about range. You needed a chameleon, an actor who can switch personae at the drop of a hat. And Dushku was never going to be able to do that. Yeah, Dollhouse really needed a Tatiana Maslany
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:The thing is, Eliza Dushku can be effective...at playing Eliza Dushku. She's like Clooney or Pitt, a person with a lot of charisma but not much range. And the tragedy of Dollhouse was that the show was all about range. You needed a chameleon, an actor who can switch personae at the drop of a hat. And Dushku was never going to be able to do that. Eliza Dushku's probably best role was the laid-back promiscuous pothead Shaundi from Saints Row 2. Her acting style actually suited that character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:EVERY show needs Enver Gjokaj. I almost cried when I saw him show up in Dexter for two seconds to end up as a corpse. He showed up on the cheesy but strangely addictive series Witches of East End too. I wish he could get a series that would really showcase his talent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Eliza Dushku's probably best role was the laid-back promiscuous pothead Shaundi from Saints Row 2. Her acting style actually suited that character. Yeah, she was really great as Shaundi. So much so that recasting the character was one of the few major strikes against the sequels for me. I also thought Dushku gave a pretty underrated performance in Wet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Yeah, Dollhouse really needed a Tatiana Maslany Or a Gary Oldman. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Daniel Day-Lewis ~fin~
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
But then you'd you'd maybe one episode every 4 months. He'll need the first three to immerse himself into the character and study it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
Crazy Gary Oldman in a Joss Whedon show would certainly be a delight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Here's an article which talks about some of the disappointed responses to the show. I think it might over-emphasise the extent to which the lack of appearances from the big movie characters is the main source of criticism, though maybe that's just because I've not really been exposed to the fandom so much beyond this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
My theory about a lot of the complaints is that people came into this expecting Sgt. Fury's Howling Commandos and instead got the SHIELD cleanup and taxi service. For what it is: a new special operations team put together by one of the heroes of SHIELD that is slowly learning to trust each other in a world increasingly infested by superpowers it isn't awful, its just taking its sweet time getting there
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:but more happens in the first four episodes of Arrow than in all of AoS so far. We still just have generic bad guy of the week
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
mallamp posted:What happened in Arrow again? Because I watched 3 or 4 episodes of it and not only did it have 'generic bad guy of the week' but the main character even had a whole list of those generic bad guys... "and this week.. THE ARROW exacts revenge on another EVIL BUSINESSMAN WHO DOES VERY BAD THINGS". I think both shows are pretty generic all around, but at least Agents of SHIELD doesn't take itself so seriously.. Man, that show just has a lot more drama full stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I realize quality is subjective but to claim Arrow's pace is anything but breakneck is just ridiculous. That show resolves in one or two episodes what would be a season-long arc on most others. And that's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Whatever the broader problems with writing and direction - and they're significant - I think it's fair to say that the immense storytelling potential inherent in the premise has been absolutely crippled by an inability to take more than tepid half-steps outside the boundaries of the established MCU film canon (i.e. limited use of superpowered characters in general, no alien races other than the Chitauri, no time travel, no magic, no alternate dimensions, no advanced ancient civilizations, no quasi-supernatural godlike beings other than the Asgardians and those associated, etc).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Whatever the broader problems with writing and direction - and they're significant - I think it's fair to say that the immense storytelling potential inherent in the premise has been absolutely crippled by an inability to take more than tepid half-steps outside the boundaries of the established MCU film canon (i.e. limited use of superpowered characters in general, no alien races other than the Chitauri, no time travel, no magic, no alternate dimensions, no advanced ancient civilizations, no quasi-supernatural godlike beings other than the Asgardians and those associated, etc). The big problem is that there is little reason that they couldn't do any of those things (outside of crazy alien invasions.) The showrunners are being really thick about it, and I am sure producers at Disney are also being really stupid about managing the franchise, which is resulting in a mediocre program. Common sense should have dictated that AOS be treated as any other entry into the MCU. The people running that show should have had the same ability to stake their claim to their own corner of the MCU and allow them to weave themselves into the fabric of the shared universe accordingly. They should have been able to stick flags in characters and plots they wanted to use and to go from there to build a show around it. And Disney should have absolutely ponied up the cash to get a few episodes that feature big, meaningful cameos, maybe for finales, and premieres in order to build the audience. Instead, it seems like Disney is constantly just telling them what they CAN'T do or use. ToastyPotato fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The big problem is that there is little reason that they couldn't do any of those things (outside of crazy alien invasions.) The showrunners are being really thick about it, and I am sure producers at Disney are also being really stupid about managing the franchise, which is resulting in a mediocre program. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is pretty much built on pinching every penny it can. They've let supporting cast and even stars go when they start asking for too much money. I'm not saying the plotting couldn't be better, but anyone expecting movie cameos wasn't being realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The Marvel Cinematic Universe is pretty much built on pinching every penny it can. They've let supporting cast and even stars go when they start asking for too much money. Well yeah it wasn't realistic, and I knew they weren't going to be likely, but it didn't help that this was being sold as being part of the MCU, when the whole gimmick of the MCU are the crossovers and cameos. The budgets for the movies have been growing. They let the first guy from Iron Man 1 go because they felt he was asking for more than was warranted given the role. The dude from Thor with the mustache left because he was booked on another project. Edward Norton left for likely the same reason he has behind the scenes issues on other films. It seems more like Marvel does its own appraisals of actors and ditches them if they do not agree. That's less about saving money and more about telling some people "you aren't worth it to me." That's little to do with the problem the show is facing though. The problem is more of a creative issue than a financial one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Part of the problem is that all the things that would be impractical to carry over to a TV show are all the reasons that the MCU is enjoyable: charismatic actors headlining and doing crossovers and top-tier special effects. What's left are the lousy parts of it: poor live-action direction, dull plotting, and vague world-building. It's unreasonable to expect Mark Ruffalo to just pop by the show, or to have a lot of crazy superheroics, but that's what the brand is. In theory they could have replaced what was lost by improving something else, but for whatever reason that isn't happening (yet, hopefully). I mean, they could have find new people, not well known, to handle the "charismatic actors," part, but their failure to do so has been hashed over enough in this thread. edit: That said, there are still things to enjoy. The characterization has improved, the Ward/May romance is a surprising direction to have gone, and there's been a bunch of little things I've enjoyed (like that weird room with the equations on the walls). I hope they find a way to make this work as a TV show because there's a lot of things that could be done in a MCU TV show that would compliment the movies very nicely. Phase 2 has been a huge improvement over Phase 1 as far as the movies are concerned, so hopefully the TV show will tick up in quality as well. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Dec 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
I really want the style of the Ward fight sequence from the pilot to come back. It was well done, dynamic, a bit Bourne derivative but that's not the worst thing ever. Most of the rest of the fights have been pretty "hiyah, woah, hiyah" in comparison. Not, like, Shatner double fist clubbing bad, but pretty meh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Well yeah it wasn't realistic, and I knew they weren't going to be likely, but it didn't help that this was being sold as being part of the MCU, when the whole gimmick of the MCU are the crossovers and cameos. Marvel was also very, very stupid with their early contracts. They went for a share of the profits on spider-man (and everyone knows no movie in the history of Hollywood has ever turned a profit after the creative accounting). Effectively perpetual licenses given for x-men and spider-man so they can't use anything even vaguely related to those properties in anything else. Tough to have tie-ins and cameos when half your comic universe is under exclusive license to other studios.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Marvel was also very, very stupid with their early contracts. They went for a share of the profits on spider-man (and everyone knows no movie in the history of Hollywood has ever turned a profit after the creative accounting). Effectively perpetual licenses given for x-men and spider-man so they can't use anything even vaguely related to those properties in anything else. That's a totally different subject though. For the most part, people understand that Mutants and Spidey and friends aren't part of the MCU, so no one should ever be expecting them in anything Marvel Studios does. But Marvel and Disney have the rights to everything else (besides Fantastic Four and co.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah, Spider-Man wouldn't be showing up in Agents of SHIELD even if Disney controlled the character for the same reason that Iron Man isn't showing up there now. It's got nothing to do with the licensing issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, Spider-Man wouldn't be showing up in Agents of SHIELD even if Disney controlled the character for the same reason that Iron Man isn't showing up there now. It's got nothing to do with the licensing issue. I'm less interested in spider-man himself than the rogues' gallery that goes with him. This show will never be The Avengers: the TV series. But if you want to make it feel more involved, some of the rest of the marvel universe would help. The billion mutants they can't use, all of spider-man's foes are likely locked down, daredevil is likely in that same pile of people they can't use- that leaves them using people nobody but the true believers have ever heard of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Company Man is in the top 5 of my favorite episodes of TV of all time. Great, now I'm imagining HRG as an Agent of Shield and it's showing me the waste of two potentially great series at the same time. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Azhais posted:I'm less interested in spider-man himself than the rogues' gallery that goes with him. This show will never be The Avengers: the TV series. But if you want to make it feel more involved, some of the rest of the marvel universe would help. The billion mutants they can't use, all of spider-man's foes are likely locked down, daredevil is likely in that same pile of people they can't use- that leaves them using people nobody but the true believers have ever heard of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
That's kind of the funny thing about the whole situation. There have been a lot of people defending AOS's mediocrity by saying that it simply has to be this way, but Marvel just greenlit four 13 episode series on Netflix starring precisely the type of characters that should have been on a show like AOS to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:That's kind of the funny thing about the whole situation. There have been a lot of people defending AOS's mediocrity by saying that it simply has to be this way, but Marvel just greenlit four 13 episode series on Netflix starring precisely the type of characters that should have been on a show like AOS to begin with. I wonder if those series are going to tie in with the MCU or if they're just going to be their own thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I wonder if those series are going to tie in with the MCU or if they're just going to be their own thing. Almost certainly MCU. Everything Marvel is doing on TV and on film is MCU.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Marvel was also very, very stupid with their early contracts. They went for a share of the profits on spider-man (and everyone knows no movie in the history of Hollywood has ever turned a profit after the creative accounting). Effectively perpetual licenses given for x-men and spider-man so they can't use anything even vaguely related to those properties in anything else. Weren't they on the verge of bankruptcy when they made those deals? So not so much stupid as desperate for money, any money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:Weren't they on the verge of bankruptcy when they made those deals? So not so much stupid as desperate for money, any money. They actually sold a LOT of rights at the time, not just Spidey, X, and FF. But a bunch of studios just sat on their asses and did nothing, and a few of them made films and Marvel either negotiated for them or the studios let them lapse. Marvel has tons of characters in their 50+ years of comics and there's no reason Spider-Man Villain A or X-Men Villain B couldn't also be filled by any other number of villains that are within their MCU's current character rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:Weren't they on the verge of bankruptcy when they made those deals? So not so much stupid as desperate for money, any money. Also, if they weren't in the movie business at the time, then they basically get paid to have other companies make hundred-million-dollar ad campaigns for their comics. I haven't really followed comic book sales numbers but I imagine they've gone up by a lot since the start of this whole glut of superhero movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Almost certainly MCU. Everything Marvel is doing on TV and on film is MCU. The crucial differences from SHIELD being (aside from the obvious) that: (a) They presumably won't be tied to the existing MCU film canon by more than the occasional reference; and (b) They'll thus actually be free to do their own world building, albeit on a smaller scale than what SHIELD could have done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Random observation: this show is called "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D."; by that alone, it kind of establishes that supers aren't going to be the primary focus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 05:35
|
|
