|
If Deadline's sources on this are good, Marvel apparently has some very ambitious TV plans for the next few years... which, despite their corporate ownership, may not necessarily involve traditional broadcast or cable networks.quote:No one would breathe a word, with rumors that everyone from top to bottom is bound by strict nondisclosure agreements, but I hear that Marvel is quietly putting together a package of four drama series and a miniseries — a total of some 60 episodes — that would be taken out to the VOD and cable space, with Netflix, Amazon and WGN America rumored as potential candidates. Feelers had been send out, and I hear there’s already interest from digital platforms and traditional cable networks in the package, which I hear is in very early stages with very little talent attached. Reps for Marvel refused any comment. quote:Committing to 60 episodes off the bat is a big undertaking for a network/digital service but would make sense for outlets new to scripted programming that are looking to quickly build up a slate and want to capitalize on the Marvel brand.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Regarding SHIELD, it's a matter of balance. Surely it should be possible to find a middle ground between the two extremes of "every character/thing the agents encounter is something recognizable from the original Marvel Universe" and "nothing but original characters plus references to/recycled plot points from the previous MCU films. More broadly, it should also be possible to find a workable middle ground between having some wildly fantastic element like alternate dimensions/evil sorcerers/lost ancient civilizations with incredibly advanced technology/aliens secretly living on Earth in every episode, and feeling like it's set in a universe where almost none of those things could exist.* But it hasn't found either yet. *Based on interviews with the crew, this is in large part because those elements haven't been established firmly or at all in the MCU films yet, but that just means that this show may have launched a year or two too early to be allowed to fully realize its potential. Actually, SHIELD has arguably skewed MCU continuity a bit to make its universe more mundane than it ought to be; it's been largely written with the implication, most explicit in Skye's opening monologue and Hill's speech in the pilot, that the general public wasn't aware of the existence of superhumans until Avengers, which makes little sense given events in Thor, Captain America, and (especially) The Incredible Hulk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Not quite. The next episode is next Tuesday, November 5th. However you are correct that the November 19th episode will directly connect to Thor: The Dark World in some way. Cap: TWS opens at least a month and a half or so before the season finale will air, so I wonder how it'll handle that chronologically. There have been rumors that upcoming episodes will have some foreshadowing of the SHIELD-related plot elements in the film, though, which would make sense. Regarding episode 8 (the Thor:TDW aftermath one), as I said in the other thread: just please, make the nature of the tie-in more interesting than "bad guy threatens to get his hands on Svartalfheim laser gun MacGuffin" or the equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:No such luck! Eh, that description is still vague enough that I'm willing to reserve judgment for now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Hooray and all, but those are precisely the heroes that ought to be showing up on Agents of SHIELD if they want anyone to actually watch that show ever. Eh, I assumed that Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist were being reserved for other projects, and I'm not sure how well Jessica Jones would fit. Now, some of their villains... that could be more of an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I think a lot of that was 'The sky is falling' after it dropped from the first week or two. Which is always, always going to happen and doubly so with a pilot pushed as an 'event' like SHIELD's was. Overall 18-49 same-day ratings have continued to drop gradually, though. It's a ways off from being consigned to a single season, but it hasn't quite found its level yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Soylentbits posted:I know that's not ideal but on the other hand there are really really few Asian male leads. I would be surprised if Shang-Chi doesn't have a major role in at least one of the Netflix series.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
"Right up until the point where he gets interesting" may be an unintentionally revealing choice of words. When it was first announced that Fox had ordered a Commissioner Gordon show set in a pre-Batman Gotham, I thought they could go in one of two directions: say "gently caress it" to Batman canon and have Hunky Six-Pack Gordon and the GCPD combating full-on supervillains with no Bruce Wayne in sight, or do a more grounded show that could more plausibly take place before Batman appears in Gotham, but at the cost of being basically just another cop show with references occasionally dropped to Arkham Asylum, Selina Kyle, Oswald Cobblepot, Roman Sionis, etc. I didn't and still don't see a workable middle ground. I'd love to be wrong and will be no doubt be tuning in for the pilot, but it sure sounds like they've chosen to pursue the unworkable middle ground.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
If Gordon is ostensibly the protagonist but Bruce Wayne is also a regular, and the show has to build up Smallville-style to Bruce putting on the costume... what exactly is Gordon's character arc on this show supposed to be? Seven seasons of buildup to the realization that he and the GCPD are too corrupt and/or ineffectual to protect the city and that Gotham needs a costumed vigilante instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
So, if Deadline's sources are good, it looks like the Agent Carter series is actually happening. I'm honestly baffled by this, because judging from the One Shot, it'd literally just be a period version of Agents of SHIELD. Even with a stronger protagonist than Coulson, whatever happened to differentiating your shows?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Thomas Dekker's role in the show is only hilarious for the fact that despite it being obvious that the character was gay from the get go he gave out when they were going to reveal it in a later episode and they had to change the character to straight. IIRC, he had a quasi-coming out scene that actually did air on the show, where he talked about being "different" or something without using the words. NBC at the time was running text recaps of every episode on their website, and the description of the scene originally read something like "Zack tells Claire that he's gay." Dekker's people made them change the text to something else. To this day, I think his defense is that he thought the character was intended to be straight and played him that way, and didn't want to "change" the character's sexuality midway through the run. Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I thought it was some bullshit that his manager told him playing a gay character would ruin his chances for future roles? It's a he-said, she-said thing. Bryan Fuller said back in 2007 that it was always the plan for Zach to be gay, and that Dekker's management backed out over fears that playing a gay teen would kill his shot at the Sarah Connor Chronicles pilot. Dekker still claims that the character was originally written as straight and that he only refused to play gay because it wasn't set up in earlier episodes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hell's Kitchen is totally gentrified now anyway. What's daredevil gonna stop, a some trust fund kid pocketing an extra handful of berries at the whole foods? Matt Murdock: Sworn enemy of drunken brunchgoers everywhere. Seriously, it'll be pretty amusing if they end up dressing up actual HK streets to look like Frank Miller envisioned them in the 80s... for a show that's set in the present day. Oh well, I live in NYC, so more chances to spy on the productions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Honestly, if he just had the metal half-mask, I'd be fine with it. As it is though, it smacks of  .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
-Soonmot posted:Man, even if I hadn't started watching Arrow and had seen what a good super hero show could be, there's no way I could defend that Deathlok costume. Ugh. At least the remaining seven episodes will air consecutively beginning April 1. No more breaks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:The probably completely spurious, but would be awesome if true rumor is that Michael C. Hall is being considered for the Netflix Daredevil. Yes, I know you are all "pfff April Fools" but the news is from a couple of days ago. Anyway, the show is set to begin filming in July so either way, they have to nail down a lead pretty quickly. I suspect he's a decade older than any actor they'd be seriously considering for the role.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:Probably, but it's still not a valid excuse for the poor quality of the majority of the season. It explains a lot, though by no means all, of the series' problems to date, especially in the first half of the season - not just the absence of HYDRA, but also its odd lack of interest in the broader SHIELD organization, whether its morality (remember those earlier episodes where Skye expresses concern only to be convinced of their righteousness by the end?), its structure and history (the SHIELD Academy episode being the sole exception of note), or Team Coulson's relationship to it (why exactly are they so important that they get their own plane and a significant degree of autonomy)? That said, it certainly doesn't excuse any of the show's flaws. Nor does it retroactively make previous episodes better, in large part because it's painfully obvious that the showrunners, for fear of spoiling TWS, weren't given the freedom to foreshadow TWS in anything but oblique and indirect ways until last week's episode.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Agents of SHIELD was up on Hulu for some reason. After a fantastic twist ending, the tag left a really, really bad taste in my mouth, though. I'm not sure what its purpose was if not to set up a massive copout regarding said twist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:It's got a few possible interpretations, I'm happy to wait and see. It's open to multiple interpretations, sure, but it definitely didn't seem like the intent was to emphasize that (HUGE SPOILER) Ward is now an unambiguous villain and fully committed to the HYDRA cause. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty drat cynical about the writing on this show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, that's definitely out. Seriously, gently caress that poo poo. The writers finally go for a genuinely unexpected plot twist that could actually, lastingly reshape the dynamics between the leads and not be forgotten about in ten minutes like Skye's betrayal was and May's deception probably will be, and literally the first thing they do is back away from it? No wonder this show has lost so much of its audience since the pilot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I think that is indicative that a lot of this was not really that deeply planned. They probably knew they wanted a traitor turn for later in the season, but they could have picked another character based on who they felt the audience would react to. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to not give an actor that information since it could seriously help their performance. I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is quite typical for serialized television circa 2014. Even if it wasn't, it's not as though extreme secrecy is atypical for this show - the pilot wasn't made available to critics or advertisers until months after the upfronts last year, which is almost unheard of. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Cross-posted from the SHIELD TVIV thread: Deadline is reporting that Agent Carter may not only be picked up, but may serve as a bridge between two halves of SHIELD S2. Seems plausible, since this is is exactly the scheduling model ABC was originally going to try with OUAT in Wonderland, before Paul Lee stupidly changed his mind and decided to run it alongside the original show. Anyway, this would make a lot of sense. It would allow SHIELD to run with minimal interruption (one long hiatus is a hell of a lot better than a half-dozen smaller ones), thus addressing one of the main complaints about S1, and would avoid the problem of having two Marvel espionage shows running concurrently. I like it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Agents of SHIELD renewed for S2, Agent Carter ordered to series. Hopefully, the reports about the latter airing during an extended SHIELD midseason hiatus are true.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
I get what Waterhaul is saying, but the fact that Skye still appears to be a completely normal human is the only dangling plot thread that really bothered me. That subplot has been percolating even longer than the alien corpse, has been teased a lot more, and really felt like it should have been moved forward more in the finale.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:It seems like each season is gonna have a general theme, based largely on what movies are coming out at the time. Season 1 was about Hydra shenanigans, and perhaps season 2 is gonna be about space stuff. So they dealt with the aspects of the mysteries that relate to Shield & Hydra, but the space parts will have to wait until next season, for the most part. Oh, yeah, I wasn't expecting to find out what the diagram from E4 was, where the alien corpse came from, or who/what Skye's parents were, but I think all the allusions that she isn't quite biologically human should have had some kind of concrete payoff here, not merely led to an S2 teaser scene. C'est la vie.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Sounds like Milla Donovan to me, but who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Surely you mean this one. I still want to see that Batman musical Jim Steinman was working on, if only for the trainwreck factor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Brian Patrick Wade is playing Absorbing Man in Agents of SHIELD. Along with the Mockingbird announcement it looks like Marvel has realized that people actually want Marvel comics characters in their Marvel comics show A month before the season premiere, they've already confirmed something like half the number of new-to-MCU Marvel characters that were in the entirety of S1. So yeah, that's definitely one respect in which they've learned from the backlash.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I don't know about that. Most of the audience isn't familiar with the comic book characters, and there is nothing stopping the writers from creating interesting new characters (Diggle and Felicity on Arrow, Montoya and Harley Quinn in the DCAU) other than their abilities. People saw Guardians of the Galaxy because it was coming from the hottest brand in movie making these days, but they liked it because it was a good movie in its own right. While I agree that the dearth of canon Marvel characters is far from the primary reason why SHIELD hemorrhaged viewers over the first ten episodes (if you're looking for things Marvel Studios did to really kneecap the show creatively, I'd point more to the limits they imposed on the use of superpowered characters as a general concept and barring the first 15 episodes from portraying SHIELD or anyone in it in a negative light), I definitely think it exacerbated the backlash.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
So will Superman appear on the show occasionally, or is there a still an embargo on certain characters? If he exists in the show's universe but can never appear, how will his absence be explained?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:The same way it was in the movie Supergirl. Faye Dunaway needs to reprise her role from that. But seriously, a 22-episode TV series is not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Agents of SHIELD is pretty much the only show I can think of that has legitimately placed itself in an ongoing shared universe, and while there is plenty to criticize about its first season, blaming the MCU is pretty much scapegoating. Blaming Marvel Studios (not necessarily the same thing, I know) is definitely not scapegoating, though there was too much wrong with at least the first half of S1 to pin the blame on any one party.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Not being able to say the word HYRDA doesn't excuse the bad writing, dialog, and direction of the show, especially in the first half. They had limitations imposed by Disney and Marvel Studios, but what they delivered was subpar and had very little to do with that. It was just a substandard show. There are plenty of shows not tied to the Marvel universe that manage to tell decent, interesting stories. Also, Deathlok's design being god awful had nothing to do with anything outside of poor design choices being made. It's not that they weren't able to say the word HYDRA*. It's broader things that resulted from Studios proper's desire to protect the sanctity of then-upcoming films, like not being able to portray SHIELD in any sort of negative light, not being able to hint at any moles or other bad apples within SHIELD on what was at least partially an espionage show, and limiting the use of superpowered characters on a show whose entire point was being set in a superhero universe. None of this is speculation on my part; it's all been said a number of times in interviews with the showrunners. That's not getting into ABC wanting to make the show a four-quadrant hit that could appeal to moms and other people who would never consider watching a Marvel Studios film (as though Avengers wasn't a broad enough hit already), which I suspect is in large part responsible for a lot of the tonal problems that were most pronounced in the first half of S1 (an awkward mishmash of the espionage and investigative procedural genres; an overreliance on episodic plotting; overly archetypal characters; Family-Friendly Marvel Procedural Action/Adventure Hour episodes punctuated with moments of surprisingly graphic violence). To be clear, I saw the same episodes you did, and I'm not saying that the writers, showrunners, and directors did the best job they possibly could have done under those creative constraints. They definitely didn't. But I'd put the bulk of the blame elsewhere; S1 was creatively kneecapped before they even started shooting the pilot. *which isn't literally true, it was mentioned at least twice on the show before TWS 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Basically this. Most other cases are just cameos and spin offs. I am not familiar enough with Buffy/Angel to speak to that, but my understanding wasn't that both shows were directly effecting each other. AoS is honestly the first show I can think of where events outside of the show are directly effecting the story being told within the show. Well, there's a lot of Hollywood politics involved in making a TV series, all the more so when it involves this degree of synergy and synchronization between multiple divisions of Disney. Keep in mind that (Jed) Whedon and Tancharoen had never served as showrunners before SHIELD S1, which undoubtedly impaired their ability to stand up to the various other executive influences on the show. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
greatn posted:Sure. I think sharing a universe with DC movies would be bad though because DC movies are bad. Yeah, the Flash pilot isn't perfect, but it's far, far closer to what I want to see from a shared live-action DCU than Man of Steel was (or than anything we've seen of BvS looks to be). Supergirl probably isn't set in the Arrowverse, but Berlanti's involvement at least leaves me hopeful it'll get the tone right.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Oh I agree, I wouldn't want the shows and movies to mix at this point if only because I do not like the direction the movies are headed but I wouldn't hate if they tried either. But I was more talking about how Teen Titans and now Supergirl will be on their own apparently. Some people were saying that this would some how automatically make them better, which I don't really get. Smallville wasn't in a shared universe and it didn't benefit from that at all. Arrow's first two seasons weren't part of a shared universe either, and plenty of people have bad things to say about both. So I am just really confused as to where this idea that stand alone shows are definitely better, when there seems to be no real evidence for this claim. Right, SHIELD S1's MCU problem (by no means its only problem, as per my post above) wasn't that it was set in a preexisting shared universe; it was that it was set in that universe while being deeply, inextricably tied to the canon of existing and upcoming films, which meant that Marvel Studios had far too much veto power over potential story ideas. If series/films exist in a shared universe but occupy their own distinct corner of it (Arrow and Flash, or the MCU films and the Defenders series), with only the occasional crossover, that shouldn't be a problem. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:"Turn, Turn, Turn" on Episode 12 ("Seeds") is where I think the turnaround started, but you can definitely just start with 17. I'd read the Wikipedia synopses or whatnot first, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
redbackground posted:I am actually much more interested to see what episodes 2 and 3 bring about, plot-wise, now that the Wayne murders are out of the way. I am happy to give the show a chance for a bit, but I really could have done without all the FUTURE BATMAN VILLAIN LOOK LOOK that will have no bearing on anything current (Ivy, or "Ivy", is only like 10 so she'll never be seen again, for example). Ivy is a recurring character. Sorry, bud.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
catlord posted:God, I'm weirdly invested in Gotham. I mean, it's not good, but I'm hesitant to call it straight up bad because it's only three episodes in, but it really needs to keep a proper balance between "character focused procedural" and "Batman rogues gallery origins" and I'm not certain if it can actually do that (God knows they haven't yet). And yet, the end of episode three made me go "oh poo poo" and want to keep watching so it must be doing something right? It got its 16 episode first season extended to 22 episodes just recently, so it must be doing good ratings on pissing off Batman fans. Gotham's ratings are good thus far, but the additional six-episode order probably has more to do with how badly nearly everything else on Fox is doing this season. Their existing shows are all in decline, and Gracepoint, Red Band Society, and Mulaney have all bombed despite high marketing budgets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:27 |
|
|
Gravy Train Robber posted:The negative buzz around SHIELD has prevented me from trying to watch it, but if it goes on Netflix soon I'll probably give it a chance. I am pretty sad though that it didn't end up continuing the Item 47 one-shot and having Lizzie Caplan in it. It's on US Netflix this Thursday. I'd start with either 12 or 16, depending on what you have time for. Just read Wikipedia synopses or whatever before that; watch 6-7 for the best episodes from the first half, if you feel like it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 01:22
|
|