Writing your team as completely incompetent is a great thing to do.that went well
![]()
stop being annoying..
The "our lead writers consist of people who jumped onto successful series halfway through their run" thing probably contributes to this.but this show takes for granted things it hasn't earned.
According to next episode's promoI'm legit surprised that they plan to drag the Tahiti subplot into the back half. I was hoping they'd wrap that up by now.
That seemed like a promo for the next few episodes to me, not just the next one. Like a "here's what happens in the second half of the season when we return" kind of thing.According to next episode's promoseems like it'll be wrapped up. That and maybe the Skye's parents too?
FTFY
-The FitzSimmons gun stabilized the serum in Mike's body. This was initially sold to the audience as being of great significance to Centipede's plans, but since they were perfectly happy taking Coulson instead, I guess it wasn't actually that important.
That's a red herring hint for those who don't remember details all that well. The significance of recognizing Mike was that they could leverage him since Reyna knew he had a son. The organization behind Centipede already solved their primary serum issue when they took the platelets from the guy with the power of Fire in The Girl with the Flower Dress episode. That's the reason why they were able to jack up the amount of serum their soldiers had.
- Promo for next week's episode (please spoiler tag any discussion)
Agents of SHIELD is the television series as cynical, manufactured product. Its primary purpose is clearly not to flesh out the MCU, or to tell compelling, entertaining stories about ordinary people in a world of superheroes, monsters, gods, and aliens, but to leverage the proven success of the Marvel brand to boost ABC's ratings in the young male demographics which it was previously failing to reach. Our entertainment is a secondary concern at best.
And I say this as someone who still somehow kinda likes the show.
How about you read this thread and figure it out for yourself?Stopped watching after ep3. Does it get better?
Haven't watched it yet, not reading the spoilers, just curious. What's the general opinion on the episode? Good? Better than average? Worse than average? What we've come to expect?
Stopped watching after ep3. Does it get better?
How about you read this thread and figure it out for yourself?
I'm so sick of people asking this bullshit question.
I'll have to rewatch the scene in question later, but I thought the significance was that the soldiers in this episode still needed regular serum injections, whereas Mike didn't/
The entire show has this "by committee" feel - you NEED someone in charge with a vision. Otherwise you get nothing.So looking over the Wikipedia page, all ten episodes have had different directors and most of them have different writers too. That explains a lot IMO.
Really think it's stupid to do something like that. Especially early on in a series when you're trying to establish a shows identity, you need a core creative staff that are all on the same page with each other.
So looking over the Wikipedia page, all ten episodes have had different directors and most of them have different writers too. That explains a lot IMO.
Really think it's stupid to do something like that. Especially early on in a series when you're trying to establish a shows identity, you need a core creative staff that are all on the same page with each other.
So looking over the Wikipedia page, all ten episodes have had different directors and most of them have different writers too. That explains a lot IMO.
Really think it's stupid to do something like that. Especially early on in a series when you're trying to establish a shows identity, you need a core creative staff that are all on the same page with each other.
The tone/style on the show has been veering all over the place. It can't figure out what it is. It's flirted with the '90s saturday serial style, it's flirted with a more alias-style show (which was actually good) but now in this episode its back to this mediocre action show with stupid characters who make dumb decisions because the plot requires them to.
So looking over the Wikipedia page, all ten episodes have had different directors and most of them have different writers too. That explains a lot IMO.
Really think it's stupid to do something like that. Especially early on in a series when you're trying to establish a shows identity, you need a core creative staff that are all on the same page with each other.
The tone/style on the show has been veering all over the place. It can't figure out what it is. It's flirted with the '90s saturday serial style, it's flirted with a more alias-style show (which was actually good) but now in this episode its back to this mediocre action show with stupid characters who make dumb decisions because the plot requires them to.
Episode 4 and Episode 7 felt like something with promise. Episode 9/10 have felt like ten thousand steps backward.
So looking over the Wikipedia page, all ten episodes have had different directors and most of them have different writers too. That explains a lot IMO.
Really think it's stupid to do something like that. Especially early on in a series when you're trying to establish a shows identity, you need a core creative staff that are all on the same page with each other.
How about you read this thread and figure it out for yourself?
I'm so sick of people asking this bullshit question.
Oh, of course. I was just trying to say that he wasn't wrong about the problems even though he was definitely wrong about not understanding that eps get farmed out to different writers.Okay, well, let's go back and look at what was said:
This poster, quite literally, complained about how 99% of television is written and produced -- with different writers and directors assigned for each episode. Do we take issue with Mad Men's 9 different writers and 9 different directors during its first 13-episode season? How about the 8 different writers for the first season of The Sopranos and 11 different directors?
No, because that's how television operates. The writers' room is a collaborative experience with someone at the top.
There are other reasons why SHIELD might feel like its not sure what type of show it wants to be. Being ignorant on the television creation process and laying the blame on different writers-per-episode is not it.
LOL wait, what? That's the way TV operates!
Admittedly I could be way off the mark here, but the few dramas that I've ever bothered to look at credits for usually have a core/regular team in place.
If you look at the "List of 24 episodes" wiki for example you'll notice the same handful of directors and writers throughout most of the series. Jon Cassar directed 60 episodes, Brad Turner directed 46 episodes, etc. As a big fan of Lost I remember seeing Jack Bender's name a TON as director. Prison Break's first season had 7 writers do 22 episodes. Game of Thrones first season has 4 directors and 4 writers. Frank Darabont wrote half of The Walking Dead's first season. Breaking Bad's first season had 4 of the 7 episodes written by Vince Gilligan. Banshee's first season had only two writers (and that's the best show of 2013 IMO).
Maybe those shows are an anomaly, I dunno. I just think the writing/directing on Agents of SHIELD sucks and was trying to come up with an explanation for it.