Agents of Shield - Mid season premiere tonight

[johnnystorm]

It would be interesting if each episode adds a little more to him, until at the end he's fully looking like the comic book character, as if Centipede is working on him as parts become available.

[hedrap]

Marvel knows first impressions make or break. That is so amazingly cheap, perpetual "upgrades" are not going to help. Refer to him as "Deathlok" now, and it's over.

Did they announce a second season pickup, yet? I can still see it happening, but the Sif implosion has probably scared the crap out them.

I found Fiege's comment about moving to a movie per quarter, meaning 3-4 films per year, really interesting. He says it's about audience demand, yet, Agents ratings sort of kills the idea that people are salivating for more product and this is while they prep shooting for Netflix. Now it can't be both as the point of all the series is to feed the demand while adding on tow more movies is a huge financial risk. And this is on top of Disney's output of Star Wars, Pixar, etc...so something is up.

[boss]

the sky is falling.

[thunderbolt]

What exactly is this Sif implosion you speak of? I thought it was one of the better episodes and tied in to the movies pretty well.

[hedrap]

^ T.A.H.I.T.I and Yes Men are the two lowest rated episodes of the series at a time when competition is weakest. It's supposed to be the opposite with the heavier marketing push and Winter Soldier build. Instead, they're cratering the week theatrical rollout starts.

If they do not see a bump post-US release of Winter Soldier, I don't know what happens. The "Assembling A Universe" special tank hard and that was built around the upcoming movies. How did it drop an entire point less than Agents? At minimum it should have done the same.

You also have the release of Cap's first ten minutes, which runs counter to all the "tracking towards an 80+ million opening" talk. I mean, I think it's still going to do Thor 2 business, I just don't remember this kind of giveaway for Dark World.

I just find it all odd as this is the beginning of a very long campaign that won't end until August.

[madmarva]

Feige did not say Marvel was considering going to a 3 or 4 Marvel film a year model. A reporter asked him a question or really made a comment that Marvel had enough characters for that many films. Feige agreed there was enough material or characters, but he said there would have to be the demand. He didn't say the demand was there. Basically, the way I read his comments, is that Marvel is pretty happy with the two films a year model and isn't ready to push it further.

After the first three episodes, I've only spot watched SHEILD. The show doesn't have enough Marvel in it for me, but that isn't the main problem. As it stands, there are probably a half dozen spy or special agent type shows on TV that are more worth my time. Vague references to the Marvel films here and there isn't enough to make the show worth my attention and Coulson, while still likable, has proven to be better as a recognizable face popping up here an there in the movies than a lead.

Maybe, I'll watch some episodes on demand or netflix when it's available there.

Maybe ABC should move it out of competition with NCIS, which is a better show in its ninth or 10th season than SHEILD.

If Constantine and Flash make it to series along with Gotham and Green Arrow, it's going to interesting which ones can swim with the cops, lawyers, doctors, secret agents, sit com's and serial killers populating the vast wasteland.

[sprytel]

I thought the last couple of weeks the show really found its ideal formula. My elevator pitch would be: "Love Boat for superheroes". You know... Captain Stubing (aka Phil Coulson) and the crew will be on every week, but you tune in for guests like Charro.

[Random Axe]

As far as the plot goes, I have a new theory about the Clairvoyant. Since the show is tied directly to and affected by Winter Soldier, I think it's Alexander Pierce, Redford's character. It's most likely a current or former shield agent to have such inner working knowledge of procedure and personal information. There's like a 3 percent chance I'm right about this, but that's kinda where I'm leaning.

[sprytel]

My wife suggested that Paxton is really the Clairvoyant.

[jwyblejr]

My biggest beef with the series right now is they take too long between the episodes. We have to wait until April for the new one.

[boss]

What exactly is this Sif implosion you speak of? I thought it was one of the better episodes and tied in to the movies pretty well.

I'm not sure what this means either. That episode had an increase in viewership over the two weeks prior. On the whole, the show is consistently placing 2nd for the night in the key 18-49 demographic (key meaning... this is where advertisers want to spend their money). There also seems to be an increase in the number of people who watch the show within a week of initial airing (DVR, etc).

One could also argue that the dip in this week's numbers for the "Assembling a Universe" special would indicate that viewers are more interested in seeing new episodes of SHIELD.

It's possible that the show won't be picked up for a second season. It's also possible that this show is somewhat of a "loss leader" for ABC, too (it is an in-house property after all). It may end up being the cheapest marketing campaign for Avengers 2 after all.

[hedrap]

Feige did not say Marvel was considering going to a 3 or 4 Marvel film a year model. A reporter asked him a question or really made a comment that Marvel had enough characters for that many films. Feige agreed there was enough material or characters, but he said there would have to be the demand. He didn't say the demand was there. Basically, the way I read his comments, is that Marvel is pretty happy with the two films a year model and isn't ready to push it further.

http://badassdigest.com/2014/03/18/m...movies-a-year/

I think television is filling some of that now, in terms of bringing out more product. That’s certainly the idea with the Netflix shows. But I don’t know that we will necessarily say “Okay, we’re now moving strategically to three a year, now we’re moving to four a year.” What I think is more likely - if [knocks on wood-like table] the next group of movies work and people want to see additional stories - we’ll have too many franchises and you can’t do one of each franchise every two or three years. We’d have to move to three a year, but that would have to be a natural move if it were to occur. We’d have a [script] draft, we’d have a filmmaker, we’d have a character the audience wants to see - let’s slot in a place for a third one. Or a fourth one.

But it’s hard enough to deliver two quality, hopefully bar-raising movies a year.

I think our definition of "considering" differs. Feige is saying the plan is/was to use cable as the content filler around their movie releases, but their movie timetable is too protracted due to the amount of potential franchises. So he's considering adding one more per quarter, but he doesn't know if the demand is there.

I don't know why he would question movie demand since Spidey and the X films have done quite well. He says it's based on the audience liking the next group of characters, which is obvious, but nothing knew. I'd argue Cap and Thor were a harder sell than Strange or Ant-Man, and Guardians is about as crazy of a gamble they could have have chosen.

That's why I think this is about Agents. It's doing normal primetime ratings which was not the expectation set by ABC last May at the unveil. All the problems stated by Marva, Axe and JW are spot-on and Marvel knows it. Only way to fix it, is ramp the budget which I thought that was coming with Deathlok...(cough). It then comes back to the case made by you guys about the original Flash show; when do costs outstrip returns? If you're Fiege, do you argue for higher production values for TV or put it towards more movies, where you at least have the formula down.

I still see Agents getting a second-season pickup. It's DVR numbers are great. Except, that's how people get around watching ads so it's not something ABC can sell buyers on, which in turn hurts the returns. Sort of explains why they went to Netflix.

[sprytel]

I still see Agents getting a second-season pickup. It's DVR numbers are great. Except, that's how people get around watching ads so it's not something ABC can sell buyers on, which in turn hurts the returns. Sort of explains why they went to Netflix.

Unless you view Agents of SHIELD as a giant commercial for the rest of the Marvel universe... which I do not think is an unreasonable way for Disney/ABC to look at it.

[Random Axe]

This is kind of a hard series to run without a film to tie in. On it's own, it struggled a bit in the beginning without an identity. It's hard to stick with a show that has no idea what it is or wants to be, it was an experiment. I do think they have sort of have an idea where to go from here, but the viewership is not supporting those theories or plans. They just have to move forward with their best efforts and just let whatever happens happen. I'd say this show has earned a second season, but the writing, marketing and scheduling airdates have GOT to be consistent to have any measure of sucess. There were too many running changes made, and its obvious some of this stuff was NOT in the plans in the begining. They need to map out an entire season outline and maybe leave a tiny bit of wiggle room to switch up aspects. This show can actually flourish if done correctly.

[madmarva]

I can see why Feige is worried about demand. The theaters are crowded with super-hero product and it only gets more crowded with the FF and Superman/batman films in 2016 and Spider-Man evidently on a yearly schedule.

Conventional wisdom says at some point the market will be oversaturated with costumed fantasies. Conventional wisdom isn't always right. Westerns were serial fare in the 30s, but became a solid feature film genre from the 40s until the early 70s.

Super heroes may equate to today's cowboys and be accepted based on quality rather than being a fad. But for how long?Right now, all Marvel films makes is super hero movies. Feige has to worry about the well running dry.

I think Feige does wonder about demand but also quality. Can Marvel produce 3 or 4 quality super hero films a year? With the increase would its product still dominate the competition - Spidey, X-men, Superman/DC.

To me Marvel Success with movies is similar to Marvel Comics success in the 1960s. It's a relatively small operation putting all it's creative resources into a few projects. Adding films would mean more people involved but possibly less focus.

Obviously, he doesn't want to put out a Green Lantern. The movie was average for a Sci-Fi/fantasy movie but was swallowed by the relative quality of the Thor, x-men and cap films that year. I think there was some super hero weariness on the part of critics and moviegoers in general when GL opened on the heels of better than expected Thor and X-Men films.

A quality film might survive such a landscape but a mediocre one underproduces at the BO and looks terrible in comparison.

As for SHEILD on the tube, it's billed as an extension of the Marvel U but it doesn't really deliver that other than the SIf episode.

Why not use HYDRA as a rival? I would consider introducing Daredevil, Luke Cage and Iron Fist on the show and then pitching fans "if you want more, go to Netflix."

Pick some Marvel heroes who likely won't be used as a star of a film and sprinkle them into the mix on SHEILD. In the films SHEILD is somewhat like CEREBRO in the X-men comics - seeking out super powered characters and recruiting them for the Avengers. And if the character does become a hit, what's wrong with spinning it into a film. A chunk of the films that get produced today are based on old TV shows. Or even create some original Marvels for the tube that could the. Be used in the comics or films.

But Marvel has to do better than that Deathock photo - cheap breast plate and what looks like sweat pants.