Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 1 Episode 21 "Ragtag"

[Matarreyes]

He's a broken man who lacks social skills because those who should've given that to him didn't.

One more thing I find fascinating on the show. Looking back, one can see that a lot of ground work was done in the initial "bland" episodes. I am specially impressed with the foreshadowing of people commenting endlessly on Ward´s poor social skills. It was a running gag at the beginning, when actually it´s kinda sad. And lo and behold, it had an explanation and everything, and has come around to bite everyone´s ass. Just like with Garrett reminding Coulson and the audience that being cold-blooded is a basic requierement for a specialist.

 

[David_99]

I have no idea of comics, but the stuff you wrote with Senator Ward sounds like it could be dead on. My pet theory goes back to a very throwaway comment from Tripp about Ward´s family being like "the cable version of the Kennedys". Can´t say I understand very well what it was supposed to mean, but there being a Senator Ward in the comics is sorta awesome in that it would give a political angle to the show while tying into personal stories of the characters.

The only hitch in the Senator Ward theory is that it happened in the Spider-Man books back in 1999. Sony may own the rights to him.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Well, twice, if not more, Agents of SHIELD has gotten away with name dropping something they probably do not own the rights to. A reference as subtle as that could certainly slide under the radar.

I'm not at all saying it's true (in fact, I don't remember the quote at all), but I'm thinking the TV show has slightly more flexibility.

 

[Demileto]

The only hitch in the Senator Ward theory is that it happened in the Spider-Man books back in 1999. Sony may own the rights to him.

That's a good point. I can't be 100% certain about this as I'm not a lawyer, let alone have access to the details of Sony's agreement with Marvel, but according to what I've been reading about this online Sony only owns the rights to Spider-Man characters for movies, not so for TV. Disney/Marvel do, and that's why we can see Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk and others meet each other in Marvel's latest cartoons. They don't do the same for live-action shows because they intend for them all to exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where Spider-Man and the X-men can't exist. Senator Ward, however, isn't a character that had a noteworthy presence in Spider-Man mythos - I certainly wouldn't expect him to show up in any movie - , so maybe they can get away with it.

 

[metaphysician]

Well, twice, if not more, Agents of SHIELD has gotten away with name dropping something they probably do not own the rights to. A reference as subtle as that could certainly slide under the radar.

I'm not at all saying it's true (in fact, I don't remember the quote at all), but I'm thinking the TV show has slightly more flexibility.

What are these existing times? Because note, they probably *do* have the Man-Thing rights back ( its been 9 years since the movie ).

 

[DN91]

That's a good point. I can't be 100% certain about this as I'm not a lawyer, let alone have access to the details of Sony's agreement with Marvel, but according to what I've been reading about this online Sony only owns the rights to Spider-Man characters for movies, not so for TV. Disney/Marvel do, and that's why we can see Spider-Man, Wolverine, Hulk and others meet each other in Marvel's latest cartoons. They don't do the same for live-action shows because they intend for them all to exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where Spider-Man and the X-men can't exist. Senator Ward, however, isn't a character that had a noteworthy presence in Spider-Man mythos - I certainly wouldn't expect him to show up in any movie - , so maybe they can get away with it.

Maybe, it'll just be a guy who happens to be both a U.S. Senator and surnamed "Ward", not intended to be the same as the Spider-Man character.

 

[Mike Murdock]

What are these existing times? Because note, they probably *do* have the Man-Thing rights back ( its been 9 years since the movie ).

You may be right about Man-Thing. Department H seems harder to justify, though.

 

[cherokeesam]

You may be right about Man-Thing. Department H seems harder to justify, though.

Yeah, using Department H (the ones who developed Alpha Flight in the comics) is a real eyebrow-raiser. They wouldn't just easter-egg a think tank tied to a major mutant team unless they were confident they could legally use that. There's plenty of other canon groups they could've name-dropped without stepping on the toes of Fox's lawyers. It's possible that Fox didn't bother picking up the rights to Alpha Flight because of some Americo-centric biased dismissal of an all-Canadian unit as filmworthy.

 

[metaphysician]

Its also possible that there is simply a degree of flexibility: one-off easter egg references to third tier setting elements are simply not enough to constitute a breach of contract.