Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 1 Episode 6 "FZZT" Discussion Thread

[Imjenn]

I liked this episode a lot. I thought our little scientist friend was going to jump before Ward jumped in. I really did like Ward a lot this tune around too, his speech about wanting to be in control was great.

I was glad they focused on the scientists. It was fresh and needed. Making fun of Ward was great too

 

[cherokeesam]

err..we got Fury and Hill, Graviton...we will get Sitwell and Victoria Hand in the next two episodes.. that's five comic book characters in just 8 episodes. how many comic book characters (main casts not included) showed up in Smallville or Arrow in the first 8 episodes?
You have to built up the world a bit before you introduce more far out concepts and the colourfull costumes

Other than Graviton (who wound up being just a teaser) and Victoria Hand, you're talking about characters who've already appeared in the MCU. I'm talking about *adding* comic-book characters to the MCU that we haven't seen before.

And I don't buy the notion --- even though that's probably one of their excuses --- that they're afraid Jeph Loeb will run roughshod over future Marvel properties. Marvel should have a good idea by this time which heroes and villains have the potential for feature film development, and which ones don't. There are far, far, far more Marvel properties that *wouldn't* warrant a feature film appearance than those who would.

I'm not asking for Luke Cage or Ms. Marvel or Daredevil, major characters with cinematic potential. I'm asking for minor characters, and I could list thousands that fit the bill. Zzzax, again, being one example. This is not a major character with potential for film development, so what would it have hurt to make this episode feature him/it?

Arrow has no qualms at all about including characters from the comics, to make their superhero universe show look like it's set in a superhero universe. And it's not hurt their ratings one bit. AOS continues to tiptoe around the issue, and their ratings slide every week.

Time for a gut check.

 

[Xeno]

The show has been on the air a mere six weeks. Demanding that the writers fill it with comic book characters immediately is extreme. Wait until it has a full season under its belt before charging the producers with being "afraid" to add to the MCU.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

There seems to be a pretty good consensus happening here that this was the best episode yet, and many claim it was because Coulson was more in the forefront of things and Fitz and Simmins were presented as more than just flat supporting characters with a load of simple nerd/science geek tics to distinguish them. I am in agreement. The question is how could the overall creative minds behind the show not see that too?

I know that the writers and producers don't put out a show thinking it's bad. Some would defend those first five episodes as being lackluster because, hey, like many tv shows it takes time for things to gel and every aspect needs time to find it's legs. You crawl before you walk, you gotta walk before you run, right? That still doesn't explain the curious choices that were made though.

Why sideline the actor/character that's arguably THE reason the show exists and has people tuning in for such a long stretch of episodes? Didn't it occur to them that would be off putting for a lot of viewers? I came to the show like the majority of the GA I think. I was not following the production at all. Other than knowing Gregg and Ming Na were in the cast I came in cold. That first episode, I thought the Skye character was a guest star thing at best that might show up later in the season. It shocked the hell out of me that character/actress was going to be sticking around for the long haul. Subsequent episodes made it seem that this was not going to be a character I'd have to tolerate in the background but that she would eat up a lot of time as THE focus. Again I am sure the writers thought they were doing a good job, building the character up while giving tiny little teases about Phil and his return from the dead. But they went out of their way to make Skye look like an idiot and a fool for plot reasons (her way stupid AFTERNOON DELIGHT with ye scruffy boyfriend) or humor (not bothering to learn "saftey" from "clip release" on a sidearm) and the teases about Phil were not tiny, they were microscopic. On forums like this we pour over details and dialog like forensics experts. I don't think unless promted by someone as detail oriented as an uber-nerd that most of the teases about Phil stuck out to most GA audience members much, especially all the wink-wink, nudge-nudge LMD stuff. Most of the audience have no frame of reference so it just sailed over their heads.

These choices, along with poor casting choices in Ward and Skye were done with the best of hopes and intentions on the creators parts I'm sure. No one wants to give off the sense that they have flawed judgement about these things when putting a series together. But five episodes of a first season these days is too long to start rectifying mistakes I think.

The moments we got with Phil, seeing the scar, showing his underlying compassion and empathy with the firefighter, showcasing Fitz and Simmins relationship and making them more rounded characters, these things were possible to be done from the initial jump in my mind, and there's little any one could say to change my mind on that. Those actually simple things could have been done from episode one. Instead we got Skye in a wet dress. I hope in tenor and character focus the episodes to come emulate the best elements of FZZZT. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Pond]

There is plenty of people out there that agree with the writers: they have done an excelent job.

Among them...

http://www.metacritic.com/tv/marvels-agents-of-shield

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/marvel-s-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-/

Im the first one that respects other peoples opinions, and also the first one that usually doesnt give a damn f... about what critics say, but they do exist, and they do speak their mind. Its great not to like Agents of SHIELD or thinking its bad, but treating it as a fact or as if it was some sort of universal consensus about it... Not cool.

 

[Steyin]

Eh, I think Skye has one of the strongest actresses on the show quite honestly; been very impressed with Chloe.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Eh, I think Skye has one of the strongest actresses on the show quite honestly; been very impressed with Chloe.

She's better than she gets credit for. Frankly I don't think Brett Dalton is that bad either. True he has not yet had much to do on the show besides 'impersonal combat monster' but he seems perfectly capable so far.

People throw around bad actor a lot. When I think 'bad actor' I think the kid from Troll 2, or someone who recites their lines like they're reading from a script, or most adult film performers lol. I wouldn't call any of the AoS regulars bad actors at all. Some of the guests haven't been so great. Like the guy that played Scorch, he was pretty terrible.

 

[Eddie]

I think all of the core cast members are actually pretty talented. Ming-Na & Clark Gregg are the only ones I was familiar with prior to this show, but I'm happy with the newcomers. The only people I felt were a bit sub-par were a couple of the guest stars.

 

[Destructus86]

I was honestly afraid Simmons might die. I really like her character. This is Whedon so I'm never sure if someone will survive.

 

[Eddie]

I was honestly afraid Simmons might die. I really like her character. This is Whedon so I'm never sure if someone will survive.

Oh, this is still fulfilling Whedon show requirements. Those poor mice.

 

[Xeno]

She's better than she gets credit for. Frankly I don't think Brett Dalton is that bad either. True he has not yet had much to do on the show besides 'impersonal combat monster' but he seems perfectly capable so far.

People throw around bad actor a lot. When I think 'bad actor' I think the kid from Troll 2, or someone who recites their lines like they're reading from a script, or most adult film performers lol. I wouldn't call any of the AoS regulars bad actors at all. Some of the guests haven't been so great. Like the guy that played Scorch, he was pretty terrible.

Bennet is a very obvious actress. She lacks any kind of subtlety or finesse. In almost every scene she goes over the top with quirks and facial tics. That is what I consider bad acting. Contrast her performances in emotional scenes with those of Clark Gregg or Elizabeth Henstridge. Good actors can show every emotion in their faces. Bad actors flail and gesticulate. Bennet is in the latter category.

 

[cph9fa]

Bennet is a very obvious actress. She lacks any kind of subtlety or finesse. In almost every scene she goes over the top with quirks and facial tics. That is what I consider bad acting. Contrast her performances in emotional scenes with those of Clark Gregg or Elizabeth Henstridge. Good actors can show every emotion in their faces. Bad actors flail and gesticulate. Bennet is in the latter category.

Perhaps, though I'm sure IRL some people are more prone to flailing and gesticulating than others.

But, yeah, I never really latched on to her as an audience viewpoint character. I think part of the reason was because (until recently) it wasn't clear if we could trust her. The whole redacted-document thing should've been shown to the audience sooner, IMO. Even if Phil didn't find out for a while, the audience at least needed to know why she was getting involved, and whether they should listen to her.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

Bennet is a very obvious actress.

Disagree. Bennet gets absolutely lost in the character of Skye. It's awesome to watch.

She lacks any kind of subtlety or finesse. In almost every scene she goes over the top with quirks and facial tics. That is what I consider bad acting.

That is what I consider a character trait. People do that in real life. Bad acting is bad acting, not quirks and facial tics.

Contrast her performances in emotional scenes with those of Clark Gregg or Elizabeth Henstridge.

She still stacks up well.

Good actors can show every emotion in their faces. Bad actors flail and gesticulate. Bennet is in the latter category.

Good actors can do both of those, and bad actors can do both of those. How well they sell it is what determines how good of an actor they are. Bennet can sell it.

 

[mr. peasant]

Bennet is a very obvious actress. She lacks any kind of subtlety or finesse. In almost every scene she goes over the top with quirks and facial tics. That is what I consider bad acting. Contrast her performances in emotional scenes with those of Clark Gregg or Elizabeth Henstridge. Good actors can show every emotion in their faces. Bad actors flail and gesticulate. Bennet is in the latter category.

I disagree with this sentiment. They are merely two different styles of acting; with neither one 'superior' over the other. For instance, you will find a lot of actors who have a background in stage acting will "flail and gesticulate" quite a bit as this is a necessity for stageplay as the actor's emotions and performance must be seen from all the way at the far end of a theatre where the fine details of his/her face can't be seen.

As such, they are both merely tools to be used; with the question being when it is more appropriate to use one over the other.

 

[Xeno]

I disagree with this sentiment. They are merely two different styles of acting; with neither one 'superior' over the other. For instance, you will find a lot of actors who have a background in stage acting will "flail and gesticulate" quite a bit as this is a necessity for stageplay as the actor's emotions and performance must be seen from all the way at the far end of a theatre where the fine details of his/her face can't be seen.

As such, they are both merely tools to be used; with the question being when it is more appropriate to use one over the other.

Yes, but we're talking about acting on television (and film), not the stage. As such I was discussing acting appropriate to the medium. Gesticulating wildly and using broad facial expressions isn't necessary on TV or in films because the camera is tight on the actors faces, allowing the audience to see them clearly. The broader technique used in stage acting doesn't work in that medium, not that Bennet was ever a stage actress. That is the point I was making.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yes, but we're talking about acting on television (and film), not the stage. As such I was discussing acting appropriate to the medium. Gesticulating wildly and using broad facial expressions isn't necessary on TV or in films because the camera is tight on the actors faces, allowing the audience to see them clearly. The broader technique used in stage acting doesn't work in that medium, not that Bennet was ever a stage actress. That is the point I was making.

I just think that she is not a good fit for the type of show SHIELD should ideally be. Quite frankly she is NICKELODEON sitcom level, and she would not even be the lead character on the sitcom. She'd be the lead's friend/older sister.

 

[Xeno]

Disagree. Bennet gets absolutely lost in the character of Skye. It's awesome to watch.


That is what I consider a character trait. People do that in real life. Bad acting is bad acting, not quirks and facial tics.


She still stacks up well.


Good actors can do both of those, and bad actors can do both of those. How well they sell it is what determines how good of an actor they are. Bennet can sell it.

I've never seen Bennet get "lost" in her role. She thrashes around in there, yes, and spews the clunky Whedonesque dialogue she's given, but she doesn't do it well or convincingly. She's almost tolerable when she's pushed into the background, however, and isn't cluttering up every scene in an episode.


If they were going to choose one of the younger cast members to focus on it should have been de Caestecker or Henstridge, both of whom have real talent. Dalton has improved in the last couple of episodes, so he's not a total lost cause. Pairing him with Bennet was a mistake, though. You don't put the two weakest links together, unless you want the chain to break.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I've never seen Bennet get "lost" in her role. She thrashes around in there, yes, and spews the clunky Whedonesque dialogue she's given, but she doesn't do it well or convincingly. She's almost tolerable when she's pushed into the background, however, and isn't cluttering up every scene in an episode.


If they were going to choose one of the younger cast members to focus on it should have been de Caestecker or Henstridge, both of whom have real talent. Dalton has improved in the last couple of episodes, so he's not a total lost cause. Pairing him with Bennet was a mistake, though. You don't put the two weakest links together, unless you want the chain to break.

Yeah, if they had made the decision to have Fitz and Simmins be the audience "in", teamed with Coulson as a strong mentor figure to the two skittish scientists with no field experience it may have been better all around. In fact, seeing how in this episode Fitz and Simmins's actors showed range (and the ability to be understood for long stretches ) I may have actually turned the corner on them.

 

[Xeno]

I just think that she is not a good fit for the type of show SHIELD should ideally be. Quite frankly she is NICKELODEON sitcom level, and she would not even be the lead character on the sitcom. She'd be the lead's friend/older sister.

I could definitely see Bennet playing Victoria Justice's older sister on one of those awful tween shows. They could even screech out a few songs together. "Ooh, boy, you make me something something --!"

The CW might also suit her abilities. Surely there's a Teenage Werewolf Diaries or Zombie High School she could star in. t:

 

[Endeavor]

I think the source of the issues with the Skye character is the writing, not the actress.
I found her extremely annoying in the pilot, but have warmed up to her by now.
Is Chloe going to be winning awards for her acting anytime soon? No, but she'll do fine if given good material.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I could definitely see Bennet playing Victoria Justice's older sister on one of those awful tween shows. They could even screech out a few songs together. "Ooh, boy, you make me something something --!"

The CW might also suit her abilities. Surely there's a Teenage Werewolf Diaries or Zombie High School she could star in. t:

Zod-Damnit!! There goes my TEENAGE WEREWOLF ZOMBIE HIGH script!! Now I have to start all over from scratch. t:

 

[Human Torch]

Eh,I don't really even bother with this forum anymore.It's just the same bellyaching.I realized very early on what kind of show this would be.And while-yeah,this isn't exactly how I would've planned it out myself,I decided to except it for what it was going to be,not exactly what I'd like it to be.If you can't bring yourself to do that,better stop watching now.'Cause they sure ain't gonna revamp/recast the show for you.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Eh,I don't really even bother with this forum anymore.It's just the same bellyaching.I realized very early on what kind of show this would be.And while-yeah,this isn't exactly how I would've planned it out myself,I decided to except it for what it was going to be,not exactly what I'd like it to be.If you can't bring yourself to do that,better stop watching now.'Cause they sure ain't gonna revamp/recast the show for you.

I know they are not. But consider that many are saying what an improvement FZZZT was over the previous episodes. Some are calling it the best episode yet. Is it a coincidence that this is being said when that episode does many of the things the "bellyaching" have stated again and again? Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that somehow they are taking fan complaints to heart and changed things. Of course this episode was filmed probably long before the first episode aired.

What I am saying is that, low and behold, an episode that had Phil at the forefront and added depth to Fitz and Simmins and was light on the goofy comedy, and oh yes relegated Skye to a background player IS being seen as decent at worst and a marked improvement at best. These are the things that those critical of the show so far have wanted.

 

[mr. peasant]

Yes, but we're talking about acting on television (and film), not the stage. As such I was discussing acting appropriate to the medium. Gesticulating wildly and using broad facial expressions isn't necessary on TV or in films because the camera is tight on the actors faces, allowing the audience to see them clearly. The broader technique used in stage acting doesn't work in that medium, not that Bennet was ever a stage actress. That is the point I was making.

While it's true that either one isn't strictly necessary in the presence of the other but that doesn't make them unnecessary or inappropriate. Just because the camera is tight on an actor's face doesn't eliminate the utility of gesticulation. After all, television and movie dialogues are more than just about talking heads.

Indeed, only 7% of communication is verbal while the remaining 93% is non-verbal; of which facial expression forms a small portion of it. The rest is body language.

I think the source of the issues with the Skye character is the writing, not the actress.

I think the 'issue' is more to do with the demographics. Simply put, Skye wasn't written with 'us' in mind. Rather, she's there to provide a degree of audience surrogacy for the non-comic-reading demographic - by asking the questions they'd be asking with respect to the setting and its deviations from ours - and for younger viewers.

Simply put, Agents of SHIELD is aiming for a big, broad general audience across all ages and adjusting to it; and isn't just being tailored specifically to the older 18-30 year old, male demographic.

 

[Xeno]

I think the source of the issues with the Skye character is the writing, not the actress.
I found her extremely annoying in the pilot, but have warmed up to her by now.
Is Chloe going to be winning awards for her acting anytime soon? No, but she'll do fine if given good material.

Well, you have a point about the writing. Skye is just an ill-conceived character. The combination of weak scripts and a weaker actress has been bad for the show. Even in the most recent episode, which was excellent, they had Skye whining about how it was okay for her to betray the team (and help get a man killed) because she was only helping her boyfriend. She sounded like a brain-dead teenager. The character does not fit on a team of professional SHIELD agents. Her presence negatively affects the show's credibility, IMO.