I don't get why people are giving her so much ****. She is spot on, the movie side has done nothing to help the show at all which defeats the purpose of the idea of the MCU concept.
I think people are giving her $*** because she sounds a bit entitled and bratty. Marvel cinema doesn't owe her anything. She hasn't considered the logistic, creative, contractual and financial nightmare associated with adding a random AoS cast member to a Marvel movie? It would be hard to insert an AoS crossover without it feeling awkward and forced. If there lucky they might get to feature in one of the infinity war films, but whatever the IW screen writer puts together might conflict with whatever plot line is on the show. If Fitz and Simmons are written into Infinity War, but Fitz dies in AoS then there going to have to make adjustments. Civil War screen writers have talked about how much of a nightmare it was to adjust the script because they had to add Spiderman last minute. It's not as easy as it sounds.
The MCU have a million other things on their mind to worry about in regards to phase 3, Infinity Wars, etc. ThE goings on in AoS is the furthest thing from their minds...
I am certain that if Clark Gregg had made the same comments he wouldn't be getting this backlash. She doesn't sound any of those things and didn't say one of the AoS characters should appear in a movie, she was saying that SHIELD should be acknowledged within the movies.
In what context should they be acknowledged? As far as the Avengers go, SHIELD no longer exists. The only ones aware that it's still around are Hill and Fury. And hypothetically, say they were acknowledged, don't you think that'd open up a whole different can of worms from a story perspective in regards to Coulson and the Avengers you know...believing he's dead? Like I said, the MCU has bigger issues to cover.
The whole Avengers still thinking Coulson is dead stuff is stupid and should have been cleared u ages ago, and I don't see why the likes Cap, Natasha and Hawkeye wouldn't be able to reference is in some fashion in the movies.
I agree. Again, is there any video or audio of this? Because I doubt she said all this in an overly negative way. It's weird how everyone looks at this as if she's trying to be greedy or big headed. Of course she wants to be a part of the MCU films, of course she'd like to see her character interact with other heroes. Hell, a lot of fans would including me. I think everyone is just making mountains out of peanuts. It's Marvel having their cake and eating it too. I'm also conflicted on whether Coulson should have remained dead or not. On the one hand the death is major turning point for the Avengers and undoing it invalidates the meaning and sacrifice to it. On the other hand, Coulson is an awesome character and Clark Gregg is great. So I actually like the compromise of Coulson being alive but allowing it to remain a secret to the Avengers. It would work better if Shield's adventures weren't so public, but still it's not a bad setup.
From what I understand, the comments made by her were at a Q&A during a fan panel during a con she attended last week in Des Moines, not from some professional one-on-one interview.
Why are you so certain? Are you insinuating there some kind of woman hating misogynistic campaign against her? Because if you think that, then you might be jumping the gun a bit. I would react the same if the actors that played Fitz or Mack said the same thing. In fact if Clark Gregg made the same comments as Chloe, I would be even more inclined to tell him to **** considering they brought him back from the dead to create a show around him. Clark is mature enough to understand the value of a consistent paycheck in Hollywood, and isn't going to bite the hand that feeds him. Charlie Cox made a comment about how he would love to crossover into the Avengers movies. He didn't sound snarky or hard done by, so his comments didn't ruffle any feathers. Yea to be fair Chloe could have been taken way out of context. I've seen her in interviews and she's a bit of a joker. It was probably a failed attempt at humor. But I can only go on the comments provided.
hey it not suppose to be easy! That's why them writers are paid the big bucks. A crossover don't mean you got to add one of the AOS characters in the movie. Just refer to something in the show. To tell you the truth what the writers wrote in Civil War was weak! They could of mention inhumans. Hey how bout the ATCU? The president running that organization. Civil War would have had a bigger better story!
Totally agree. And with new powered people popping up all over the world, you would think it would be something the Avengers would be keeping an eye on, or at least mention.
Screen writing for movie's does not work like that. The civil war script was finished way before season 3 even started. Sure you can do reshoots, but Marvel are not going to waste time and money on adding a few words just for pointless fan service. An inhumans name drop isn't going to improve the script. In fact it will confuse most people in then audience that don't watch the show.
this is the problem - calendars if the entire movie script was know and the entire AoS season scripts were know. Then there would be opportunities to shoot scenes at the end of the movie that tied the tv series to the movie But the calendars do not align (among other things)
Calendars Contracts Creative differences Finances Schedule So many things fans don't take into consideration. It's hard enough keeping consistency among the solo movie's. Joss Whedon was not happy they brought back coulson (despite being a producer on AoS guess it's an easy paycheck), and word is, he was pretty pissed the Russo's dissolved shield in winter soldier. Notice how he doesn't acknowledge any of it in the shield rescue scene in AoU. He went on a bit of a tantrum apparently and just tried to ignore the solo movies as much as possible.
All of these things are true about schedules and contracts and scripts. However, if they made a concerted effort they could make some of the references happen. The film staff just needs to communicate that desire to the TV side of the house. I mean there is a layup sitting out there right now that could establish a connection between TV and film: Lorelai. That character doesn't have a current storyline, hasn't been seen since season 1 and could be easily slipped into Thor: Ragnarok as a cameo. I think Chloe is just urging Marvel to not settle for a triple when a HR could be had. I don't believe it is too hard, especially for the studio that started the shared universe phenomenon.
Kevin Feige and Ike Perlmutter hate each other. It isn't happening. Also, Chloe kind of sucks as a thespian. The show itself is mediocre, at best. If any shows are ever getting acknowledged by the movies, it's going to be the Netflix shows and even that is a long shot. Chloe wants to be in the movies, when she took the role someone probably told her if the show was a success, she might be promoted to the movies. Well, the show's ratings suck, it's moving to the death slot. The Inhumans movie has been shelved. And Feige and Perlmutter split. Maybe the world revolves around Princess Daisy (how many better characters have died for her while she behaves like a brat?), but it doesn't revolve around Chloe Bennet.
Hey you are a straight Chloe Hater! She said they should reference the show. SHE never said her. Tell you the truth is never was a Quake Fan but she did her thing this year If you stop hating and pay attention to her character progress, you will see that Chloe made Quake a diverse great character. You probably never watch the show, you probably just look at the ratings. Honestly I don't know any better female hero character on TV better than Daisy Johnson.
I think this is what it mostly boils down to. I'm sure Marvel's film and television divisions could work some stuff out if they really wanted to. Given the relationship between Feige and Perlmutter it is highly unlikely though. There is also no real incentive for Feige to mention anything relating to the TV shows because they aren't his purview. For the people that watch AoS the lack of acknowledgment from the film side is a bone of contention but for the fans of the films and those that don't watch AoS it isn't a big deal.
All time or recent history? I'll stick with recent history for now. All time and this goes very long. Daenerys Targaryen Sansa Stark Arya Stark Brienne of Tarth Peggy Carter Jessica Jones Kim Wexler (not a superhero, but a great character with a moral center who tries to do right) Samantha Bee (she may as well be a hero at this point) Sarah Manning Bobbi Morse Elizabeth Jennings Shall I go on? It also helps that they can all act. Chloe's acting... well, to quote Calculon: "I've seen better acting from extras in Godzilla movies."