Joss Whedon developing Marvel SHIELD series for ABC

[Ultimatehero]

I think everyone, yes - I said EVERYONE is going to cameo. Actors ALREADY guest star in TV shows that have nothing to do with an already established role, just due to liking it and the people involved. So even RDJ will probably be in a episode even if it's only for like 30 seconds! (Check out Jim Carrey in 'the office' for example)

 

[Man in the Suit]

One thing I'm hoping for is it ties into the marvel universe. One interesting thing would be to start this... a YEAR before THE AVENGERS or at least a couple months. Why?

Well, we can see the events we knew about the film before it occurs!

Or they could tell new stories.

 

[The Englishman]

A good thing with Iron Man is that they don't need RDJ for him to cameo...

 

[The Englishman]

Or they could tell new stories.

Yes! That's a good idea. Stories that take them to England and have SHEILD agents team with MI-13......t:

 

[Primal Slayer]

I wouldnt even expect any of the movie actors to appear unless this show is a success and gets a full season.

 

[OB12]

I am going to go ahead and say that SLJ appears in the pilot. They will want some star power to build some hype for show.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Or they could tell new stories.

They would be new stories -- obviously.

Trust me man, I ran a virtual series for a number of years - I know how things are run. You have mythology arcs and then stand-alone episodes.

This show: multiple mythology arcs with a big-bad in addition to the mythology-verse of the films (anyone who thinks this is not going to be in the marvel film universe is fooling themselves) in addition to stand-alone episodes.

Now, from a business perspective: WHY place it before the Avengers film?

Well, that's fairly simple. It's along the same line of thinking that Sorkin did with THE NEWSROOM. That's a behind the scenes tv show of channel news and how everything would come together for a big event. These big events usually ripped straight from the headlines. Now - why did they do this you ask, well fairly simple... if it was modern day they would be making up news stories instead of placing it in the real world by being months behind.

Now, let's look at the MARVEL film universe. You basically have the exact same thing, but with a make believe universe. If you start in modern day you are unsure of where the future will go. You don't know how films down the line may do and what those film do post-production would impede what's already been established before. Not to mention if this is leading into AVENGERS 2 you have a very small time-frame relatively speaking.

NOW if you were to start Season 1 a year behind everything else narratively speaking you can have the series easily run alongside the film franchise and have it tie everything together creating an even bigger universe.

Now, you're saying -- new stories? Well, look at what we do know:

Caulsen is Nick Fury's right hand man that goes to Tony Stark. This poses the question, well why did they feel like they needed to go to Tony Stark? How did they know they would need to form a team? Why was that necessary? They didn't have someone who could read the future predicting Thor's arrival and Loki's acting up - so WHY?

Iron Man 2 the only SHIELD involvement was Caulson and Natasha and we've seen most of it. So, would that be an arc? Of course not. But, there would probably be Tony Stark racing around and the Expo in the news and whatnot.

Now we're onto the Hulk -- SHIELD wasn't a part of that in the film. From the comics what we gather is Ross and Fury were at odds ends with each other and saw things differently. You have a very strong conflict between the military and SHIELD that we've never seen before or know the inner-workings of. This, also, is all new territory.

Iron Man 2 to Thor all we know is that Caulsen left because he heard about Thor. Do we need to follow that? No. That too would probably be avoided. Would it be going around the organization? Most likely a definite YES.

Now we're onto Miranda Hill, who we can probably guess was hired in a sort of Scully like manner. We saw part of her arc in THE AVENGERS but what led up to her joining? What was her background like? Why did she believe them that these heroes were not needed? Perhaps there were others before these guys who were passed up because they did prove to be too much to handle or perhaps she ran into what too much power can do to certain figures.

What this leaves room for:
> Inter-connecting in an accurate way SHIELD with the films.
> Allowing for new stories to come into the fold that, without our knowing, had an impact on what eventually played out in film.
> Show and further expand upon things that were merely hinted at within the films.
> Expand upon the universe in dynamic and interesting ways.

Basically, it would serve as a prequel rather than a sequel. If it was a sequel, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the film division would want spoilers ruined in the TV show. Not to mention along the time-line the series would BY-PASS and go beyond the films time frames. This too makes things very difficult to link everything together. Going a year back? Allows for the series to be integrated with the film-verse so that we TRULY CAN see the inner workings of SHIELD and sense the grand scope of EVERYTHING going on.

ALSO think about LOST and ONCE UPON A TIME. We know where these characters wind up. Why the prequel aspects? Diving deeper into who they are and what makes them tick and expanding upon the show and the universe. Same thing here...

One sub-plot example: THE HUNT FOR BRUCE BANNER!

What do we know about that? Fairly little other than the military and SHIELD have come across him before, know what they're up against and later on get him. What happened in-between all that time? What was that hunt actually like? Did they encounter the Hulk? Did a SHIELD agent accidentally let Banner get away? What happened? We don't know, just that something did. Ross knew what he was up against, so did Fury - the military recruited the best soldier they could find -- HOW??? What happened? No idea.

I mean, dude, when you think about it and as I noted... what do we know about SHIELD in-between the time frame of IRON MAN and AVENGERS? Little to nothing at all.

I wouldnt even expect any of the movie actors to appear unless this show is a success and gets a full season.

Both definite. You think MARVEL will kick start it's TV run without making it a success? They'll do anything they can to make it a success. They've shown that these actors love their roles. Actors have famously done cameos - whole episodes - of TV shows where they obviously already get less money than they do for their film work. So the question would be, why would LAW & ORDER have big name cameos and this wouldn't have it's own big names appearing from time to time for even thirty seconds? In a series ran by their director? "Favors" or "being on the set to be with friends" or "to help a friend" happen all the time in Hollywood.

Also chances are in AVENGERS 2 - they're all going to be working together. That's another major obvious here. In AVENGERS we had no name SHIELD agents practically in the background. In AVENGERS 2 these no-name agents, due to the series, are going to be flesh and blood characters. Meaning they're all going to have a working relationship and it'll be a fun set between them. I have absolutely no doubt that that is part of the draw for Whedon and MARVEL - making every character important to the universe.

Imagine two SHIELD agents dying in the next movie. Only this time, we've known their character on TV for a number of years. There will be a definite stronger impact there from what otherwise -- imagine just two random SHIELD agents we know nothing about dying... we wouldn't care that much. It's the Caulson formula in work a thousand times more.

-----------

Basically it all comes down to technicalities and know-how of both the film and television world. Why SHIELD? Well, it's strongly connected to the films. It gives us more information that the films can't give us. If we are modern day - well, that SEVERELY limits the linkage and amount of information between them. HOWEVER, if it manages to get into the same time-line? You're looking at a kick ass AVENGERS 2 with EVERYTHING connected cross-platform. As said, Whedon has his work cut out for him lol. But if it works? Yeah, they're going to build another phenomena for years to come. Think of this series as more of MARVEL and DISNEY planting their flag. Not to mention possible merchandising, TV coffee table books, and the whole nine yards: they nail this? They are looking at a **** load of money constantly flooding in.

 

[cherokeesam]

But are they specifically referred as such in the movies or were they just a shadowy council that was not formally identified?

More importantly, how do you explain the deliberate name difference between the MCU version and the other universes? Specifcally, the 'H' in SHIELD now refers to 'homeland' (this was mentioned as far back as Iron Man 1); meaning domestic. Ergo, it's not an international organisation.

"Homeland" does not mean "American," despite George W. Bush liking to think so. It's generic, and open to interpretation.

And yes, the World Security Council are referred to as such in the movies. Plus, the canonical "Fury's Big Week" comic that precedes the events of the Avengers movie has a lot more about the WSC, and SHIELD's relationship to them.

 

[Chewy]

Not gonna lie, the "set it between the previous movies" idea is horrible. No room for forward motion at all in a serial drama is very limiting and a good way to ensure the ratings nosedive after the premiere.

 

[marcvader]

I am going to go ahead and say that SLJ appears in the pilot. They will want some star power to build some hype for show.

ABC will absolutely push the show heavily and doing something like that would almost be expected.

 

[The Squirrel]

Not gonna lie, the "set it between the previous movies" idea is horrible. No room for forward motion at all in a serial drama is very limiting and a good way to ensure the ratings nosedive after the premiere.

Seriously. What a great idea, if they want to cripple the show though.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Not gonna lie, the "set it between the previous movies" idea is horrible. No room for forward motion at all in a serial drama is very limiting and a good way to ensure the ratings nosedive after the premiere.

THAT is with looking at Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the rest as KEY players - which they won't be. And with ignoring that all those films combined to about a year or two at most despite coming out over a span of four years. As said -- look at NEWSROOM -- which takes place in the past, uses all or a lot of the events in the real world to help focus and guide it while not being dominated or run by it. Did being placed in 2010 prevent it from being a continuing onward drama? Not really. They referenced things that happened in the real world, but they weren't controlled by them. Same thing here - it takes place in the made up world, but it's not ran by it.

Placing it a year before basically allows for this interconnectivity to play out while expanding on the drama between the characters and outside threats. Placing it on the same course (Seeing as how IRON MAN 3 --> AVENGERS 2 will probably be in the same short time span) doesn't really allow for this... MARVEL will not put in major spoilers about what's happening in each character's individual films as 'office talk' or on the news for the series when it hasn't even appeared on film yet.

Saying it won't advance things, granted what won't it advance? -- IRON MAN, CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR, HULK. We'll get snippets here and there to find out when the events in SHIELD play out or to elaborate on something such as the Hulk. What will it advance? SHIELD.

From the NEWS ROOM, this isn't something the audience isn't unfamiliar with. It's just taking that time concept into a made up world. It would be the exact same thing here. It would put it into the same time trajectory (otherwise as said, it'll likely bypass AVENGERS 2) and allow for the agency to unfold before our very eyes. The ONLY time we get a sense that things are taking place in 'the past' (before they start to get onto the same time frame) would be mentions of the key heroes from the film franchise (which would be used sparingly). Otherwise it runs the same advancement as everything else. It has the same consistency with the time as NEWS ROOM to maintain accuracy while adding in car chases, explosions, heroes we haven't seen yet, villains we haven't seen yet, agents we haven't seen yet, conflicts between the military and SHIELD we haven't seen yet. Basically an audience's mind would be too wrapped up in what's going on to realize the background year has been seen before because it just serves as a time basis.

Basically since that's probably going to be similar with the next line - without starting somewhere previously... unless we're looking at a '24' year, the series will bypass the films by it's second season if that. In other words, it'll be past AVENGERS 2 by the time Avengers 2 comes out. Unless, two years of TV time people will easily see as being one year film time? For those who mention 'Shameless'... well even that showed a full year time in a 24 episode run. I don't know a series other than '24' that hasn't.

 

[The Squirrel]

i don't know a series other than '24' that hasn't.

Lost.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I don't see any need to structure the SHIELD show the same way Newsroom is structured. For one thing, the Sorkin and the team behind Newsroom wanted to use real news events that actually happened in our real world for the show, and there are only so many ways they can do that with the production schedule.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Seriously. What a great idea, if they want to cripple the show though.

Nope, want to know what would cripple it? Not being able to mention what's going on with these heroes lives.

Why?

Most likely IRON MAN 3, CAPTAIN AMERICA 2, and THOR 2 are all going on at the same time despite being spread out by years. Why? Well, that's basically what IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2, CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR, INCREDIBLE HULK did. They all happened basically around the same time as each other. It wasn't four years to these characters. It was a year to a year and a half TOPS!

Two crippling factors:

1) A BIG ONE:

Unless people HONESTLY believe MARVEL will let the series reveal information about these films BEFORE it happens in the film - they are in for a huge surprise. There won't be 'office talk' about what happens in a film coming out that summer! That'll impede the film and have the two in conflict.

We already know about how tight MARVEL is with a lot of spoilers. Every company is with tent-pole films. Basically, we would know very little about how it connects because it would be barred.

NOW -- you do this like BTTF2 or, for those who have read in-depth NICK FURY'S BIG WEEK -- you CAN show the MARVEL universe in action WITHOUT overstepping this boundary.

2) CONNECTING INTO AVENGERS 2:

Let's say this starts off next year. That's TWO years. Alright... two years to focus on just ONE year of activity, while only being able to reference IRON MAN 3 because CAP and THOR are a year's off?

Also if it is year by year... then, well... in short time SHIELD will be AHEAD of the AVENGERS franchise - the films would become the prequel to the series.

I don't know... to me being allowed to show the going-ons of the MARVEL universe in connection to the film universe isn't crippling, it's enabling.

Now to not be able to reference Thor or Captain America due to spoiling aspects and revelations from those films... yet somehow going on at the same time... yet bypassing AVENGERS 2 or having a really really weird 2 years equals 1 year thing... I find boundaries and restrictions crippling myself.

 

[Chewy]

THAT is with looking at Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the rest as KEY players - which they won't be. And with ignoring that all those films combined to about a year or two at most despite coming out over a span of four years. As said -- look at NEWSROOM -- which takes place in the past, uses all or a lot of the events in the real world to help focus and guide it while not being dominated or run by it. Did being placed in 2010 prevent it from being a continuing onward drama? Not really. They referenced things that happened in the real world, but they weren't controlled by them. Same thing here - it takes place in the made up world, but it's not ran by it.

People care about real world events. No one cares what happened behind the scenes in Iron Man 2.

 

[Ultimatehero]

People care about real world events. No one cares what happened behind the scenes in Iron Man 2.

I already noted IRON MAN 2 would not be at focus. We already know what's going on. Rather, IRON MAN 1 would serve for a basis of knowing when things occurred and showing... THE RISE OF SHIELD! What could be more important to a SHIELD series than SHIELD needing to become a bigger force at work? A more powerful threat during that time had to be at play secretly for them to need to pull all these heroes together. Some big bad had to be looming at large that we didn't know about. Why gather them all together? Bigger threats - sure - like New Mexico, but there was a much bigger threat before that incident. Who or what was it? We don't know. THAT would be part of a possible central focus for the first season while everything else is going haywire. IRON MAN 2 we already know the full story of, no need. THOR we already know the full story of that, no need. CAPTAIN AMERICA there isn't a story to be told. HULK?

One thing that would in the first season from the films? Bruce Banner going from town to town and being on the run from the military and SHIELD. Possible encounters with the HULK. Seeing Ross and Nick Fury on screen together in an argument further showing that SHIELD works in a way not bound to the military actions.

Maybe there's an episode that focuses on Natasha's past if they can get Scarlet to cameo in an episode. Or her and Hawkeye's time in... forgot the name of the place lol... but what did that reference mean? There's bound to be - from the sounds of it - a **** load of action there.

This IS NOT "Marvel film universe the series starring Cap, Iron, Hulk, Widow, and Hawkweye!" We AREN'T going to be hearing about new hero adventures we know nothing of or information about films before they come out. A lot of it? Office talk. What is the show about? SHIELD. All placing in the past really allows is more information to be added, a bigger playground, and keeping it on the same timeline to ensure freedom for all.

With the NEWSROOM... It's the basis of why set it in the past - to not bypass the future, NOT focusing on something we know about weekly - the TECHNICAL reasons behind why it couldn't be a weekly show that dealt with more current affairs in the news.

As I've already pointed out. People are going to want to know what happens to these heroes. Yet, they have to be told in a way that doesn't interfere with the films and have them clash too much because of the way the time frames are at odds ends with one another. How do you do that? BTTF2, NICK FURY'S BIG WEEK.

Hell, who's to say THE LEADER didn't become a SHIELD enemy in-between the time of THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THE AVENGERS?

Or who's to say there wasn't a big fight that occurred on the opposite side of the world at the same time the Hulk was fighting the Abomination? Or even on the same street that Bruce broke Harlem?

This allows for the film universe TO BE USED in a non-conflictual way that ALLOWS the audience to see these heroes in action as well from time to time.

Those saying it cripples it... are you looking at SHIELD the series... or AVENGERS the series?... it cripples new adventures of the AVENGERS... however, it allows more freedom to SHIELD by making it a separate entity with some possible "flashback" type episodes showing another side of a well known story/event that you couldn't do if it was in conflict with one of the films.

 

[Chewy]

The show needs to be about its own characters, doing their own things, building their own mythology. Tying it into the events of the movies and trying to fill fanwanky loose ends hampers not only the potential of this show but also the potential of the universe as a whole. The continuity and "connections" need to be in the characters, not the specific events. Otherwise it'll all collapse under its own weight. An open end is a lot more intriguing than a closed one.

People want to see what's going to happen with the Marvel characters, not all the minutiae involved with what has already happened.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, are you reading what I'm typing?

1) I didn't say not have it build it's own mythology. I'm saying have it play out separately. Yet also have these guys in the heat of the action which will inevitably go back to the key conflicts at hand or at least referencing of them. I don't know, I'd feel it was very odd if there was no office talk about what's going on with another big case at the moment (which we would not be allowed to have if it spoiled things in a film). Note - I'm not saying showing small things. I'm saying having it have a "world" background. If Mandarin destroys New York City, and SHIELD says nothing about it -- I don't know... I'd find that as false as the FBI not talking about major recent terrorist attacks.

2) I am saying give it it's own mythology. Hell, I want the first season to show us how SHIELD started to rise in power. Why Nick Fury thought it was ESSENTIAL to bring all these heroes together. Are there other super heroes? Are there other super villains? There may have been due to Tony Stark asking the people if they thought he fought crime in IRON MAN. Or at least it hints to some "LARGER UNIVERSE" that Nick Fury knew about BEFORE Thor and Captain America came into the picture. What is this bigger universe he was dealing with?

3) I am saying have SOME - read... ca-re-fu-lly - episodes SHOULD focus around SHIELD participating with these heroes. AVENGERS is the key operation. You kill two birds with one stone, you show what's going on in those heroes lives (pasts), as well as how SHIELD was involved. It builds upon the audience and entices more viewers while not being restricted by future films. This isn't "little things" these would be the BIG things we never saw or knew were going on. How is Black Widow and Hawkeyes' mission in Buddapest a "old" story?... confused...

4) If it happens at the same time... as said... you are COMPLETELY getting rid of office talk about the key group or task force in the present tense which would start to seem very odd after a while due to restrictions. And you are bound to wind up with a show with characters that can not be in AVENGERS 2 which will also serve as SHIELD: THE MOVIE for fans of the series and not the films bringing an even larger audience into the fold.

Basically making these two conflict? You wind up with Adam in Season 4 of Smallville (who was originally supposed to be Bruce Wayne).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I already noted IRON MAN 2 would not be at focus. We already know what's going on. Rather, IRON MAN 1 would serve for a basis of knowing when things occurred and showing... THE RISE OF SHIELD! What could be more important to a SHIELD series than SHIELD needing to become a bigger force at work? A more powerful threat during that time had to be at play secretly for them to need to pull all these heroes together. Some big bad had to be looming at large that we didn't know about. Why gather them all together? Bigger threats - sure - like New Mexico, but there was a much bigger threat before that incident. Who or what was it? We don't know. THAT would be part of a possible central focus for the first season while everything else is going haywire. IRON MAN 2 we already know the full story of, no need. THOR we already know the full story of that, no need. CAPTAIN AMERICA there isn't a story to be told. HULK?

One thing that would in the first season from the films? Bruce Banner going from town to town and being on the run from the military and SHIELD. Possible encounters with the HULK. Seeing Ross and Nick Fury on screen together in an argument further showing that SHIELD works in a way not bound to the military actions.

Maybe there's an episode that focuses on Natasha's past if they can get Scarlet to cameo in an episode. Or her and Hawkeye's time in... forgot the name of the place lol... but what did that reference mean? There's bound to be - from the sounds of it - a **** load of action there.

This IS NOT "Marvel film universe the series starring Cap, Iron, Hulk, Widow, and Hawkweye!" We AREN'T going to be hearing about new hero adventures we know nothing of or information about films before they come out. A lot of it? Office talk. What is the show about? SHIELD. All placing in the past really allows is more information to be added, a bigger playground, and keeping it on the same timeline to ensure freedom for all.

With the NEWSROOM... It's the basis of why set it in the past - to not bypass the future, NOT focusing on something we know about weekly - the TECHNICAL reasons behind why it couldn't be a weekly show that dealt with more current affairs in the news.

As I've already pointed out. People are going to want to know what happens to these heroes. Yet, they have to be told in a way that doesn't interfere with the films and have them clash too much because of the way the time frames are at odds ends with one another. How do you do that? BTTF2, NICK FURY'S BIG WEEK.

Hell, who's to say THE LEADER didn't become a SHIELD enemy in-between the time of THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THE AVENGERS?

Or who's to say there wasn't a big fight that occurred on the opposite side of the world at the same time the Hulk was fighting the Abomination? Or even on the same street that Bruce broke Harlem?

This allows for the film universe TO BE USED in a non-conflictual way that ALLOWS the audience to see these heroes in action as well from time to time.

But the show becomes limited and boring and not worth watching because you are more worried about trying to do it without conflicting with the Avengers sequel than you are in actually making that show the best it could be.

Why would I want to watch a prequel with Natasha's background when we could have a kickass SHIELD crosses paths with The Punisher story, or anything else more interesting? Honestly.

I think Whedon is probably thinking the same thing. That's probably why this SHIELD show will be as standalone and separate from the Avengers sequel as it can possibly be, and it's not that hard to do. We don't need to make it a boring prequel series to accomplish that, either.

Fury's Big Week worked as a limited comic book mini-series bridging the gap between the previous Phase 1 movies and The Avengers. We don't need to make a TV series out of it.

 

[The Squirrel]

Holy crud man. Do you really need to write an essay for each post?

 

[Ultimatehero]

But the show becomes limited and boring and not worth watching because you are more worried about trying to do it without conflicting with the Avengers sequel than you are in actually making that show the best it could be.

It can appear that way, yes. HOWEVER... to a skilled story-teller this isn't an obstacle at all. You wouldn't be focusing on what the AVENGERS are doing next. You are allowing for casual office talk without restrictions of interfering with them mentioning something about the Avengers initiative that either never happens or doesn't fit in with the film franchise. It would be a complete hazard to the entire process.

If I know how to do this and I'm just a writer with a slight foot already in Hollywood, with big name titles - Whedon definitely already knows how to do this.

It's not a challenge, it's more of a freedom and room to play and maneuver. For some reason people are going, "well... this means they can't grow." Actually the direct opposite this means the characters can live in a full developed world where I wouldn't have to worry about mentioning things in casual office talk that happen in the film because it's open territory.

I don't know how to really put this simply other than it frees everything up. I don't have to worry about the future films and all those boundaries. I can just focus on SHIELD.

Why would I want to watch a prequel with Natasha's background when we could have a kickass SHIELD crosses paths with The Punisher story, or anything else more interesting? Honestly.

And nobody said that wouldn't happen.

My question to you is, why couldn't this have happened between IRON MAN 1 and AVENGERS and we just didn't know about it? Plus it shows how possibly the Punisher went on to effect the Avengers in some way. Maybe Nick Fury considered him initially, but decided against it because he didn't play by the books and made him have serious second thoughts about Tony Stark in Iron Man 2. NOW not only do we have a bad ass episode with the Punisher, we see how it may have effected some of Nick Fury's insights and know-how.

Basically in my version? It would have BOTH Natasha and Hawkeye kicking ass in Buddaphest AND the Punisher.

I think Whedon is probably thinking the same thing. That's probably why this SHIELD show will be as standalone and separate from the Avengers sequel as it can possibly be, and it's not that hard to do. We don't need to make it a boring prequel series to accomplish that, either.

Actually MARVEL was looking for a big name title to be the flagship through the years for MARVEL. And where did they go? To the direct middle which has ties to every single film in the franchise and comes to a complete central focus in the AVENGERS films. It's to draw in a bigger audience from the TV world into the film world. Basically it all comes down to $$$ for the studio.

Fury's Big Week worked as a limited comic book mini-series bridging the gap between the previous Phase 1 movies and The Avengers. We don't need to make a TV series out of it.

I never said it would be.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Holy crud man. Do you really need to write an essay for each post?

It's not essays dude. But evidently yes since no one is "getting it."

Maybe this will help:

EPISODE 1: THE RISE OF SHIELD

Due to a rise in mutant attacks, Nick Fury believes that SHIELD needs to increase it's man-power and brings in a new series of recruits who are initiated into the organization by Coulson. Near the end of the episode word spreads about a superhero battle in Los Angeles that nearly levels a city highway. Coulson goes to talk with Tony Stark as the new agents discuss the world and trying to keep some of their operations secret from the world and how long that can last.

EPISODE 2: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

Deals with Natasha and Hawkeye's mission in Buddapest where they go up against a villain from comic book lore with one of the new agents and we get more of an insight into the characters. Meanwhile another villain is tearing apart New York City where the other agents have been sent to handle things only to have their lead get killed by a mysterious man known as the Punisher.

EPISODE 3: PUNISHMENT

Deals with Frank Castle's war on crime and the conflicts between governmental operations and acting outside of it. Nick Fury considers recruiting Frank Castle due to his efficiency, but finds out it's better to stay by the books.

EPISODE 4: MAN-HUNT

Deals with the military coming into conflict with SHIELD over the run away of Bruce Banner. They believe they know where he is but need to get to him. In the end the Hulk emerges and one of the rookies lets him get away afraid for his own life.

EPISODE 5: BRAVERY

Deals with a comic book villain who preys upon the fears of others. This episode dives into the rookie's fear of not being good enough for the organization due his slip up in the previous operation. By the end we also find out about a larger criminal syndicate with an increasing number of super villains (hint: this takes place before Nick Fury introduces himself to Tony Stark -- that comes later.)

---- I really don't have the time to show how this continues, but I'm sure everyone gets the idea ---

Now do these sound like they are restricted to the first run of films?

To me, I have no idea how that can possibly be the case. Already in five episodes we have showing Black Widow and Hawkeye's mission in Buddapest, a group of mutant terrorists, the Punisher, the Hulk, and Mister Fear (episode five), with hints of a "larger universe" emerging and a need to contain it.

 

[Chewy]

1) I didn't say not have it build it's own mythology. I'm saying have it play out separately. Yet also have these guys in the heat of the action which will inevitably go back to the key conflicts at hand or at least referencing of them. I don't know, I'd feel it was very odd if there was no office talk about what's going on with another big case at the moment (which we would not be allowed to have if it spoiled things in a film). Note - I'm not saying showing small things. I'm saying having it have a "world" background. If Mandarin destroys New York City, and SHIELD says nothing about it -- I don't know... I'd find that as false as the FBI not talking about major recent terrorist attacks.

Then Mandarin's destruction of New York doesn't take place during one of the 20-something episodes. Not that hard.

2) I am saying give it it's own mythology. Hell, I want the first season to show us how SHIELD started to rise in power. Why Nick Fury thought it was ESSENTIAL to bring all these heroes together. Are there other super heroes? Are there other super villains? There may have been due to Tony Stark asking the people if they thought he fought crime in IRON MAN. Or at least it hints to some "LARGER UNIVERSE" that Nick Fury knew about BEFORE Thor and Captain America came into the picture. What is this bigger universe he was dealing with?

And that would be... not giving it its own mythology. Making it about the movies, and the movie characters, and the movie mythology, instead of a team of SHIELD agents doing SHIELD things.

3) I am saying have SOME - read... ca-re-fu-lly - episodes SHOULD focus around SHIELD participating with these heroes. AVENGERS is the key operation. You kill two birds with one stone, you show what's going on in those heroes lives (pasts), as well as how SHIELD was involved. It builds upon the audience and entices more viewers while not being restricted by future films. This isn't "little things" these would be the BIG things we never saw or knew were going on. How is Black Widow and Hawkeyes' mission in Buddapest a "old" story?... confused...

Thanks for the pedantry. Again, this is the exact problem to which I am referring. AVENGERS is not the key operation of a show about SHIELD agents. It is its own, separate beast. Try to base the show around it and the show isn't SHIELD, it's Avengers 0.5. Without the Avengers. Aka, something no one cares about or for.

4) If it happens at the same time... as said... you are COMPLETELY getting rid of office talk about the key group or task force in the present tense which would start to seem very odd after a while due to restrictions. And you are bound to wind up with a show with characters that can not be in AVENGERS 2 which will also serve as SHIELD: THE MOVIE for fans of the series and not the films bringing an even larger audience into the fold.

Basically making these two conflict? You wind up with Adam in Season 4 of Smallville (who was originally supposed to be Bruce Wayne).

Avengers 2 won't be SHIELD THE MOVIE anymore than Avengers 1 was SHIELD THE MOVIE. People won't walk into an Avengers movie expecting it to not focus on the Avengers.

 

[Chewy]

It's not essays dude. But evidently yes since no one is "getting it."

Maybe this will help:

You wrote a lot of stuff here

Sounds horrendously disjointed. There's no through-line here.