Is that a dislike or is that a disagree with my opinion? Why? Keep the conversation going!
I can't be the only one tired of people hiding behind the feedback icons. Most of us on the forum don't bite if we get a difference of opinion. It contributes to the conversation. Don't be afraid.
M
I have read this observation of Matt's on a few different threads and as a lover of debate and heated back and forth I too would rather less anonymous replies. That being said, it's a design feature of the forum site, it's allowed so calling out people to come out and debate seems unnecessary. I've noticed that with all the hero worship of the Geeks that as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion. I am not a heavy forum user as a result of, at times, tiresome brow beating at the hands of moderators and sycophants. Perhaps I am guilty of it at times but in general it does not pay to disagree with the majority opinion.
Not personalize it too much more this next part is directed squarely at Matt. As a Geek it is presumed you have some voice and/or influence over Forum features. Lobby to have the anonymous buttons removed if you are tired of it. You have mentioned it a few times and I just don't agree with complaining about the rules in the middle of the game.
back to the OP thread. I love Whedon but the tank is running on "E" for over saturation of his trademark style. The bit with the truth serum, the back and forth however funny is getting to sound so staged. In high stakes situations like some scenes in Serenity and Buffyit felt right. Scenes from the Avengers on the Heli-Carrier worked well; Caps' "I get that reference!" but Agents tried for 44 minutes worth and that will get old after 22 episodes. I'm hoping for the best but like my Whedon in small doses. Agents could lapse into faux Whedon quicker than we'd like.
I have less forum authorization then the mods. Its something I lost with my last two show contract negotiations.
I don't agree with "hero worship of the Geeks that as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion" either. I enjoy having a conversation over preaching to a choir. I also don't think any opinion is stupid (I wasn't raised that way.) Sure I might briefly chuckle if you're an adult and tell me you still believe in the Genesis origin over evolution, but that's because I think you're very wrong...NOT very stupid.
On to SHIELD:
I think there is a slight confusion for the people at Marvel. Did you know, War Machine is now branded as Iron Patriot in the comics? (Just like in IM3) Did you know, Fury has a son who's bald, black & recently lost an eye in the comics...strangely ALSO named Nick Fury? What about the fact Coulson is now in the comics? Or how about Tony Stark both drawn & (poorly) written like RDJ in the comics?
There's this notion that I've argued for years that just because 'civilians' go to see these movies doesn't mean a significant fraction of them are going to read the source material. Having said that, I know Whedon's writing & directing greatly helped the success of Avengers, but how many civilians really just went to see the costumed characters (& probably RDJ)?
Agents of SHIELD could turn away the actual fans, let alone civilians, without regular signs of actual costumed characters. I don't care how good the writing is.
It would be like having a series call "Staff of the Bugle" where we see new reporters, Urlich, Brant, & occasionally JJJ as they write stories about the superhero populations. After awhile, you'll be wondering why Peter isn't showing up or actually see Phil Urlich's "dark side" emerge.
If this series (just based on the pilot) wasn't SHIELD, had Coulson, or make any connection to anything but itself, I just don't see it lasting. It's not overly original, and boarding on the cliche. That's coming from a longtime Whedon fan. It's mostly riding on the coattails of a $ billion movie.
Off Topic: I tweeted to Matt that the like/etc features were once flipped on before and it was deemed 'unfair' (for lack of a better word on my part) by a few since they were used under the initial notion that they were anonymous. So my suggestion: delete all the likes/etc, if possible. Do a reset of them to zero. Then turn them on but make them visible. That way everyone starts at ground zero knowing that they are now open and viewable. I think we would see a change in how they are used.
"Oh shit, you mean I can't hide anonymously behind my computer? Whaaaa."
If you realized after you did it, undo it! Hey, my opinion my be the heavily dissenting one, but I've got the convictions to stand by them (thanks, mom.) I'm not afraid to hide from the countering opinion (or ridicule, confrontation, or argument) my opinion generates.
I am (fortunately) far from greatness or noteworthiness, but I do know they come from being known by your convictions.
I love Steranko's style, his work, and his contribution to the art form, but meeting him at the recent Comic Expo in Nashville was a let down and a complete turn-off. The guy was positively too much into himself, acted like he was doing all of the people there a favor, subtly put down many of the other artists at the Con, and waved off anyone trying to take a picture.
I love Steranko's style, his work, and his contribution to the art form, but meeting him at the recent Comic Expo in Nashville was a let down and a complete turn-off. The guy was positively too much into himself, acted like he was doing all of the people there a favor, subtly put down many of the other artists at the Con, and waved off anyone trying to take a picture.
So the pilot episode of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." was an massive success in its debut episode. It reportedly drew an audience of 11.9 million viewers and garnered a 4.6 rating amongst adults 18-49 according to EW.com. Those statistics make it the highest-rated TV drama premiere in nearly four years.
What were your thoughts on the new show from Marvel/Disney and Josh Whedon?
I think the last time a sci fi type show premiered like that, it was also on ABC... V. All the talk of "I'll catch this on Netflix" or "This is a rental" or whatever. Is it not available on the ABC app or ABC On Demand or Hulu?
I watched it On Demand. When I referenced Netflix, it was because I probably won't be watching anymore episodes of the season. If it returns for a season 2, and I get word some of the things that annoy me changed (or at least got less annoying), I would get the DVDs from Netflix to watch.
M
Ah, I see. I haven't caught it myself yet. I might wait till a few episodes have shown and watch one or two. First episodes are often kind "meh". I need a couple to warm up to characters.
Unless its really repulsive and then I just turn it off.
Off Topic: I tweeted to Matt that the like/etc features were once flipped on before and it was deemed 'unfair' (for lack of a better word on my part) by a few since they were used under the initial notion that they were anonymous. So my suggestion: delete all the likes/etc, if possible. Do a reset of them to zero. Then turn them on but make them visible. That way everyone starts at ground zero knowing that they are now open and viewable. I think we would see a change in how they are used. .
I think anonymity is unnecessary and self defeating in a community of mostly friendly faces. Even as anti-social as I am have now joined and enjoyed the CGS Fantasy leagues for several years now. I've met all you guys at various cons, won prizes, you gave my daughter a sketch at Supershow one year, my son a Crisis audio book. This is a great community, but it's too big to have parity. I just think that if you disagree, say so. Argue your point. I actually agree with Matt in principle, but absent of transparency play the hand your dealt. Like them disagree silently until that feature is disengaged. I vote for leaving it be.
Is that a dislike or is that a disagree with my opinion? Why? Keep the conversation going!
I can't be the only one tired of people hiding behind the feedback icons. Most of us on the forum don't bite if we get a difference of opinion. It contributes to the conversation. Don't be afraid.
M
I have read this observation of Matt's on a few different threads and as a lover of debate and heated back and forth I too would rather less anonymous replies. That being said, it's a design feature of the forum site, it's allowed so calling out people to come out and debate seems unnecessary. I've noticed that with all the hero worship of the Geeks that as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion. I am not a heavy forum user as a result of, at times, tiresome brow beating at the hands of moderators and sycophants. Perhaps I am guilty of it at times but in general it does not pay to disagree with the majority opinion.
Not personalize it too much more this next part is directed squarely at Matt. As a Geek it is presumed you have some voice and/or influence over Forum features. Lobby to have the anonymous buttons removed if you are tired of it. You have mentioned it a few times and I just don't agree with complaining about the rules in the middle of the game.
back to the OP thread. I love Whedon but the tank is running on "E" for over saturation of his trademark style. The bit with the truth serum, the back and forth however funny is getting to sound so staged. In high stakes situations like some scenes in Serenity and Buffyit felt right. Scenes from the Avengers on the Heli-Carrier worked well; Caps' "I get that reference!" but Agents tried for 44 minutes worth and that will get old after 22 episodes. I'm hoping for the best but like my Whedon in small doses. Agents could lapse into faux Whedon quicker than we'd like.
I have less forum authorization then the mods. Its something I lost with my last two show contract negotiations.
I don't agree with "attack those who dissent with the hosts' opinions" either. I enjoy having a conversation over preaching to a choir. I also don't think any opinion is stupid (I wasn't raised that way.) Sure I might briefly chuckle if you're an adult and tell me you still believe in the Genesis origin over evolution, but that's because I think you're very wrong...NOT very stupid.
On to SHIELD:
I think there is a slight confusion for the people at Marvel. Did you know, War Machine is now branded as Iron Patriot in the comics? (Just like in IM3) Did you know, Fury has a son who's bald, black & recently lost an eye in the comics...strangely ALSO named Nick Fury? What about the fact Coulson is now in the comics? Or how about Tony Stark both drawn & (poorly) written like RDJ in the comics?
There's this notion that I've argued for years that just because 'civilians' go to see these movies doesn't mean a significant fraction of them are going to read the source material. Having said that, I know Whedon's writing & directing greatly helped the success of Avengers, but how many civilians really just went to see the costumed characters (& probably RDJ)?
Agents of SHIELD could turn away the actual fans, let alone civilians, without regular signs of actual costumed characters. I don't care how good the writing is.
It would be like having a series call "Staff of the Bugle" where we see new reporters, Urlich, Brant, & occasionally JJJ as they write stories about the superhero populations. After awhile, you'll be wondering why Peter isn't showing up or actually see Phil Urlich's "dark side" emerge.
If this series (just based on the pilot) wasn't SHIELD, had Coulson, or make any connection to anything but itself, I just don't see it lasting. It's not overly original, and boarding on the cliche. That's coming from a longtime Whedon fan. It's mostly riding on the coattails of a $ billion movie.
M
I see the buttons have disappeared. And while I was not the anonymous Dislike guy on certain posts I still do not see why people cannot disagree or dislike posts with out having to prove it in a post. Not everybody feels as passionate about things as others and while I do not mind a fiery debate, other shy away. A shame we cant find a middle ground.
And not to bash you again Matt but if you put something in quotes and attribute to someone, make sure it's accurate. I did not say "attack those who dissent with the hosts' opinions" I said "as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion."Maybe it's semantic point but I did not use the word "attack". I have always agreed with your attempts to draw people into debate and hate mindless, indefensible retorts you occasionally see here.
Interesting the negative icons were removed. Could it have the reverse effect? Much like whether or not the Sword of Omens can penatrate...stone?! We'll soon find out.
I love Steranko's style, his work, and his contribution to the art form, but meeting him at the recent Comic Expo in Nashville was a let down and a complete turn-off. The guy was positively too much into himself, acted like he was doing all of the people there a favor, subtly put down many of the other artists at the Con, and waved off anyone trying to take a picture.The 'holier than thou' attitude he demonstrated almost convinced me that he's turned bitter for some reason, which is a shame because he has contributed so much to Marvel's history
Oh, he hasn’t turned bitter. He was that way even before he got into the comics business.
I haven’t watched the show yet, but from the comments I’ve read here, it’s pretty much what I expected it was going to be, so I’m not in a huge rush. My son was interested in seeing it, so I’ll probably watch it with him on Hulu at some point down the road.
Watched it another 1 and a half times over the weekend and still loving it just as much as before. And I've still got one more viewing with the wife on the DVR. The problem is we are having scheduling conflicts because of some silly singing competition that my wife and I enjoy. Hopefully the ABC app keeps up with new shows.
The anonymous dislike and disagree buttons are just like if you tell a story in front of a group of people, you can tell if someone doesn't like what you just said by their facial expressions. They don't have to say why but you know what you just said ruffled a few feathers. But I guess it's ok to anonymously agree and like everything since those buttons apparently stayed.
Matt I'd say the reason you don't realize the "heat" someone that is a non-geek gets from disagreeing with a geek is because of which one of those two boats you are floating.
Watched it another 1 and a half times over the weekend and still loving it just as much as before. And I've still got one more viewing with the wife on the DVR. The problem is we are having scheduling conflicts because of some silly singing competition that my wife and I enjoy. Hopefully the ABC app keeps up with new shows.
The anonymous dislike and disagree buttons are just like if you tell a story in front of a group of people, you can tell if someone doesn't like what you just said by their facial expressions. They don't have to say why but you know what you just said ruffled a few feathers. But I guess it's ok to anonymously agree and like everything since those buttons apparently stayed.
Matt I'd say the reason you don't realize the "heat" someone that is a non-geek gets from disagreeing with a geek is because of which one of those two boats you are floating.
Good points. I'm always trying to be more ordinary then the other ordinary posters, but that's probably not the perception.
Interesting on the analysis using facial expressions. If it makes a different, I inquire about why someone makes a "face" as well. Sometimes, I inquire if the non-verbal signs are not as obvious.
A 20-second promo posted Sunday on the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." Facebook page closes with a shot of the bird in the S.H.I.E.L.D. logo noticeably sporting an eye patch, part of Fury's signature look. The accompanying narration states, "Don't risk the spoilers. Stay to the very end."
Also on Sunday, "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." star Clark Gregg wrote on Twitter, "Just finished setting my [DVR] to record episode #2 of #agentsofSHIELD. All of it. Credits and all," likely hinting at a Marvel Studios-esque post-credits scene of the episode. Marvel.com's executive editorial director Ryan Penagos issued a similar advisory Monday on his Twitter account, writing, "For tomorrow's episode of @Marvel's #AgentsofSHIELD, make sure you stay tuned until the end, proper Marvel style."
Not sure that I have much to add that hasn't already been said, but first a question that maybe those that watched multiple times (or watched more carefully than I did) could help answer:
Was there a reason given for why Coulson needs this little, special team? Is there some premise to what he is doing with them that is any different than what the rest of SHIELD does? I was a little confused in the pilot why (other than, perhaps that he is now an LMD or something and they are scared of him) he has sort of been demoted. He used to be the right hand man of Fury and Hill, and would command huge, overwhelming forces of agents and be on the front line of dealing with the big guys. He used to be able to tell Hawkeye and Black Widow what to do.
Now, it seems like he is in charge of the X-Files, or has a little A-Team group of specialists. But it is in a post-Attack on New York world, where SHIELD is public, and puts logos on their bullhorns. He is in charge of dealing with things that everyone believes in, and would likely be of highest national security priority.
So is there some reason given in the premise of the show why, when it comes to a superhuman threat like the would-be unwitting Extremis living bomb heading into a crowded train station, why he now has to take care of everything with his little plucky team of six, and no longer can get all the agents in the world to swarm in and help?
I mean, I understand that from TV budget vs. movie budget reasons. . . but was there a justification given in the world of the show that I missed?
I think this is mostly because small character driven ensembles are what wheadon does. but i know that isn't really what you're asking. You covered most of the bases in your question but i think the smaller group is just to use a lighter touch than going full out invasion force. it is a little like they are black ops spin doctors. Like the Uncanny Avengers are the public face they still do stuff behind the scenes to maintain the public image. so a strike force is easier than a batallion for precise strikes or extractions. so in that case doesn't the opening episode end in a clossal failure because the fecal matter hit the whirling blades in a major public way? yup...but it was exciting! (that last line sound like Simon Pegg as Scotty in my head)
Not sure that I have much to add that hasn't already been said, but first a question that maybe those that watched multiple times (or watched more carefully than I did) could help answer:
Was there a reason given for why Coulson needs this little, special team? Is there some premise to what he is doing with them that is any different than what the rest of SHIELD does? I was a little confused in the pilot why (other than, perhaps that he is now an LMD or something and they are scared of him) he has sort of been demoted. He used to be the right hand man of Fury and Hill, and would command huge, overwhelming forces of agents and be on the front line of dealing with the big guys. He used to be able to tell Hawkeye and Black Widow what to do.
Now, it seems like he is in charge of the X-Files, or has a little A-Team group of specialists. But it is in a post-Attack on New York world, where SHIELD is public, and puts logos on their bullhorns. He is in charge of dealing with things that everyone believes in, and would likely be of highest national security priority.
So is there some reason given in the premise of the show why, when it comes to a superhuman threat like the would-be unwitting Extremis living bomb heading into a crowded train station, why he now has to take care of everything with his little plucky team of six, and no longer can get all the agents in the world to swarm in and help?
I mean, I understand that from TV budget vs. movie budget reasons. . . but was there a justification given in the world of the show that I missed?
The way I see it, S.H.I.E.L.D., as an institution, has always been about playing behind the scenes, but in the new, post-Battle of New York world, is going to have to readjust. Coulson's team is a relatively-inexpensive test program that can be seen by the public handling the "Marvels" as they emerge, and provide a sense of reassurance that "They" are on top of things. Meanwhile, S.H.I.E.L.D proper can readjust more slowly, as giant institutions are wont to do.
Oh, and all the agents in the world swarming would *not* have helped.
Not sure that I have much to add that hasn't already been said, but first a question that maybe those that watched multiple times (or watched more carefully than I did) could help answer:
Was there a reason given for why Coulson needs this little, special team? Is there some premise to what he is doing with them that is any different than what the rest of SHIELD does? I was a little confused in the pilot why (other than, perhaps that he is now an LMD or something and they are scared of him) he has sort of been demoted. He used to be the right hand man of Fury and Hill, and would command huge, overwhelming forces of agents and be on the front line of dealing with the big guys. He used to be able to tell Hawkeye and Black Widow what to do.
Now, it seems like he is in charge of the X-Files, or has a little A-Team group of specialists. But it is in a post-Attack on New York world, where SHIELD is public, and puts logos on their bullhorns. He is in charge of dealing with things that everyone believes in, and would likely be of highest national security priority.
So is there some reason given in the premise of the show why, when it comes to a superhuman threat like the would-be unwitting Extremis living bomb heading into a crowded train station, why he now has to take care of everything with his little plucky team of six, and no longer can get all the agents in the world to swarm in and help?
I mean, I understand that from TV budget vs. movie budget reasons. . . but was there a justification given in the world of the show that I missed?
The way I see it, S.H.I.E.L.D., as an institution, has always been about playing behind the scenes, but in the new, post-Battle of New York world, is going to have to readjust. Coulson's team is a relatively-inexpensive test program that can be seen by the public handling the "Marvels" as they emerge, and provide a sense of reassurance that "They" are on top of things. Meanwhile, S.H.I.E.L.D proper can readjust more slowly, as giant institutions are wont to do.
Oh, and all the agents in the world swarming would *not* have helped.
But moving on - In most other shows, I can tell the characters apart. A show like Law and Order SVU presents an ensemble cast of cops, but they are all very distinct in their back stories and their roles (hothead cop, bitchy lawyer, dedicated family man, earnest former rape survivor, wisecracking detective). With this show, geez, I don't get an idea of what anyone's about. Ming Na Wen seems older than the others, and she's angry about something, but the rest are 20-something do-gooders who are snarky and good with computers. I need to know more about them. And as David D. has pointed out, maybe if we knew their goal and purpose, we might understand more about them and why they have been chosen to fulfill that purpose. Right now, they seem to be substituting action and movement for normal character development and premise development.
Comments
I don't agree with "hero worship of the Geeks that as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion" either. I enjoy having a conversation over preaching to a choir. I also don't think any opinion is stupid (I wasn't raised that way.) Sure I might briefly chuckle if you're an adult and tell me you still believe in the Genesis origin over evolution, but that's because I think you're very wrong...NOT very stupid.
On to SHIELD:
I think there is a slight confusion for the people at Marvel. Did you know, War Machine is now branded as Iron Patriot in the comics? (Just like in IM3) Did you know, Fury has a son who's bald, black & recently lost an eye in the comics...strangely ALSO named Nick Fury? What about the fact Coulson is now in the comics? Or how about Tony Stark both drawn & (poorly) written like RDJ in the comics?
There's this notion that I've argued for years that just because 'civilians' go to see these movies doesn't mean a significant fraction of them are going to read the source material. Having said that, I know Whedon's writing & directing greatly helped the success of Avengers, but how many civilians really just went to see the costumed characters (& probably RDJ)?
Agents of SHIELD could turn away the actual fans, let alone civilians, without regular signs of actual costumed characters. I don't care how good the writing is.
It would be like having a series call "Staff of the Bugle" where we see new reporters, Urlich, Brant, & occasionally JJJ as they write stories about the superhero populations. After awhile, you'll be wondering why Peter isn't showing up or actually see Phil Urlich's "dark side" emerge.
If this series (just based on the pilot) wasn't SHIELD, had Coulson, or make any connection to anything but itself, I just don't see it lasting. It's not overly original, and boarding on the cliche. That's coming from a longtime Whedon fan. It's mostly riding on the coattails of a $ billion movie.
M
If you realized after you did it, undo it! Hey, my opinion my be the heavily dissenting one, but I've got the convictions to stand by them (thanks, mom.) I'm not afraid to hide from the countering opinion (or ridicule, confrontation, or argument) my opinion generates.
I am (fortunately) far from greatness or noteworthiness, but I do know they come from being known by your convictions.
M
:P
Unless its really repulsive and then I just turn it off.
8-} :O)
M
And not to bash you again Matt but if you put something in quotes and attribute to someone, make sure it's accurate. I did not say "attack those who dissent with the hosts' opinions" I said "as soon as somebody starts to criticize a Geeks' opinion and/or observation the response is heated against that dissenting opinion."Maybe it's semantic point but I did not use the word "attack". I have always agreed with your attempts to draw people into debate and hate mindless, indefensible retorts you occasionally see here.
Interesting the negative icons were removed. Could it have the reverse effect? Much like whether or not the Sword of Omens can penatrate...stone?! We'll soon find out.
M
I haven’t watched the show yet, but from the comments I’ve read here, it’s pretty much what I expected it was going to be, so I’m not in a huge rush. My son was interested in seeing it, so I’ll probably watch it with him on Hulu at some point down the road.
The anonymous dislike and disagree buttons are just like if you tell a story in front of a group of people, you can tell if someone doesn't like what you just said by their facial expressions. They don't have to say why but you know what you just said ruffled a few feathers. But I guess it's ok to anonymously agree and like everything since those buttons apparently stayed.
Matt I'd say the reason you don't realize the "heat" someone that is a non-geek gets from disagreeing with a geek is because of which one of those two boats you are floating.
Glad I'm not the only one @random73
Interesting on the analysis using facial expressions. If it makes a different, I inquire about why someone makes a "face" as well. Sometimes, I inquire if the non-verbal signs are not as obvious.
M
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=48188 Hype machine or not, Marvel knows it's fan base.
Was there a reason given for why Coulson needs this little, special team? Is there some premise to what he is doing with them that is any different than what the rest of SHIELD does? I was a little confused in the pilot why (other than, perhaps that he is now an LMD or something and they are scared of him) he has sort of been demoted. He used to be the right hand man of Fury and Hill, and would command huge, overwhelming forces of agents and be on the front line of dealing with the big guys. He used to be able to tell Hawkeye and Black Widow what to do.
Now, it seems like he is in charge of the X-Files, or has a little A-Team group of specialists. But it is in a post-Attack on New York world, where SHIELD is public, and puts logos on their bullhorns. He is in charge of dealing with things that everyone believes in, and would likely be of highest national security priority.
So is there some reason given in the premise of the show why, when it comes to a superhuman threat like the would-be unwitting Extremis living bomb heading into a crowded train station, why he now has to take care of everything with his little plucky team of six, and no longer can get all the agents in the world to swarm in and help?
I mean, I understand that from TV budget vs. movie budget reasons. . . but was there a justification given in the world of the show that I missed?
Oh, and all the agents in the world swarming would *not* have helped.
Was it actually presented in the show?
Slight SPOILER
And can I just say...Holy cameos!
I think that dude just loves being a part of the Marvel Universe.
I'm sticking by my "Kitty Saves The Day" premise, though....that's Strike One, AoS. :)
But moving on - In most other shows, I can tell the characters apart. A show like Law and Order SVU presents an ensemble cast of cops, but they are all very distinct in their back stories and their roles (hothead cop, bitchy lawyer, dedicated family man, earnest former rape survivor, wisecracking detective). With this show, geez, I don't get an idea of what anyone's about. Ming Na Wen seems older than the others, and she's angry about something, but the rest are 20-something do-gooders who are snarky and good with computers. I need to know more about them. And as David D. has pointed out, maybe if we knew their goal and purpose, we might understand more about them and why they have been chosen to fulfill that purpose. Right now, they seem to be substituting action and movement for normal character development and premise development.