@Matt Good points, and I totally get that you can have stories about characters that are for hire and still do good, there have been plenty of successful examples, like the A-Team, and PI shows. But I think it would be a bummer to have four characters like that all at once, separately being mercenaries, and then coming together to be a GROUP of heroes for hire. It just seems like an anticlimactic way to build a team. I expect the stronger way to place them, in a universe that still has the huge-powered and world famous Avengers, as well as an overseeing intelligence agency like SHIELD, is to have these street level heroes be more independent. More local. Dealing with smaller (and smaller budget) threats, but doing it without any SHIELD influence. Defending.
So, yes, in that way, more Marvel Knights. (But I still think Defenders is a better name, and benefits from being close to Avengers). I think one or two of them, in their solo series, could start out being a PI or for hire, but I think a whole mini-universe of super-mercenaries would be too much.
@Matt Good points, and I totally get that you can have stories about characters that are for hire and still do good, there have been plenty of successful examples, like the A-Team, and PI shows. But I think it would be a bummer to have four characters like that all at once, separately being mercenaries, and then coming together to be a GROUP of heroes for hire. It just seems like an anticlimactic way to build a team. I expect the stronger way to place them, in a universe that still has the huge-powered and world famous Avengers, as well as an overseeing intelligence agency like SHIELD, is to have these street level heroes be more independent. More local. Dealing with smaller (and smaller budget) threats, but doing it without any SHIELD influence. Defending.
So, yes, in that way, more Marvel Knights. (But I still think Defenders is a better name, and benefits from being close to Avengers). I think one or two of them, in their solo series, could start out being a PI or for hire, but I think a whole mini-universe of super-mercenaries would be too much.
Yeah, I think having characters like JJ, LC, & IF doing a Heroes for Hire works better then including DD. Once he comes aboard, then swap out the name. How's the "Super Squad" over the "Defenders?!"
@Matt Good points, and I totally get that you can have stories about characters that are for hire and still do good, there have been plenty of successful examples, like the A-Team, and PI shows. But I think it would be a bummer to have four characters like that all at once, separately being mercenaries, and then coming together to be a GROUP of heroes for hire. It just seems like an anticlimactic way to build a team. I expect the stronger way to place them, in a universe that still has the huge-powered and world famous Avengers, as well as an overseeing intelligence agency like SHIELD, is to have these street level heroes be more independent. More local. Dealing with smaller (and smaller budget) threats, but doing it without any SHIELD influence. Defending.
So, yes, in that way, more Marvel Knights. (But I still think Defenders is a better name, and benefits from being close to Avengers). I think one or two of them, in their solo series, could start out being a PI or for hire, but I think a whole mini-universe of super-mercenaries would be too much.
Yeah, I think having characters like JJ, LC, & IF doing a Heroes for Hire works better then including DD. Once he comes aboard, then swap out the name. How's the "Super Squad" over the "Defenders?!"
M
Though he was never on the Defenders team of the comics that I can recall, Daredevil (being a super-hero who defends a neighborhood by night and a defense attorney by day) is actually a character who fits a team called The Defenders best.
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
And I think, honestly, if their motivation for doing it was a buck, it lessens the heroism of it. In the case of the A-Team, part of their mercenary nature was the money they needed to survive and stay at liberty, as they were wrongly accused and on the run.
To me, being Defenders even though they have to do it on their own, and without a lot of the powers and resources the big guys, is a stronger hook than being an agency of professionals for hire. I think the rarity of heroes in the Marvel Cinematic/TV universe also adds to this-- remember, Heroes for Hire in the comics established themselves at a time when the universe they lived in was crowded with heroes. So the idea of letting you hire heroes to help you becomes a nuance. A new twist when there are heroes everywhere.
As opposed to a universe where there are only five superheroes known in the world (The Avengers). . . but then the next four that come along all decide to do it for money? Making nearly half the heroes in the world ones that are for hire? I think that doesn't fit as well.
Whereas Defenders is short and to the point. It sounds like Avengers, which is of course what they want-- this is the TV answer to the Marvel cinematic universe, so rolling out some solo series, and then gathering them into team, and that team even sounds like Avengers? Done. They are the street-level answer to the Avengers. They aren't fighting alien invasions, they are there to save people on the ground level. The Defenders. Sold.
It's a just a bummer that all these will probably get shot in Canada instead of New York, to save money for the effects budget. I know I tend to be the only person that gives a damn about that, but I would trade some effects money for authenticity, especially as these are street level heroes and New York City is often a sort of character in their stories.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
Somebody's overthinking and their prejudices are showing.
It's a just a bummer that all these will probably get shot in Canada instead of New York, to save money for the effects budget. I know I tend to be the only person that gives a damn about that, but I would trade some effects money for authenticity, especially as these are street level heroes and New York City is often a sort of character in their stories.
Authenticity.
Yep.
And mayyyyyybe a chance for a gig?
I am, indeed, available to be punched by any or all Defenders.
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
Yep.
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
You're very kind.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
You're very kind.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
You're very kind.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
lick the mirror handsome is what i hear. 8->
More like "check the back of the mirror" handsome.
(I don't know what that means)
Okay, back on topic-- do we think we will actually get a rich Danny Rand? Or do they jettison that part of him as being too Tony Stark/ Bruce Wayne?
Marvel will soon move its 'Defenders' into instantly available episodes online. But the interconnected new narratives may only alienate newcomers and make comics even more exclusive
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
You're very kind.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
lick the mirror handsome is what i hear. 8->
More like "check the back of the mirror" handsome.
(I don't know what that means)
Okay, back on topic-- do we think we will actually get a rich Danny Rand? Or do they jettison that part of him as being too Tony Stark/ Bruce Wayne?
I think they could mention it, use it, but just downplay the millionaire/billionaire aspect. I think both the latest Batman & the Iron Man movies play similar rich-kids, but on opposite ends of the spectrum. Rand could be written somewhere in between.
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
Yep.
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
I actually don't see it as anything overly special. Since Marvel Knights was a series, I really dug the concept of a street-level team without really being a team or actually having a name. It just seemed more appropriate. More of a community watch (which does exist) verses a global organization to fight global threats (arguably, some would say that's the UN or the US).
Plus, if the street level team is call 'The Defenders' that kills any chance of my 2013 birthday wish they'd bring back Peter Hooten to enlist the help of Mark Ruffalo, Doug Jones (VO by Lawrence Fishburne), & Michael Phelps to get Phase 4: Magics & Mysticism of the MU movies kick started!
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
Yep.
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
I actually don't see it as anything overly special. Since Marvel Knights was a series, I really dug the concept of a street-level team without really being a team or actually having a name. It just seemed more appropriate. More of a community watch (which does exist) verses a global organization to fight global threats (arguably, some would say that's the UN or the US).
Plus, if the street level team is call 'The Defenders' that kills any chance of my 2013 birthday wish they'd bring back Peter Hooten to enlist the help of Mark Ruffalo, Doug Jones (VO by Lawrence Fishburne), & Michael Phelps to get Phase 4: Magics & Mysticism of the MU movies kick started!
M
Not overly special? Okay how about innovative. This really has never been done before. Sure Mork may have had a guest appearance on Happy Days but to have 4 separate series that feed into a fifth joint series. This is unheard of. Ron Howard was working to get something similar to this for his Dark Tower epic but the studios all balked. So, it may give some indication of what league Marvel Studios is playing in when they can get stuff done that Ron Howard and Stephen King cannot. Granted they are taking a sort of back door route by using Netflix but I think that still speaks to their innovation more than anything else.
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
Yep.
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
I actually don't see it as anything overly special. Since Marvel Knights was a series, I really dug the concept of a street-level team without really being a team or actually having a name. It just seemed more appropriate. More of a community watch (which does exist) verses a global organization to fight global threats (arguably, some would say that's the UN or the US).
Plus, if the street level team is call 'The Defenders' that kills any chance of my 2013 birthday wish they'd bring back Peter Hooten to enlist the help of Mark Ruffalo, Doug Jones (VO by Lawrence Fishburne), & Michael Phelps to get Phase 4: Magics & Mysticism of the MU movies kick started!
M
Not overly special? Okay how about innovative. This really has never been done before. Sure Mork may have had a guest appearance on Happy Days but to have 4 separate series that feed into a fifth joint series. This is unheard of. Ron Howard was working to get something similar to this for his Dark Tower epic but the studios all balked. So, it may give some indication of what league Marvel Studios is playing in when they can get stuff done that Ron Howard and Stephen King cannot. Granted they are taking a sort of back door route by using Netflix but I think that still speaks to their innovation more than anything else.
Okay, let me revise my initial statement in relation to the quoted post I was following:
I actually don't see THE DEFENDERS NAME as anything overly special.
The Netflix but is great, especially if it can crossover into the movies.
As to whether the title The Defenders is “special” or not, this will be the third television series with that title—and one of them was on the air just two or three seasons ago. Part of me wonders if that's the reason Marvel is using the title, so that they can get “ownership” of the name before another show does.
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
Yep.
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
I actually don't see it as anything overly special. Since Marvel Knights was a series, I really dug the concept of a street-level team without really being a team or actually having a name. It just seemed more appropriate. More of a community watch (which does exist) verses a global organization to fight global threats (arguably, some would say that's the UN or the US).
Plus, if the street level team is call 'The Defenders' that kills any chance of my 2013 birthday wish they'd bring back Peter Hooten to enlist the help of Mark Ruffalo, Doug Jones (VO by Lawrence Fishburne), & Michael Phelps to get Phase 4: Magics & Mysticism of the MU movies kick started!
M
Not overly special? Okay how about innovative. This really has never been done before. Sure Mork may have had a guest appearance on Happy Days but to have 4 separate series that feed into a fifth joint series. This is unheard of. Ron Howard was working to get something similar to this for his Dark Tower epic but the studios all balked. So, it may give some indication of what league Marvel Studios is playing in when they can get stuff done that Ron Howard and Stephen King cannot. Granted they are taking a sort of back door route by using Netflix but I think that still speaks to their innovation more than anything else.
Okay, let me revise my initial statement in relation to the quoted post I was following:
I actually don't see THE DEFENDERS NAME as anything overly special.
The Netflix but is great, especially if it can crossover into the movies.
M
Gotcha. Totally. The Defenders name? Yeah, probably easier to remember and rolls off the tongue a little better than heroes for hire. I'd like a classic Luke and Danny H for H series but I can live with the name change. No big deal for me.
And I will add that, while I like Defenders as a name for the series, it is not something that would probably make sense for them to say out loud a lot. And probably they won't, unless there is some plotline about trying to sort of brand their identity with the public. It is easier for Avengers to carry their team name, as they set it up as being the name of the military program that sought to bring them together. But I am guessing the Defenders will come together in a way that is a little less formal than that, so a conversation where they choose their 'band name' would be a little silly. But as a name for the show, as the name we know them by? Works for me.
It's a just a bummer that all these will probably get shot in Canada instead of New York, to save money for the effects budget.
God - I hope so! The majority of large productions shot in Vancouver utilize the big vacant lot just down the block from my townhouse, so It would be awesome to get a sneak peak of some aspect of these before they air.
Disney is negotiating with Drew Goddard to write this Netflix series, according to The Wrap (via Bleeding Cool). Goddard is a longtime pal and collaborator of Joss Whedon, who is either officially or unofficially overseeing the entire MCU for the studio (he’s had something or other to do with all the post-Avengers films thus far). The two co-wrote and Goddard directed cult favorite horror flick Cabin in the Woods, so we can probably assume Whedon will have quite a bit to do with this latest massive undertaking as well. Daredevil will be followed by Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, culminating in an Avengers-style team-up miniseries bringing together The Defenders.
Comments
So, yes, in that way, more Marvel Knights. (But I still think Defenders is a better name, and benefits from being close to Avengers). I think one or two of them, in their solo series, could start out being a PI or for hire, but I think a whole mini-universe of super-mercenaries would be too much.
M
The more I think about Defenders as a name, the more I feel like it fits a street team. There is something less ostentatious about being a defender. They don't have Stark's tech and wealth, Thor and Hulk's power, Cap's fame, Hawkeye or Widow's training, or SHIELD's support. But they do it anyway. I think that works.
And I think, honestly, if their motivation for doing it was a buck, it lessens the heroism of it. In the case of the A-Team, part of their mercenary nature was the money they needed to survive and stay at liberty, as they were wrongly accused and on the run.
To me, being Defenders even though they have to do it on their own, and without a lot of the powers and resources the big guys, is a stronger hook than being an agency of professionals for hire. I think the rarity of heroes in the Marvel Cinematic/TV universe also adds to this-- remember, Heroes for Hire in the comics established themselves at a time when the universe they lived in was crowded with heroes. So the idea of letting you hire heroes to help you becomes a nuance. A new twist when there are heroes everywhere.
As opposed to a universe where there are only five superheroes known in the world (The Avengers). . . but then the next four that come along all decide to do it for money? Making nearly half the heroes in the world ones that are for hire? I think that doesn't fit as well.
Yep.
And mayyyyyybe a chance for a gig?
I am totally sold on this use of the name.
To me, "The Defenders" has always been a great team name with a series of goofy-ass team concepts.
This is strong.
This is the team concept the great name has been looking for all these years.
B-)
I think, in trying to explain what he thinks is a problem, this guy is actually explaining exactly why this is a genius move on Netlix's part:
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Yes, TV watching is becoming more of a completest approach. And that approach is something that the world of Netflix and "My List" has thrived upon. Heck, with Netflix originals, the whole approach is to give you a day and date pile of content to binge on. Does this guy really think someone who is interested will balk at a bigger pile of content? That someone will whine 'I just want to watch something called The Defenders, but I REALLY have to watch 8 episodes of Daredevil first??' I mean. Sure. I bet we can find someone with that hang up. But I can't imagine they are in great numbers. I think the typical Netflix subscriber will find out that they are basically getting a slate of interconnected Marvel hero shows that add up into a larger story, and be psyched. That basically they get the TV equivalent of the big All-the-movies-and-then-the-Avengers boxed set, but they get that in a season rather than over four years.
And I would imagine that Netflix will set it up so that you even have an intuitive order to watch them in, or, at least, make it very clear what comes before, say, The Defenders, if the Defenders is meant to take place later. Because the way they already lay things out for their users is as a queue. They are the home of 'Here: Go Down This Entertainment Rabbit Hole'.
And here's the thing-- all told, these five series combined in their first season might only equal a little more than a first season of a network show. We don't know yet if these shows will be 8 or 13 episodes/season. The Defenders might be a mini-series of 4. And I will bet Netflix knows that they have users who will start of, say, the first season of even something as long-lived as Law & Order, and start watching all 20, 24-episode seasons starting at season one.
I think 'daunted by choice' or 'there's too many!' is a straw man. I would bet the more typical Netflix subscriber is psyched by how much bang they are getting for their subscriber buck. Day and date is like your DVR delivering two or three months worth of something you want to watch. Which you can then watch at your leisure and own pace. And that's going to be alienating? Rubbish.
Exactly!
@David_D you ever get tired of being the most articulate guy in the room? I just need to sit back and wait the go "Yeah! What HE said!".
You're very kind.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
I actually don't know half of what I'm talking about, I just get away with it because I'm so damn pretty.
lick the mirror handsome is what i hear. 8->
More like "check the back of the mirror" handsome.
(I don't know what that means)
Okay, back on topic-- do we think we will actually get a rich Danny Rand? Or do they jettison that part of him as being too Tony Stark/ Bruce Wayne?
(I don't know what that means)
Okay, back on topic-- do we think we will actually get a rich Danny Rand? Or do they jettison that part of him as being too Tony Stark/ Bruce Wayne?
I think they could mention it, use it, but just downplay the millionaire/billionaire aspect. I think both the latest Batman & the Iron Man movies play similar rich-kids, but on opposite ends of the spectrum. Rand could be written somewhere in between.
M
Plus, if the street level team is call 'The Defenders' that kills any chance of my 2013 birthday wish they'd bring back Peter Hooten to enlist the help of Mark Ruffalo, Doug Jones (VO by Lawrence Fishburne), & Michael Phelps to get Phase 4: Magics & Mysticism of the MU movies kick started!
M
I actually don't see THE DEFENDERS NAME as anything overly special.
The Netflix but is great, especially if it can crossover into the movies.
M
Interesting set of requests for the new Defenders series
http://www.newsarama.com/19531-10-things-we-want-to-see-in-the-defenders-set-of-marvel-netflix-series.html
I agree with a lot of it, especially Bullseye and Crowbar :)
Via: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/11/12/drew-goddard-to-write-daredevil-netflix-series/
Sounds like a win.