"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.": (2.01) "Shadows" Commentary

"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." (2.01) "Shadows" Commentary

Ohmigod! Did "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." lose its sense of humor? I realize that the show is supposed to take a darker turn, but they seemed to be overdoing it. 

After an hour of viewing, I realized that the only flash of real humor came from Antoine "Trip" Triplett. The episode revealed that Jemma Simmons left the agency during hiatus. And we do not know the circumstances that led her to finally leave. This is a scenario that should have happened either in the Season One finale, (1.22) "Beginning of the End" or in this episode. Instead, it happened off screen. And what was up with that speech from new S.H.I.E.L.D. Director, Phil Coulson near the end of the episode? He sounded as if he had a burr up his ass. 

The scene between Skye and Ward was simply wince inducing. Were they trying to make Ward seductive? How can I be brutally frank? I never really cared about Ward. In fact, what was he doing there in the first place? I doubt that he knows everything about HYDRA. I even doubt that he knows everything that Garrett knew. His presence with Coulson and the others make NO SENSE to me whatsoever. As for Skye, she has more or less lost her sense of humor, let alone personality. Now, she is bland. 

Why would the U.S. Army give Glenn Talbot a promotion for losing Coulson and his crew in the last season? What were the circumstances that led Lucy Lawless and her crew of mercenaries to join the new S.H.I.E.L.D.? As for Nick Blood - the so-called "sexy" British mercenary and television cliché - could Whedon and Company be more unoriginal? And what was up with that ridiculous slow motion scene near the end of the episode? Was this episode directed by John Woo or something?

Well, it happened . . . just as I had feared. The producers caved in to the public's inability to deal with the serial drama format . . . and they ended up forcing the action for this season - to the extreme - down our throats. In fact, everything about the writing in "Shadows" was rushed - including the introduction of new characters and situation. Whedon and Co. dumped its usual style of storytelling and rushed the story in order to satisfy the critics, the viewers and the Disney corporate suits who had complained about Season One's slow development of the story line. Apparently these critics know nothing about story development in a serial drama format. And I guess Whedon and Co. lost that knowledge as well.

The only interesting aspect about this episode was the 1940s flashback featuring Peggy Carter, "Dum Dum" Dugan, Jim Morita and the new Big Bad, Daniel Whitehall. The rest of it was a rushed job filled with over-the-top action, along with grim and humorless characterization. If this episode had been the very first episode of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." I had seen, I would have given up on this series with the drop of a hat.

"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.": The Last Stand Against Mediocrity

Below is an article I had written during the middle of Season One for ABC's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.":


"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.": THE LAST STAND AGAINST MEDIOCRITY 

The age of serial drama or adventure is over. It is over. I came to this conclusion after learning the dismal ratings for the last episode of ABC's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." called (1.10) "The Bridge". And ironically, my statement is not a criticism directed at the series or its latest episode. 

I recently learned that the ratings for "The Bridge" had dropped considerably. Many fans would see this as a sign of the show's not-so-sensational quality. I realize that "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." is not flawless. There is no such thing as a flawless show. But it has the potential to become a first-rate one, as the quality of its writing grow with time. But judging from the reaction to the show from the past two months, I can clearly see that American television viewers and critics now lack the patience to deal with a serial drama. They will not allow shows like "S.H.I.E.L.D." to develop at a steady pace. They want instant perfection right off the bat.

I blame televisions series like "LOST", the new "BATTLESTAR: GALACTICA", and "ONCE UPON A TIME". All three shows gave television viewers an excellent First Season that seemed to blow their minds. And thanks to shows like the one I had just listed, an excellent first season is what many viewers have come to expect from a TV show in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Superb shows like "BABYLON 5", "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" and "ANGEL" did not have perfect first seasons. First first seasons were decent, but flawed. But in time, all three developed into excellent shows by their second and third seasons. And this is why I consider them among the finest series in television series. I am also reminded of cancelled shows like "FLASHFORWARD" and "THE EVENT". I might as well be frank. The first half of their single seasons never struck me as exceptional or impressive. But both shows managed to develop in quality by the end of their seasons. And both shows promised great potential, as well. But the respective networks refused to give them a chance and cancelled them, instead of giving them a second season. 

Considering that the writing for television series like "BABYLON 5" and "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" managed to slowly develop over time, I now realize that I can never consider shows like "LOST" and "ONCE UPON A TIME" among the best in television history. Sure, they were entertaining and revealed flashes of brilliant writing. Unfortunately, I believe that the writing for "LOST" flip-flopped in quality during its remaining five seasons. Despite some first-rate story arcs and plot twists over the years, it never reached the same level of quality that it had enjoyed during its first season. Many fans were dazzled by "ONCE UPON A TIME" during its first season. But the series is now in the midst of its third season. And I feel that eventually, it will suffer the same fate of inconsistent quality as "LOST" did.

The first season of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." reminds of those first seasons for shows like "BABYLON 5" and "BUFFY". Like the two now defunct shows, the first season for "S.H.I.E.L.D." is obviously flawed. But I feel that it has potential, especially in the story line regarding the agency's battle with an organization called Centipede. When the series first began, I could barely stand characters like Grant Ward, Leo Fitz and Jemma Simmons. I found the former aggressively bland, and the other two rather annoying and out of place. The series has just finished airing its tenth episode and I have grown to appreciate all three characters. This is due to their fleshing out as interesting characters, instead of remaining mere cliches. 

For me, this is a sign of why I like the production styles of television producer/writers like Joss Whedon and J. Michael Straczynski. They do not try to wow the audience off the bat with a spectacular premiere or first season. Both Whedon and Straczynski, and other show creators like them, are willing to allow their stories and characters to develop with time . . . like true storytellers. But today's television viewers do not seem to appreciate real storytelling. They do not appreciate a steady development of story and characters. They want to be dazzled right off the bat. And the creators of shows like "LOST" and "ONCE UPON A TIME" are willing to feed them dazzling premieres to automatically draw in viewers. Because of this new style of storytelling and lack of audience patience, I fear that "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." will not last beyond a first season. And if it does last, I fear that the networks might force Whedon and his brother, Jed Whedon will transform the series into an episodic one that allow guest starring costume heroes to push the main characters into a back seat.

Oh well. There is nothing I can do about it. In fact, all I can do is sit back and speculate on the future of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.". If it ends up cancelled by the end of the season or is transformed into episodic television; the show's fate will become another step down in the quality of television writing - especially for the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I fear culture is in serious danger of going to the dogs.

The Meaning of Colors

THE MEANING OF COLORS

Several years ago, I came across an old website about Wiccan practices and meanings. I was surprised to discover that even before the advent of Wicca in the early 20th century, Pagan worshipers associated colors with certain meanings. And those meanings turned out to be quite different than many people would today assume. 

Unlike today’s societies - especially in the Western world - white or light did not automatically mean something good, pure or noble. In fact, even the white wedding dress has nothing to do with the lack of sexual experience or innocence of the bride. The white wedding dress started out as a fashion trend . . . and remains one to this day. This fashion trend was created by Britain's Queen Victoria when she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg in 1840. The young queen wanted to show that she was just a "simple" woman getting married, so she wore a white dress. She also wanted to incorporate some lace into her dress. Queen Mary of Scots wore a white wedding gown when she married Francis, Dauphin of France. Why? Because white was her favorite color. Before Victoria, women usually wore their best outfit for their wedding. 

But there are the exceptions in which white is used as a negative form of symbolism in Western culture. One of the major villains in C.S. Lewis' "THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA" literary series is Jadis, the White Witch of Narnia. There is nothing dark about this character's physical appearance and wardrobe. She is all white. Another example of a villainous character who wore a white costume is Thomas Arashikage aka Storm Shadow from the "G.I. JOE" movie franchise. Ironically, Storm Shadow is a Japanese character portrayed by South Korean actor Lee Byung-hun. And white is usually associated with negative traits and death in Asian cultures. 

Albinism is also associated with the color white and negative traits in various forms of popular culture . Albino characters can be found in movies like "COLD MOUNTAIN", "THE DA VINCI CODE", "THE MATRIX RELOADED"; and in novels like "The Invisible Man" and "Blood Meridian". And all of these characters are either portrayed villains or those with negative traits. However, these are rare forms of white used as negative symbols and stereotypes.

So, what was the color white associated with . . . at least in Pagan circles? Simple. The color was associated with psychic pursuits, psychology, dreams, astral projection, imagination and reincarnation. Apparently moral goodness or purity has nothing to do with the color white. At least in old Pagan terms. Which leads me to this question . . . why do today’s Western societies insist that white has anything to do with moral compass of any form.

Finally, we come to the color black. As many people should know, modern Western societies tend to associate black or anything dark as something evil or negative. There are probably other societies that do the same. Fictional characters associated with evil in many science-fiction/fantasy stories are usually associated with black. Sorcery that has a negative effect upon someone is either called "black magic" or "the Dark Arts" (at least with the "HARRY POTTER" and Buffyverse franchises. And in the "POTTER" series, wizards and witches who have given in to evil are labeled as "dark". The "STAR WARS" franchise usually refer to evil as "the Dark Side of the Force". 

In the "ONCE UPON A TIME" television series, the Rumpelstiltskin character was also called "the Dark One". Why? As it turned out, some entity called "the Darkness" had entered his body after he had stabbed the former holder of "the Dark One" title. Apparently, show runners Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz could not find a name for the entity and called it "The Darkness" - automatically associating its black coloring with evil. Now it seems that the series’ main character, Emma Swan, has been given the name, due to the entity entering her body. The ironic thing is that Emma's physical appearance - her skin, her eyes and hair - have become pale or white. Yet, she dresses in black and is called "the Dark One" or "the Dark Swan". I am still shaking my head over this contrast. As for magic, sorcery, or even psychic abilities in many of these movies and television shows, it is clear that their creators/show runners associate dark or black with evil and light or white with goodness. The only fictional character I can recall that go against this grain is Snake Eyes from the "G.I. JOE"movie franchise. Not only is he villain Storm Shadow's main adversary and one of the main heroes of the G.I. Joe team, he also wears a black costume.

Ironically, long time Pagans associated the color black with the following - binding, protection, neutralization, karma, death manifestation and will power. Someone might say - "A ha! Death manifestation! This is a term can be regarded as something negative or evil." But can it? Why is death constantly regarded as something negative? Because people are incapable of truly facing the idea of death. It is a natural part of our life span and yet, many people cannot accept it. And because of this negative attitude toward death, society associates death with . . . you guess it . . . the color black. Apparently the Pagans believed differently and did not associate black with anything evil or negative. I was surprised to discover that Chinese culture regard black as a symbol of water, one of the five fundamental elements believed to compose all things. The Chinese also associated black with winter, cold, and the direction North, usually symbolized by a black tortoise. Black is also associated with disorder - including the positive disorder which leads to change and new life. 

I have one last statement to make. I have noticed a growing trend on Internet message boards and forums for television shows and movies that deal with science-fiction and fantasy. This trend features a tendency by many of these fans to automatically associate white/light with goodness and black/dark with evil. The fans on these message boards no longer use the words "good" and "evil" anymore. Honestly. I am deadly serious. These fans either use the words light (lightness) or white; or . . . dark (darkness) or black. Why? And why do the creators of these television shows and movie franchises resort to the same behavior? I have to wonder. By associating anything black or dark with evil, are they associating anything or anyone with dark or black skin with evil? I suspect that many would say "of course not". Considering the notorious reputation of science-fiction/fantasy fans (or geeks) of being racist, I have to wonder.

The Incredible Hulk Meets Thor - Part I

THE INCREDIBLE HULK MEETS THOR - PART I

Twenty-five years ago, a television movie called "THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" aired on CBS. It served as a continuation of the popular 1978-1982 television series and starred Bill Bixby as Dr. David Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk. 

"THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" not only features another attempt by Banner to rid himself of the Hulk for good, but also his meeting Dr. Donald Blake aka Thor, God of Thunder (Steve Levitt and Eric Allan Kramer). Here is a recap and REVIEW of the movie.

Unless there is another movie that features both the Hulk and Thor, "THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" features their first on-screen meeting until 24 years later in the 2012 summer blockbuster, "THE AVENGERS". I think.

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Review

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Review

Back in 2007, Marvel Studios set out to do something that DC Comics managed to achieve some forty years ago through a Saturday morning animated series. The studio created a series of movies based upon some of its company's popular comic book characters. This series culminated into the recent hit movie, "THE AVENGERS". 

The group of comic book heroes that became a team in "THE AVENGERS", turned out to be the following - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, the Black Widow and Hawkeye. The first four starred in their own movies and the last two, the Black Widow and Hawkeye, appeared as supporting characters in 2010's "IRON MAN 2" and 2011's "THOR"respectively. And each movie, starting with 2008's "IRON MAN", hinted at the formation of Marvel Comics' team of superheroes.

Written by Zak Penn and Joss Whedon and directed by the latter, "THE AVENGERS" begins with Loki, the villain from"THOR" and the latter's adopted brother, making a deal with the leader of the Chitauri aliens called the Other to lead an army on Earth, in order to subjigate the human race. In order to do this, Loki needs to retrieve the Tesseract, a powerful energy source originally found on Earth in "CAPTAIN AMERICA". The Tesseract opens a doorway that allows Loki to arrive a top secret S.H.I.E.L.D., use his scepter to enslave a few agents, Dr. Eric Selvig and Clint Barton aka Hawkeye and take the Tesseract. 

In response to Loki's attack, S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury reactivates the Avengers Initiative. He, along with agents Phil Coulson and Natasha Romanoff aka the Black Widow; recruits Steve Rogers aka Captain America, Tony Stark aka Iron Man and Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk to form a team and stop Loki's plans and recover the Tesseract. Both Captain America and Iron Man manage to capture Loki in Germany. But during a flight back to the States, Thorarrives and frees Loki, hoping to convince him to abandon his plan and return to Asgard. Instead, a confrontation ensues between the three heroes before Thor agrees to accompany them all back to the Helicarrier, S.H.I.E.L.D.'s flying aircraft carrier. Despite Loki being a captive, the Avengers still need to find the missing Tesseract. Even worse, Loki does not remain a captive very long.

Over a month has passed since "THE AVENGERS" hit the movie screens. And during that time, it managed to become the third highest-grossing film of all time. Most fans and critics of comic hero movies tend to view any film with more than one villain as a box office or critical disaster. And yet . . . many of these same critics and fans seemed to have no problem with a movie featuring six comic book heroes. I find that rather . . . odd and contradictory, but there is no explaining humanity's chaotic nature. I have never had a problem with a comic book movie featuring more than one villain or hero, as long as that movie was well written. And I cannot deny that Whedon and Zak Penn wrote a first-rate movie.

First of all, Marvel Studios made the wise decision to map out the movie's plot with four to five other movies. This enabled them to set up most of the characters before shooting "THE AVENGERS". Natasha Romanoff had received a small introduction in "IRON MAN 2". And Clint Barton was allowed nothing more than a cameo appearance in "THOR". This meant that these two were the only ones left to be properly introduced in this film, along with their previous relationship as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Even the Tesseract, the energy source that Loki will use to allow Chitauri warriors to invade Manhattan in the movie's last act, had originally been introduced in "CAPTAIN AMERICA" and hinted briefly in"IRON MAN 2" and in the Easter Egg scene for "THOR". I wish I knew who had the idea to set up the story and characters for "THE AVENGERS" in previous movies. I would congratulate him or her for convincing Marvel to pursue this course of storytelling. For it paid off very well.

Second, I was impressed at how the main cast members - especially those portraying members of the Avengers - managed to click so well and create a viable screen team. Whedon and Penn's script did not make it easy for them. Only the Black Widow and Hawkeye initially felt comfortably working together and even their relationship was disrupted by Loki's temporary enslavement of Hawkeye's mind. I could point out one or two particular performances by the cast. But if I must be honest, practically all of them stepped up to bat and performed beautifully. Okay, I must admit there were a few dramatic scenes that really impressed me. 

I enjoyed the quarrel between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, thanks to Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, who did a great job in developing the characters from initial hostility and wariness to trust and teamwork. I also enjoyed Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, who continued their outstanding work and screen chemistry as the two Asgardian siblings, in a scene in which Thor tries to convince Loki that he and their family still loved the latter, despite his actions in"THOR". Scarlett Johansson managed to appear in three scenes that impressed me. One featured a contest of will and intellect between her Black Widow and Hiddleston's Loki. Another featured both her and Mark Ruffalo, as she manages to convince Bruce Banner to help S.H.I.E.L.D. to track down the Tesseract. But my favorite scene featured a heart-to-heart conversation between Natasha and her old partner, Clint Barton, as they discussed her past and his mind enslavement by Loki. Samuel L. Jackson did an excellent job as the intimidating, yet manipulative director of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury. He also seemed surprisingly spry for a man in his 60s, as his character dodged several near death experiences. Clark Gregg was entertaining as ever as one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s top agents, Phil Coulson. It was nice to see Stellan Skarsgård repeat his role as Dr. Eric Selvig. Although his role was not particularly big, Selvig had a major impact on the plot. And Skarsgård managed to give his usual, top-notch performance. Cobie Smulders managed to hold herself well as one of Fury's assistants, Maria Hill. It is a pity that Whedon was unable to showcase Alexis Denisof a little more as leader of the Chitauri aliens. I suspect that being cloaked and hidden in the small number of scenes probably did not help much, in the end.

I have heard that Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of Bruce Banner/the Hulk has received rave reviews from the critics and the fans. Many critics have also suggested his portrayal of the character was superior to both Eric Bana's performance in 2003 and Edward Norton's 2008 portrayal. I say bullshit to that. I suspect that the critics are spouting this crap, because Ruffalo got to portray the Hulk in a movie that is a box office and critical hit. Ruffalo did a great job in portraying Bruce at this later stage of his existence as the Hulk. However, I also feel there was nothing exceptional about his performance that made his Hulk superior to Bana and Norton's. This whole notion of Ruffalo giving a better performance than the other two actors strikes me as nothing but a lot of fanboy horseshit.

One cannot talk about "THE AVENGERS" without discussing the film's visual effects. What can I say? They were outstanding. Well . . . somewhat outstanding. Seamus McGarvey's photography struck me as very effective in giving the movie an epic feel. And his work was vastly assisted by the visual effects team led by Jake Morrison. For a movie set either in New York City, or over the Atlantic Ocean, aboard a flying aircraft carrier, I was very surprised to learn that a great deal of the movie was shot in both Albuquerque, New Mexico and Cleveland, Ohio. Surprisingly, the film crew only spent two days shooting in Manhattan. 

I do have a few complaints about "THE AVENGERS". One, although I was impressed by Whedon's direction and McGarvey's photography, I cannot say the same about the work they did for the Black Widow/Hawkeye fight scene aboard the Helicarrier. To be honest, I found it slightly murky and confusing. Jeffrey Ford and Lisa Lassek's editing did not help. Their work revived bad memories of Paul Greengrass' quick-cut editing at its worst. Honestly? Jon Favreau did a better job of shooting her fight scenes in "IRON MAN 2". I also realized that Whedon had been talking out of his ass, when he claimed that a good deal of the movie would be shown from Steve Rogers' point-of-view. Even worse, the film never really hinted any troubles Steve may have experienced dealing with the early 21st century. And could someone explain why the Hulk turned out to be more powerful than a pair of Norse gods - namely Thor and Loki? How in the hell did that come about? This certainly was not the case nearly 50 years ago, when Thor beat the pants of both the Hulk and the Sub-Mariner in the Marvel issue, Avengers #3 (Jan. 1964). Could someone please explain this phenomenon?

"THE AVENGERS" may not be perfect. But it is obviously one of the best comic book movies I have seen, hands down. And so far, it has turned out to be one of the best movies of 2012. It deserves all of the accolades it has earned. And for the first time in his career, Joss Whedon seemed to have directed a movie that matched his work with his "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" and "ANGEL" television series.

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE AVENGERS", the new movie featuring Marvel Comics superheroes.  The movie was directed by Joss Whedon:

"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Photo Gallery