# Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

COULSON IS ALIVE!!!

Oh, yeah, also ABC is planning on airing this show in its fall lineup. Pilot co-written and directed by Joss Whedon.



> Fresh from his role in the summers box office smash, Marvels The Avengers, Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) returns to the worldwide law enforcement organization S.H.I.E.L.D. He puts together a small, highly trained, team of Agents to tackle the cases that havent been classified yet, the new, the strange and the unknown. That team consists of straight arrow Agent Grant Ward (Brett Dalton), an expert in combat and espionage; pilot and martial artist Agent Melinda May (Ming-Na Wen); and brilliant if socially awkward scientists Agent Leo Fitz (Iain De Caestecker) and Agent Jemma Simmons (Elizabeth Henstridge). Theyll be joined by civilian new recruit and computer hacker Skye (Chloe Bennet).


http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...nts-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-may-have-another-new-name/

I almost don't care if it's a huge flop and cancelled in the third episode. Coulson is alive and they CAN'T cancel it by summarily bumping him off again!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, so far, the show has yet to be officially ordered to series. It's almost a total impossibility that wouldn't happen, though.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

The rumor I heard is that Phil Coulson becomes the Vision for Avengers II.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> The rumor I heard is that Phil Coulson becomes the Vision for Avengers II.


I don't think that was an actual rumor...just fans saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..."


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Maybe he's a zombie


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

LMD. Life Model Decoy. Used by S.H.I.E.L.D since the early 60's.


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

http://io9.com/how-will-agent-coulson-come-back-from-the-dead-for-s-h-483374388

This sounds lamer than my LMD explanation.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Crobinzine said:


> http://io9.com/how-will-agent-coulson-come-back-from-the-dead-for-s-h-483374388
> 
> This sounds lamer than my LMD explanation.


I'm not sure I believe that. Is there anybody in Hollywood powerful enough to force Joss Whedon to do that? Because I doubt he would on his own.

Maybe it's a fake leak to cover up the LMD speculation, which really is a perfect solution.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

No one ever dies in the Marvel Universe. _NO ONE._

Except "Uncle" Ben Parker. He died for our sins.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I thought that "solution" seemed kind of obvious, actually. Even in the movie, when there was no possibility of this TV show.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Just caught an Agents of SHIELD preview during Once Upon a Time, with "Coming Soon" at the end.

Coulson has a really nice car....


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Teaser:


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Crobinzine said:


> http://io9.com/how-will-agent-coulson-come-back-from-the-dead-for-s-h-483374388
> 
> This sounds lamer than my LMD explanation.


I think the way in the link is what I kind of expected, even while watching The Avengers. That's what I thought they were setting up for.

Though of course, with Joss, making Coulson a Buffy-bot wouldn't be out of the question either.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

There is a Spider-Man cartoon on these days. Agent Coulson is in that show as well. It looks just like him and I bet the actor voices him as well. I think he is the principal at the school Peter Parker goes to. To keep an eye on him and a couple other young superheroes.

Not that this relates to anything. Just something I thought of and I felt like typing.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

What's the current Spider-Man cartoon on now?

The most recent one I watched was the one with Neil Patrick Harris, on MTV.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> What's the current Spider-Man cartoon on now?
> 
> The most recent one I watched was the one with Neil Patrick Harris, on MTV.


http://disneyxd.disney.com/ultimate-spider-man

It's not the worst cartoon in the world, but not the best animated version of Spidey either.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Ultimate Spider-Man is a re-imagining. Luke Cage and Iron Fist are also neophyte superheroes in the same high school as Spidey. The Marvel Ultimate universe doesn't have the Avengers, it has the Ultimates. And Agent/Principal Coulsen dated Aunt May, who's much younger and hipper than her 616 counterpart.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Awesome


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Speaking of Luke Cage, is that him in the previews?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Awesome


Full resolution as uploaded to YouTube by the network:





Edit: just saw that they too only uploaded it in low res. Still, it looks a little less compressed.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Yeah, I just found the Marvel upload...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Speaking of Luke Cage, is that him in the previews?


After watching the extended preview, I'm guessing the answer to my question is yes.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I don't know what other Marvel character he could be, unless they've given Joss carte blanche to create his own superhero.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

That trailer was great!


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

I hope hope this is good. Been wanting a sci-fi show worthy of live viewing since Heroes.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

What does S.H.I.E.L.D. mean to you?

ha ha ha... the trailer is already full of Joss-y goodness.


----------



## dagojr (Jan 9, 2004)

Ment said:


> I hope hope this is good. Been wanting a sci-fi show worthy of live viewing since Heroes.


I hope you mean the first season....


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> I don't know what other Marvel character he could be, unless they've given Joss carte blanche to create his own superhero.


My guess is that the super powered folks will mostly be new creations. They would do that to avoid copyright battles with all the various studios that hold the rights to all the various characters. Easier to just create your own and then you can do whatever you like with them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

billypritchard said:


> My guess is that the super powered folks will mostly be new creations. They would do that to avoid copyright battles with all the various studios that hold the rights to all the various characters. Easier to just create your own and then you can do whatever you like with them.


The only characters who other studios have now are Spidey, the FF, and the X-Men (none of whom would be wasted in a SHIELD TV show anyway). And if it were easier just to create their own, they would have done it in the comics, where the last seriously successful character created was, what, Wolverine? 1974?

Nah, if they're going to use super-heroes (I haven't seen the trailer yet), then they'll plunder Marvel's vast catalog. They'd be fools not to.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The only characters who other studios have now are Spidey, the FF, and the X-Men (none of whom would be wasted in a SHIELD TV show anyway). And if it were easier just to create their own, they would have done it in the comics, where the last seriously successful character created was, what, Wolverine? 1974?
> 
> Nah, if they're going to use super-heroes (I haven't seen the trailer yet), then they'll plunder Marvel's vast catalog. They'd be fools not to.


More than likely the C List. Doubt we will see any heavy hitters.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I'd love to see them use the Crimson Dynamo.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The only characters who other studios have now are Spidey, the FF, and the X-Men (none of whom would be wasted in a SHIELD TV show anyway). And if it were easier just to create their own, they would have done it in the comics, where the last seriously successful character created was, what, Wolverine? 1974?
> 
> Nah, if they're going to use super-heroes (I haven't seen the trailer yet), then they'll plunder Marvel's vast catalog. They'd be fools not to.


Are we limiting that to only Marvel? Because I think a case could be made for Wolfman-Perez Teen Titans in 1982. Or, you know, Watchmen in 1986.

Still a very long time. Remember when Nova was going to be "The next Spider-Man"? You just can't force that.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

This kind of reminds me of Heroes but you know it probably won't suck.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's more "Man from U.N.C.L.E" than Heroes, since it's about a super-spy organization. I suspect the super stuff will be incidental and ancillary, to keep costs down.

But I also would bet on references, and how ordinary humans deal with living in a world with Thunder Gods and Hulks.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

dagojr said:


> I hope you mean the first season....


Well the first two for me.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

They can use Dr. Strange, Daredevil, Black Panther, Hercules, the Inhumans, Ant-Man, the Vision, Wonder Man, Iron Fist. Also, there's no reason Hawkeye or the Black Widow couldn't show up if Jeremy Renner or Scar-Jo aren't busy. (They'd probably save those for Big-Event episodes.)

I wonder if Hydra and/or AIM will be the opposition. But don't expect them to wear those green crepe uniforms (Hydra) or the yellow jumpsuits with hat-box helmets (AIM).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> They can use Dr. Strange, Daredevil, Black Panther, Hercules, the Inhumans, Ant-Man, the Vision, Wonder Man, Iron Fist. Also, there's no reason Hawkeye or the Black Widow couldn't show up if Jeremy Renner or Scar-Jo aren't busy. (They'd probably save those for Big-Event episodes.)


Dr. Strange, the Panther, Ant Man, and Iron Fist all have movies in various stages of planning, so they would be out. And I assume now that they have Daredevil back, they wouldn't waste him on a TV show. I doubt very much the show's budget could handle even guest appearances by any of the existing movie characters.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

I know that Marvel doesn't own the X-Men films and TV, but can they use the X-Men plot of mutants popping up everywhere? It seems like a good springboard for the Mutant-of-the-Week setting.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

You know you're dying to see Brother Voodoo show up.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> They can use Dr. Strange, Daredevil, Black Panther, Hercules, the Inhumans, Ant-Man, the Vision, Wonder Man, Iron Fist. Also, there's no reason Hawkeye or the Black Widow couldn't show up if Jeremy Renner or Scar-Jo aren't busy. (They'd probably save those for Big-Event episodes.)
> 
> I wonder if Hydra and/or AIM will be the opposition. But don't expect them to wear those green crepe uniforms (Hydra) or the yellow jumpsuits with hat-box helmets (AIM).


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

There's a super hero called "Wonder Man"?? How inadequate must that guy feel!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> There's a super hero called "Wonder Man"?? How inadequate must that guy feel!


Yes there is, and I liked him until John Byrne got his hands on him.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Yes there is, and I liked him until John Byrne got his hands on him.


Reading that Wiki article, is it wrong that I think he ought to be played by Matt LeBlanc?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Few people remember that Wonder Mans brain patterns were used by Ultron to create the Vision. Given the rumors that we might see The Vision in future Avengers movie, it would be way cool to use Wonder Man to set that up in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Not that the movies/TV has to use everything from the books, but it'd be a nice wink to the long time fans.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Few people remember that Wonder Mans brain patterns were used by Ultron to create the Vision. Given the rumors that we might see The Vision in future Avengers movie, it would be way cool to use Wonder Man to set that up in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
> 
> Not that the movies/TV has to use everything from the books, but it'd be a nice wink to the long time fans.


I remember because I'm an old dude. 

Not only does the Vision have Wonder Man's brain patterns, he has the Golden-Age Human Torch's android body. I always admired Steve Englehart for coming up with that brilliant origin, although I'm told a lot of Marvel writers and editors hated him for meddling with their characters.

Oh, and is there any reason they can't use Prince Namor, the SUB-MARINER?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Not only does the Vision have Wonder Man's brain patterns, he has the Golden-Age Human Torch's android body. I always admired Steve Englehart for coming up with that brilliant origin, although I'm told a lot of Marvel writers and editors hated him for meddling with their characters.


Roy Thomas and Neal Adams, actually, although Englehart was writing the book when they finally revealed it. But there was that famous scene in the Kree-Skrull War when Ant-Man finds the evidence that the Vision was actually the Human Torch (although we didn't know that's what he found). Apparently, Adams drew the scene without knowing what Ant-Man found, and it struck Thomas that Viz was HT. He dropped hints through the rest of his run.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Really? It was Thomas and not Englehart who came up with that, and Englehart took the credit -- and the heat -- because he was the writer? Huh.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Really? It was Thomas and not Englehart who came up with that, and Englehart took the credit -- and the heat -- because he was the writer? Huh.


I don't think he ever took the credit...in retrospect, it was clear that Thomas had been setting it up for years, and I knew when I was a kid the Adams-Thomas story. Englehart was just tying up loose plot threads, and I haven't ever heard him claim anything else.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So what's the big deal with "Coulson Lives?" Did he die in the Avengers movie? I remember almost nothing from that movie other than a gigantic flying craft and a ridiculously long and elaborate battle scene at the end.

Oh, and them all sitting in a restaurant after the credits.


----------



## Goober96 (Jun 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> So what's the big deal with "Coulson Lives?" Did he die in the Avengers movie? I remember almost nothing from that movie other than a gigantic flying craft and a ridiculously long and elaborate battle scene at the end.
> 
> Oh, and them all sitting in a restaurant after the credits.


Yes, he died in the Avengers movie.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So what's the big deal with "Coulson Lives?" Did he die in the Avengers movie? I remember almost nothing from that movie other than a gigantic flying craft and a ridiculously long and elaborate battle scene at the end.


He was impaled through the chest by a metal rod during that battle. He had a very long and fairly explicit death scene.

They's gots some 'splainin' to do.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> I remember because I'm an old dude.
> 
> Not only does the Vision have Wonder Man's brain patterns, he has the Golden-Age Human Torch's android body.


Thanks to John Byrne, that's no longer the case.

Byrne destroyed the Thomas era Vision completely by having him dismantled by the Government and his brain completely erased.
The West Coast Avengers put his body back together but not his mind.

He was later destroyed in Avengers Disassembled and then rebuilt for Young Avengers with a young Immortus' brain patterns.

And he's not the rebuilt Human Torch but something Ultron built based on some of Professor Horton's design work.
Which is why the real Original Human Torch has been running around the Marvel Universe for the last 15 years (although somewhat on and off, so to speak).


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He was impaled through the chest by a metal rod during that battle. He had a very long and fairly explicit death scene.
> 
> They's gots some 'splainin' to do.


In a world of super powers, aliens, and high-tech gadgetry, I don't think they will have a problem coming up with an explanation. Or they may even drag it out as the whole season-long mystery plot.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I think I have it. Coulson is Wolverine's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> I think I have it. Coulson is Wolverine's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate.


Not that it matters hugely, but Wolverine's father's brother's nephew's cousin could be Wolverine himself.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dtle said:


> In a world of super powers, aliens, and high-tech gadgetry, I don't think they will have a problem coming up with an explanation. Or they may even drag it out as the whole season-long mystery plot.


The simplest way would be to make the TV character an LMD (Life Model Decoy; android duplicates that are commonly used in the SHIELD comic books). And it would open up some interesting sci-fi storylines...what is it to be human? Is an exact duplicate of Coulson Coulson? Etc. etc...a long form version of what Blade Runner did (or Battlestar did badly). All the sci-fi, none of the budget.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Previously unmentioned twin brother. Phil Coulsen died in the helicarrier. Paul Coulsen, though, he works in a smaller facility that is soon to get a TV show.

Yeah, that works.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Thanks to John Byrne, that's no longer the case.
> 
> Byrne destroyed the Thomas era Vision completely by having him dismantled by the Government and his brain completely erased.
> The West Coast Avengers put his body back together but not his mind.
> ...


Ick. I wish I didn't know that now.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

dtle said:


> In a world of super powers, aliens, and high-tech gadgetry, I don't think they will have a problem coming up with an explanation. Or they may even drag it out as the whole season-long mystery plot.


Stick one of Tony Starks glowing widgets in the middle of his chest.


----------



## sean67854 (Jul 11, 2001)

I suspect you might see a mix of C-Listers and low level A and B listers appearing. It would be pretty easy to use this show to get the public's interest in a certain character and/or a certain actor playing that character.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He was impaled through the chest by a metal rod during that battle. He had a very long and fairly explicit death scene.
> 
> They's gots some 'splainin' to do.


The Stark Industries Torso6000®.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Not like you can avoid the pub, but the first episode is tonight!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division."

"And what does that mean to you?"

"That somebody really wanted our initials to spell 'shield.'"


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I'm really curious to see what the initial ratings for this are going to be. I'm expecting this to be huge but you never know. Whedon doesn't have a history of getting good ratings on television.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

It does not affect me but the network is doing that screwy "let's schedule it to end at 8:01" and screw up people with DVRs who want to record other stations at 8:00.

My Dad could not get his Comcast box to record it because he was already recording the Voice and then at 8:00 wanted to record New Girl.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yep, that's annoying. The 5+ tuners that some newer dvr platforms have alleviate it, but those still with one or two tuners are left to suffer.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Maui said:


> It does not affect me but the network is doing that screwy "let's schedule it to end at 8:01" and screw up people with DVRs who want to record other stations at 8:00.
> 
> My Dad could not get his Comcast box to record it because he was already recording the Voice and then at 8:00 wanted to record New Girl.


That's why the Tivo clipping thing is so nice. But all this is ABC wanting to get an extra advertising minute attached to SHIELD. I'm sure doing that nets some additional income for the network but sure can be a PITA sometimes.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Azlen said:


> That's why the Tivo clipping thing is so nice. But all this is ABC wanting to get an extra advertising minute attached to SHIELD. I'm sure doing that nets some additional income for the network but sure can be a PITA sometimes.


Is that why they do it? I always assumed it was so people who were watching it live would miss the first minute of shows on the other channels. Consequently, they would be more likely to stay on the channel instead of flipping.


----------



## tibruk (Nov 28, 2003)

Okay, 11 minutes in and I'm hooked.

Tib


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> "Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division."
> 
> "And what does that mean to you?"
> 
> "That somebody really wanted our initials to spell 'shield.'"


Not being argumentative for the sake of it... But I think that's one of the *less* tortured backronyms.



BrettStah said:


> Yep, that's annoying. The 5+ tuners that some newer dvr platforms have alleviate it, but those still with one or two tuners are left to suffer.


Yup, tonight I have so many shows that my 4 tuners had clipping.. of course, I TRY to put at least 1 minute of padding on both ends of all shows, so that causes part of it.. I removed padding from a few others, and moved a couple of recordings to my Tivohd.. As I've said a zillion times, if Tivo could SHARE the tuner for abutting recordings on the same channel, I would effectively DOUBLE the # of tuners I have.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

I think the show is slowly getting better. It is obvious that this is going to be a safe procedural show like NCIS and not a story driven show like Buffy or Firefly.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

wedgecon said:


> I think the show is slowly getting better. It is obvious that this is going to be a safe procedural show like NCIS and not a story driven show like Buffy or Firefly.


Verrrrrrry slowly.

Alan Sepinwall did his usual good job in detailing the problems so far with the series. I agree with every bit of it, most especially that this team does not seem so special. There's nothing especially interesting about any of these characters, nor do they seem at all remarkable -- except _maybe_ for May, and they don't give her anything to do.

This is a real problem for episodes like this week's (12-Nov), "The Hub", where -- staying spoiler free -- we are expected to care that part of the team is danger, and also expected to believe they are so remarkable as a unit that they were never really in danger at all. Neither one of those is remotely the case, and so all the tension goes right out of the episode (which was pretty well-written in general).

Speaking of that episode, since there is no thread for it, and it's not worth starting one for this question:



Spoiler



At the end, they didn't show the photo that May was looking at long enough for me to see who it was. Was it Skye, dead? And that's why Coulson subsequently tried to get his own file about his death?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Spoiler



It was an image of somebody unidentifiable using facial recognition because they had been shot in the head.

Coulsen is a separate story arc. There is a secret that is being kept from him and he knows it - we are being led to believe it is something to do with him being dead for whatever number of seconds and surviving.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Thanks.



Spoiler






pgogborn said:


> It was an image of somebody unidentifiable using facial recognition because they had been shot in the head.
> 
> Coulsen is a separate story arc. There is a secret that is being kept from him and he knows it - we are being led to believe it is something to do with him being dead for whatever number of seconds and surviving.


Understood about Coulson. I was beginning to think he was a moron for not understanding that something had happened to him when the show and everyone around him were making it so obvious, right to his face. So I had the thought that if that were Skye in the picture, dead, and yet here she is alive, he put two and two together and finally requested his file.

That said, my immediate reaction was that it was an unknown person in the photo. But when May said "poor girl", I started to wonder.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Spoiler



I'm assuming it's Skye's Mother, who was murdered, and that's why she was left at the orphanage. The murder must've been something unusual for SHIELD to be involved, but we do know it was a SHIELD agent who left her at the orphanage, so that fits.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've gotten to the point where I can't stand Skye. Ward is bland and everything he can do May can do better and fly the plane. I've never liked either Fitz or Simmons. Hopefully, they'll find a way to make these characters more interesting.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I am warming a bit to Fitz and Simmons, particularly Simmons, but I still feel the show has been really "by the numbers" so far. It's cotton candy. Still hoping they can make it more than that; they've got the pieces they need for that. The thing is, *the show isn't taking any risks.* It's always doing the obvious thing. Often I can guess the next line, and the times I can't, it's only because it's a _bon mot_ I didn't come up with, not an unexpected turn.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

I love Fitz Simmons, but I am biased.

Perhaps influenced by Skye it seems to me the unit is going rogue - if so that would make the story more intereting for me.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

I find Skye incredibly annoying. Ward is wooden and not charismatic. I'm so so on FitzSimmons. I find the show mostly dull, which I never would have predicted.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Are FitzSimmons supposed to be a couple or just super tight friends? Every time they're together I think "Will you two just do it already."


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Are FitzSimmons supposed to be a couple or just super tight friends? Every time they're together I think "Will you two just do it already."


Wait I thought they were brother and sister...like twins or something. Are they not?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Are FitzSimmons supposed to be a couple or just super tight friends? Every time they're together I think "Will you two just do it already."


You could have a long time to wait, They have got separate bunks and even when they were reunited after Simmons jumped out of the plane and they were sitting on Fitz's bunk Fitz kept his arms around a pillow - and then Simmons left leaving Fitz to alone on his bunk with his arms around his pillow.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

mwhip said:


> Wait I thought they were brother and sister...like twins or something. Are they not?


This is what I thought, too.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

mwhip said:


> Wait I thought they were brother and sister...like twins or something. Are they not?


No, one is English the other Scottish 

The English one shot her supervisor in the chest.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, he's crushing on her and she's (mostly) oblivious.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I like the show, I really do, but I can't help but get snapped out of the fantasy when they have things like two agents are being suroundedby a mob of bad guys with guns. *cut to shot of a c17 HOVERING above them*. Then in stead of running or shooting at it, the bad guys stand there dumbfounded and wait for the plane to stop, rotate around, and then turn on it's jets SUPERPOWER to blow them all away.


----------



## jeepair (Apr 22, 2004)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I like the show, I really do, but I can't help but get snapped out of the fantasy when they have things like two agents are being suroundedby a mob of bad guys with guns. *cut to shot of a c17 HOVERING above them*. Then in stead of running or shooting at it, the bad guys stand there dumbfounded and wait for the plane to stop, rotate around, and then turn on it's jets SUPERPOWER to blow them all away.


So flying cars and stun guns are ok but a hovering C17 is too much?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> I love Fitz Simmons, but I am biased.
> 
> Perhaps influenced by Skye it seems to me the unit is going rogue - if so that would make the story more intereting for me.


Based on the last episode, the team did exactly what "The Hub" wanted them to.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I like the show, I really do, but I can't help but get snapped out of the fantasy when they have things like two agents are being suroundedby a mob of bad guys with guns. *cut to shot of a c17 HOVERING above them*. Then in stead of running or shooting at it, the bad guys stand there dumbfounded and wait for the plane to stop, rotate around, and then turn on it's jets SUPERPOWER to blow them all away.


Yeah, I can see that but I could also see the soldiers all getting just a little dumbfounded by a huge jet hovering over them. Might just keep them all stunned for a 10-20 seconds possibly.

But I would rather see the jet come in at slightly less then Mach 2 and scream over their heads at about 10 feet. The SHIELD agents would, of course, be "safe" since they were not directly under the plane.

Or the plane could have come done right on top of the soldiers and just sprayed them every which way...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jeepair said:


> So flying cars and stun guns are ok but a hovering C17 is too much?


I don't think it's the idea of the plane hovering that DTF was complaining about. It was the fact that the soldiers all stood around and didn't take any evasive action or trying to secure the prisoners while the plane was maneuvering into that position.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

That's Fight scenes 101 (3 guys fight one and 2 wait till the other is knocked down.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> That's Fight scenes 101 (3 guys fight one and 2 wait till the other is knocked down.)


Marksmanship isn't the only skill they teach at the Imperial Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I like the show, I really do, but I can't help but get snapped out of the fantasy when they have things like two agents are being suroundedby a mob of bad guys with guns. *cut to shot of a c17 HOVERING above them*. Then in stead of running or shooting at it, the bad guys stand there dumbfounded and wait for the plane to stop, rotate around, and then turn on it's jets SUPERPOWER to blow them all away.


It also went from having no extraction plan to we'll just fly the plane there and pick them up. If it was that easy, why not have that be the plan in the first place?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, he's crushing on her and she's (mostly) oblivious.


 I think they're not completely decided on this relationship yet. It seemed to me an episode or two ago, he was crushing on Skye and she (Simmons) was looking jealous.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, he's crushing on her and she's (mostly) oblivious.


I think he's also given Skye a few salacious glances. He may just be a male.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> It also went from having no extraction plan to we'll just fly the plane there and pick them up. If it was that easy, why not have that be the plan in the first place?


Because it was all a test of Colson's team. He was manipulated. Not told there was no extraction. Pretty much letting the team crack the fact and go save their guys. Much like the Empire let the Millennium Falcon get away in A New Hope.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Well now knowing that Fitz and Simmons are not related and knowing that all shows on TV have to have sexual tension I think the natural dynamics are:

Skye and Ward
Fitz and Simmons
Coulson and May


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

mwhip said:


> Skye and Ward
> Fitz and Simmons
> Coulson and May


They could have a sixsome. Uh, sexsome? Sixsome sexsome?


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Sky is River, but less talented and mystical.
Ward is Jayne, but WAY less funny.
Melinda May is Zoë.
Coulson is Mal.
Fitz is sort-of Simon.
Simmons is Hermione Granger.

I seem to recall reading (somewhere here) that they had written it pretty by-the-book until they got a full season pickup, after which we should see a signficant amount of character development. We're just starting to see that, and some longer story arcs. I understand why they wouldn't want to risk it right out of the gate, but I do think that meant they lost some ground with the viewers. 

That said, we got everyone out to see Thor: The Dark World already because the previews noted that this week's episode crossed over with the movie and we wanted to be able to enjoy it spoiler-free. So they've figured out an easy way to make money off our fandom less than half-a-season in.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> Sky is River, but less talented and mystical.
> Ward is Jayne, but WAY less funny.
> Melinda May is Zoë.
> Coulson is Mal.
> ...


You could add "but way less funny, cool, awesome, developed" on every one of those. I hope we do see some real character development.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

jehma said:


> You could add "but way less funny, cool, awesome, developed" on every one of those. I hope we do see some real character development.


Probably because Joss is done with TV as a writer or show runner and is now focused on movies and his only interest in TV is as EP.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Anyone still watch this show. I just watched "A Magical Place"
It was So So. Good enough for me to continue watching (primarily due to lack of competition in the genre).
Hopefully they will wrap up the 'Why is Coulson alive' storyline in the next episode (which aired 1/14) and move on.
The way they have spread out the episode airings may have lost viewers. Seems like they only have new eps every few weeks.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Yep, there was a thread for both "The Magicial Place" here: 
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=513317

and for "Seeds" here:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=513571

I still find it quite entertaining.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

UTV2TiVo said:


> The way they have spread out the episode airings may have lost viewers. Seems like they only have new eps every few weeks.


They lost viewers because it's not a good show. The way it has been aired is no different than the way most other shows are aired during the winter. It's quite common for shows to take weeks off during the December/January months to accommodate for the holidays/sports/award shows. SHIELD's first new airing in January after being off for 4 weeks was actually up 600k viewers. It took it's biggest losses in the first few weeks when it aired consecutively. It premiered to a 4.7 18-49 rating and by week 2 was down to a 3.1. By week six it was down to a 2.5. The last new episode in January was a 2.2.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

I'm still enjoying it too. This is the first show in a long time that is appointment television for my wife and me. We record it and make sure to make time to watch together. It's not supposed to be high on the verisimilitude scale. It's a comic book show. It's fun and occasionally a bit silly. But it's also not any more "unreal" than Alias was. We're enjoying the slow play reveals of the characters. We get to see them unfold with the natural flow of the series, rather than a bunch of forced monologuing about their lives and plans.

That's the luxury of a pretty secure run. - it's likely to stay on the air as long as it can stay out of last place in its time slot. It's a Marvel (owned by Disney) property, produced by ABC Studios (owned by Disney), airing on ABC (owned by Disney) that is being set up to serve as a sort of nexus point for the entire Marvel (owned by Disney) Cinematic and soon-to-be Live Action Television Universe. Joss isn't writing, directing, or line producing, but his role in all of this is as sort of grand poobah puppet master, helping the sprawling narrative weave together.

The Thor "crossover" was just the beginning. I suspect that by the end of this season or the beginning of next, we'll get lead-ins to the four Netflix series that are coming in 2015 (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and Luke Cage). And those will culminate in a team-up mini-series on Netflix. They'll probably also do call outs to the rest of the MCU movies that seem to be scheduled to come out about every six months or so.

And there's also an Agent Carter series in development that's likely to end up on ABC's slate for next season. I could see it being paired with AoS as a "Marvel Hour." (Though they might want to keep them separated to avoid confusion, because Agent Carter is likely set in the 1940s). Overall, it's a good time to be a comics on the screen fan.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I think Marvel is spreading themselves too thin. And they're taking a HUGE chance on these "B" level super-hero shows and movies. Ant-Man? Guardians of the Galaxy? Jessica Jones? Who besides comic book geeks really know about these characters?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

The Arrow is an obscure character, and (for the CW) gets good ratings, AFAIK.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> I think Marvel is spreading themselves too thin. And they're taking a HUGE chance on these "B" level super-hero shows and movies. Ant-Man? Guardians of the Galaxy? Jessica Jones? Who besides comic book geeks really know about these characters?


Who'd have guessed Iron Man would be the success it has been? Iron Man has always been my favorite Marvel character, and while not "B" level, Iron Man was not a character that the general public knew much about.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, for the most part it's not the character, it's what they do with the character that's going to make or break a movie or a TV series. Guardians of the Galaxy, Jessica Jones, Ant-Man...they could all be fantastic, or they could all be terrible.

What's wrong with SHIELD isn't the concept; it's the execution. To me, instead of being a TV version of The Avengers without super-heroes (which is how it was presented, and which could be fantastic), it's a watered-down 21st-century A-Team.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

mattack said:


> The Arrow is an obscure character, and (for the CW) gets good ratings, AFAIK.


That would be because that those who do know are more familiar with him as Green Arrow.


However, Blade got three movies and a series.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm on the fence ready to jump. There's been the odd good episode, but most have been fairly boring. About halfway through most of these I'm on one of my tablets checking email or playing Candy Crush. Once I get to that point on a series, it's usually time to cut the cord. My son loves it, but he's more of a comic book movie geek than I am.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

This show is actually one of the few new shows that I have stuck with this season. I started out recording a bunch of new stuff but whittled them way down after the Holidays.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I like the show, but agree that if you look too closely, it looks like crap. Many Buffy episodes were the same. But I like the overall concept, the humor and the characters. The individual episode plots are often weak, but they have redeeming points. It's no Firefly, but I'm still watching.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JYoung said:


> That would be because that those who do know are more familiar with him as Green Arrow.
> 
> 
> However, Blade got three movies and a series.


I knew someone would nitpick that part -- it's obscure as heck as "Green Arrow" too... I speak as a non-comic book person.

Oh, this actually leads me to another question I had. I think the answer to any crossover question is probably "yes" given the long history of comic books... But do the X-Men and the Avengers/these other characters we've seen in movies lately come into contact with each other?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> But do the X-Men and the Avengers/these other characters we've seen in movies lately come into contact with each other?


In comics they do all the time...in fact, the Uncanny Avengers is a team comprised of both Avengers and X-Men.

But of course in the movies they'll never meet.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In comics they do all the time...in fact, the Uncanny Avengers is a team comprised of both Avengers and X-Men.
> 
> But of course in the movies they'll never meet.


I hear rumors of there having been some _verrrrrrrrrrrrrry_ preliminary talks about a "grand crossover movie" that could include characters controlled by Marvel, Sony, 20th Century Fox, and possibly even Warner Brothers too. It will never happen - they'll never get a deal worked out. And really, I hope they don't. Because any single film that included that many superhero characters would inevitably suck.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In comics they do all the time...in fact, the Uncanny Avengers is a team comprised of both Avengers and X-Men.
> 
> But of course in the movies they'll never meet.


Well, I thought maybe they eventually would, because they obviously have to keep upping the ante each time with the movies.. (Though I guess to go from Avengers to Iron Man 3, they sort of reverted.. in a good way..)

ok, and for others, Uncanny Avengers started in October 2012. So it's not from the 1960s or anything..



AJRitz said:


> I hear rumors of there having been some _verrrrrrrrrrrrrry_ preliminary talks about a "grand crossover movie" that could include characters controlled by Marvel, Sony, 20th Century Fox, and possibly even Warner Brothers too. It will never happen - they'll never get a deal worked out. And really, I hope they don't. Because any single film that included that many superhero characters would inevitably suck.


I agree sort of, but the X men movies have had a whole ton of chars, and IIRC, at least 2 were pretty good.. (Geez, can't ANY of these trilogies have all good movies? Star Wars seems like the only one that's done it, but the Ewoks were mildly annoying before Jar Jar came around, and of course the new trilogy slightly tarnished the series..)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> Well, I thought maybe they eventually would, because they obviously have to keep upping the ante each time with the movies.


But they can't. Marvel doesn't have the movie rights to the X-Men. And I suspect that as long as you or I shall live, Fox would rather knowingly put out a total PoS X-Men movie than lose the rights (and I suspect will do so once or twice in the years and decades to come).


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

But it's not impossible to imagine a scenario where Fox and Marvel, or Marvel and Sony, come to an agreement on a joint movie. If the money is good enough, they'd do it.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

I am still recording it and will watch 2 or 3 episodes at a time when I get to watching it. My wife doesn't want to watch it but I find it interesting enough to still watch but don't feel the need to watch it every week either.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> But it's not impossible to imagine a scenario where Fox and Marvel, or Marvel and Sony, come to an agreement on a joint movie. If the money is good enough, they'd do it.


Not impossible, but never gonna happen. 

The problem is, by making an Avengers/X-Men movie, they make a bajillion bucks and split it 50-50. By making an Avengers movie, they make a bajillion bucks and keep it all.

I just don't see a joint movie being more than twice as profitable, which is really what it would take to entice them into a deal.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not impossible, but never gonna happen.
> 
> The problem is, by making an Avengers/X-Men movie, they make a bajillion bucks and split it 50-50. By making an Avengers movie, they make a bajillion bucks and keep it all.
> 
> I just don't see a joint movie being more than twice as profitable, which is really what it would take to entice them into a deal.


The one scenario in which I could see a joint project happening is one in which Marvel was buying back rights to properties currently held by Sony or 20th Century Fox, and the joint project was a part of the transition agreement. That would give the selling studio a share of one last payday.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Everybody thought this would never happen, either...










Every so often, the stars align just right, and miracles happen.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

AJRitz said:


> The one scenario in which I could see a joint project happening is one in which Marvel was buying back rights to properties currently held by Sony or 20th Century Fox, and the joint project was a part of the transition agreement. That would give the selling studio a share of one last payday.


Except I doubt Sony or Fox would ever sell. Why would they? These are HUGE properties, and the price for keeping them forever is quite small. I don't think Disney could afford to buy them back.


Ereth said:


> Everybody thought this would never happen, either...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That wasn't a miracle; that was an obvious, no-lose scenario. The only "miracle" was that there were people at both companies who were willing to put aside their differences and take advantage of the obvious, no-lose scenario. E.g., as long as Joe Quesada matters at Marvel, DC will never co-publish...because they hate Quesada with a fiery passion (not entirely without cause, but still, they're willing to leave a little money on the table to spite him).

The movie world is very different, where the potential profits from an X-Men movie are probably more than Marvel has made on X-Men comics in 50 years. Fox ain't gonna give up half of that.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I just don't see a joint movie being more than twice as profitable, which is really what it would take to entice them into a deal.


No, that logic is flawed. If they were truly 50% partners, then they would share in the costs as well as any profits. So, while each partner would only get 50% of the profits, they would also only need to invest 50% as much to produce the movie. Which is the same as just producing a lower budget movie (lower costs, lower projected profits).


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Except I doubt Sony or Fox would ever sell. Why would they? These are HUGE properties, and the price for keeping them forever is quite small. I don't think Disney could afford to buy them back.
> 
> That wasn't a miracle; that was an obvious, no-lose scenario. The only "miracle" was that there were people at both companies who were willing to put aside their differences and take advantage of the obvious, no-lose scenario. E.g., as long as Joe Quesada matters at Marvel, DC will never co-publish...because they hate Quesada with a fiery passion (not entirely without cause, but still, they're willing to leave a little money on the table to spite him).
> 
> The movie world is very different, where the potential profits from an X-Men movie are probably more than Marvel has made on X-Men comics in 50 years. Fox ain't gonna give up half of that.


How about JLA/Avengers then? Was never supposed to see the light of day, but I have a hardbound copy of it on my bookshelf.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> How about JLA/Avengers then? Was never supposed to see the light of day, but I have a hardbound copy of it on my bookshelf.


Same thing. There was a very narrow window of opportunity (between when Quesada took over Marvel, and when he started routinely bad-mouthing DC) when both companies were willing to go for it.

Which is why it took twenty years.

And again, this is comics, where the outlay is small and the potential profits are even smaller. Not movies, where the outlay is big and the potential profits are bigger than some GNPs, and every inch of it has to be negotiated and then verified against the efforts of the most creative accountants on Earth (didja know the Lord of the Rings movies never "turned a profit"?).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Everybody thought this would never happen, either...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After reading that, a lot of people wished it never happened.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Didn't Quesada go out to form Valiant for a while? What happened to Image?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Didn't Quesada go out to form Valiant for a while?


You're thinking of Jim Shooter.



DavidTigerFan said:


> What happened to Image?


They're still around, publishing books.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Same thing. There was a very narrow window of opportunity (between when Quesada took over Marvel, and when he started routinely bad-mouthing DC) when both companies were willing to go for it.
> 
> Which is why it took twenty years.
> 
> And again, this is comics, where the outlay is small and the potential profits are even smaller. Not movies, where the outlay is big and the potential profits are bigger than some GNPs, and every inch of it has to be negotiated and then verified against the efforts of the most creative accountants on Earth (didja know the Lord of the Rings movies never "turned a profit"?).


Actually, I did. With accountants that creative, you'd think they could find a way. If you are going to lose money anyway.....


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

IF a team up gets made, the decision is going to be made much higher up the ladder than the respective heads of Marvel and DC. Marvel answers to Disney these days, and DC answers to Time-Warner. And if Disney and Time-Warner thinks there's money to be made, they'll make a deal. When it comes to something like a major film franchise investment, the tail doesn't wag the dog.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

AJRitz said:


> IF a team up gets made, the decision is going to be made much higher up the ladder than the respective heads of Marvel and DC. Marvel answers to Disney these days, and DC answers to Time-Warner. And if Disney and Time-Warner thinks there's money to be made, they'll make a deal. When it comes to something like a major film franchise investment, the tail doesn't wag the dog.


Well, we're talking about two different kinds of team-ups. The Marvel-DC team-ups are comic books; the movie team-ups are all Marvel characters, but ones whose rights are held by different studios (Fox=X-Men & Fantastic Four; Sony=Spider-Man; Marvel Studios=everybody else). So for an X-Men/Avengers movie to happen, it's the people at Marvel Studios and Fox who would have to get together, agree on how the production will happen and who will pay for what, fight over every dime of it, and how the profits will be divvied up, and fight over every dime of that. Or just go ahead and make their separate Avengers and X-Men movies, and rake in the millions unencumbered.

I see absolutely no chance of a Marvel-DC movie happening. Ever. That would be the very definition of brand dilution, on both sides.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I see absolutely no chance of a Marvel-DC movie happening. Ever. That would be the very definition of brand dilution, on both sides.


Never say never.

Who'd have thought (back in the 90's) that Mario and Sonic would be in a single game together, let alone a series of games?

Who'd of thought there would ever be a Disney animated movie with both Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny in it, let alone in the same scene interacting with each other?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> Never say never.


I would never in a million years say "never."

Except when it comes to DC and Marvel characters co-featured in the same movie.

And saying "never."


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I would never in a million years say "never."
> 
> Except when it comes to DC and Marvel characters co-featured in the same movie.
> 
> And saying "never."


I thought I might get you with The Lego Movie, but it looks like that one only has DC characters in it. It does have Star Wars characters in it, too, which are owned by Disney, which owns Marvel -- does that count?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> I thought I might get you with The Lego Movie, but it looks like that one only has DC characters in it. It does have Star Wars characters in it, too, which are owned by Disney, which owns Marvel -- does that count?


Heh.

I carefully said "co-featured," by which I meant a Superman/Spider-Man movie, not a Superman movie in which Spider-Man has a guest appearance or vice-versa (which I still don't think will ever happen, but I'll never say "never" to that).


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

morac said:


> Never say never.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> I would never in a million years say "never."
> 
> Except when it comes to DC and Marvel characters co-featured in the same movie.
> 
> And saying "never."


I think my head just exploded.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I would never in a million years say "never."
> 
> Except when it comes to DC and Marvel characters co-featured in the same movie.
> 
> And saying "never."


I would never say never either. I also doubt that skeptics actually exist 

Back on the original topic, without Clark Gregg I would have stopped watching this show a long time ago. But I'm still watching for now.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Loach said:


> Back on the original topic, without Clark Gregg I would have stopped watching this show a long time ago. But I'm still watching for now.


And he's really stepped up his game lately. This week, he almost seemed like somebody who could carry a show!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I just wish this past episode had been called "The Train Job"...


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I just wish this past episode had been called "The Train Job"...


Then they would have shown it as the pilot, right?


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> Amnesia said:
> 
> 
> > I just wish this past episode had been called "The Train Job"...
> ...



It still would have be a hilarious in-joke to have little re-instroductions to each member (so it _seemed_ like a pilot)

Then towards the end when they catch up with the stopped train repel down from the hovering 'bus'.:up:


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Remember this isn't a spoiler thread.


----------

