# Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - "Turn, Turn, Turn" - 04/08/14



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

First off, I'll say if you haven't seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet, stop reading this thread now and don't watch the episode as this episode royally spoils the movie.

I won't say anything else for now other than wow, just wow. That ending came out of no where.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Seriously wow. I called it when he asked to go with Hand at the end, but I thought maybe he and Hand were in it together. 

Wow.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Finally, this show grows a pair... loved it and can't wait to see where it all goes.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Great episode, in my opinion.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

If this is what the show has been building up to, I can forgive the slow beginning. Hydra versus remnants of Shield will be an interesting theme.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

That is an OMG! episode. I absolutely LOVED it.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

Holy shoot did that just happen man I love the integration with the shield universe with the movie and this episode lots of great tie ins and woooooowwww that ending was crazy and the hydra logo at the end good iceing on the cake!!!

I hope they don't drag it out where the rest of the team doesn't know he is hyrda and he goes back undercover with team.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

ok i saw that coming, but more in a, "come on" kind of way. Because here's what i don't get then: why did he go with the plan to blow up the stuff (what was it, the computers?) with Sky?

him killing the fake Clairvoyant makes sense, but it just seems like they forced that twist.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

milo99 said:


> ok i saw that coming, but more in a, "come on" kind of way. Because here's what i don't get then: why did he go with the plan to blow up the stuff (what was it, the computers?) with Sky?


The characters repeated the idea several times in this ep that Hydra has gotten away with their plan for so long by, essentially, being friends with the good guys. In a nutshell, that's why Ward did it. It was necessary to sell his cover for a little longer.

That idea is also why I'm inclined to believe that Ward's Hydra affiliation is real, and not some other twist the show will undo later. I think all that repetition in the episode about hiding in plain sight was expressly there to set up the twist, and to say it's the real deal. (And anyway, Ward murdering several people would be a hard thing to walk back, narratively, if there were another twist coming.)

Overall I think this run of the last few episodes has been quite entertaining and it's actually made me want to watch the show for what it now is, versus what I kept hoping it would be. That's enough to make me forgive some examples in this episode where I think the audience was lied to in order to preserve the surprises, which I always find lazy and a big cheat.

One thing I did keep thinking throughout: it's tough to have this show exist in the same universe as the movies, because it looks and seems (and is) so much cheaper than those. Nothing they can do about that, obviously. But it was a little jarring to see the spared-no-expense Winter Soldier this weekend and then a day later, this comparatively threadbare show.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> The characters repeated the idea several times in this ep that Hydra has gotten away with their plan for so long by, essentially, being friends with the good guys. In a nutshell, that's why Ward did it. It was necessary to sell his cover for a little longer.
> 
> That idea is also why I'm inclined to believe that Ward's Hydra affiliation is real, and not some other twist the show will undo later. I think all that repetition in the episode about hiding in plain sight was expressly there to set up the twist, and to say it's the real deal. (And anyway, Ward murdering several people would be a hard thing to walk back, narratively, if there were another twist coming.)


I thought it was a little too setup though to have Victoria give him the gun. I wouldn't be shocked if it was all a setup to send him undercover in Hydra.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Looks like Fury can thank Fitz for the mouse hole device.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Azlen said:


> I thought it was a little too setup though to have Victoria give him the gun. I wouldn't be shocked if it was all a setup to send him undercover in Hydra.


I surely hope not. There is absolutely no way this show can sell the idea of Ward as a triple agent.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Ereth said:


> That is an OMG! episode. I absolutely LOVED it.


My words exactly. Holy crap!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I really enjoyed this episode, but I'm also really glad that I saw Winter Soldier first. I feel like this show is finally living up to its potential. Not only was the plot good, but the dialog was generally more clever and snappy, too.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Looks like the show has "turned, turned, turned" the corner. Helluva episode. How many more before the season finale?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Azlen said:


> I thought it was a little too setup though to have Victoria give him the gun. I wouldn't be shocked if it was all a setup to send him undercover in Hydra.


The producers don't really say one way or the other, but they do talk a lot about the twist in this EW postmortem.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/04/09/agents-of-shield-postmortem-ward/


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> I thought it was a little too setup though to have Victoria give him the gun. I wouldn't be shocked if it was all a setup to send him undercover in Hydra.


I'm 90% sure that is the case. They needed someone to go undercover in Hydra. You can see Coulson give Ward the nod as he leaves with the others. Somehow the gun he used was part of the plan to fake her death (and the other guys').


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

milo99 said:


> ok i saw that coming, but more in a, "come on" kind of way. Because here's what i don't get then: why did he go with the plan to blow up the stuff (what was it, the computers?) with Sky?





cmontyburns said:


> The characters repeated the idea several times in this ep that Hydra has gotten away with their plan for so long by, essentially, being friends with the good guys. In a nutshell, that's why Ward did it. It was necessary to sell his cover for a little longer.


If Ward is a Hydra agent, it's in his best interests to go along with Coulson's plan because it's against Hand, whom I am assuming he knows is not a Hydra agent and most likely is the top ranking SHIELD official still around.
Especially since his Hydra superior (Garrett) is advocating taking out Hand permanently.

If he isn't, he's simply following Coulson's orders.

Put me in the "Holy Crap" camp.
It took a while to get here but those that dropped out are missing a really good show here.

I went into this thinking that Hand was the Clairvoyant but once Hand was shown to be loyal, I realized that it was Garrett.

(I'm not going to spoil Winter Soldier events anymore as this episode has blown them wide open.)

Coulson must be having a really bad day.
Everything he worked for and believed in was SHIELD and it's been dismantled right before him.
One of his best friends tortured him and other friends (Sitwell and others) are traitors as well.
With that and May spying on him (for Fury), that's got to affect him deeply.
(And if you throw Ward's betrayal on top of that...)

And this means that Skye was right about SHIELD after all.

I do wonder if Fury set up Coulson and company to be the nucleus of a new SHIELD.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Okay, not having seen the movie, I have to ask:



Spoiler



Fury's not actually dead, is he?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Okay, not having seen the movie, I have to ask:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you really want the movie spoiled? You should just go see the movie. It's worth a theater experience.

But...



Spoiler



No.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Do you really want the movie spoiled? You should just go see the movie. It's worth a theater experience.
> 
> But...
> 
> ...


I haven't seen the movie yet, but I pretty much already knew that.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I'm 90% sure that is the case. They needed someone to go undercover in Hydra. You can see Coulson give Ward the nod as he leaves with the others. Somehow that gun Victoria gave him was part of the plan to *fake her death* (and the other guys').


I saw the nod to Coulson before Ward got on the plane and my take was that he was going to try and infiltrate Hydra. When he shot Hand and the two guards, I initially thought he was holding an Icer, but my son pointed out that Hand gave him a real pistol, plus showing Hand bleeding after coming back from commercials removed any ambiguity.

Ward swore to Coulson that he wasn't operating under anyone's orders when he shot the fake Clairvoyant, and he told May and Skye that he did it to protect Skye.

There's precedence for the bolded above, but I'm leaning to the fact that Ward is really Hydra.

However, wouldn't he have said something to Lorelei when he was under her control?

Dammit, too many options!!


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> The producers don't really say one way or the other, but they do talk a lot about the twist in this EW postmortem.
> 
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/04/09/agents-of-shield-postmortem-ward/


That was very interesting. I'll have to dig up the clip in "Seeds" they mention.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Hm, it was so ridiculous when I was saying that Garrett is the clairvoyant, that Ward was covering for him, and that Hand wasn't the bad guy!


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

well here's another thought. When Ward freed Garrett, Garrett almost seemed surprised, and Ward and he nodded to each other. If Garrett was the big dog, he wouldn't have looked so surprised IMO.

Which makes wonder- is Garrett really the Clairvoyant, or is Ward?

Garrett didn't really admit to being the Clairvoyant, he just admitted to being Hydra. hmmmm...



JYoung said:


> And this means that Skye was right about SHIELD after all.


right about what? can't recall what you're referring to.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Very good episode but I have a question!

I've seen all the episodes but sometimes I'm not paying attention and I'm not sure why Hand initially thought Coulson was Hydra. Could someone let me know why she thought Coulson was Hydra so strongly to order everyone in the plane to be killed.

Also I'm probably not going to see Winter Soldier for a while and I don't mind being spoiler-ed but is this the main stuff in the movie that relates to the show:



Spoiler



The fact that Shield was essentially destroyed and that Fury was supposedly dead although someone indicated in another spoiler that he really was not dead. Was there anything else?

Also it was said that the special on TV about the Marvel Universe spoiled something from the movie. Was it that the bad guy was Capt America's old buddy who in the first movie fell from a plane and supposedly died. Instead he was made into the evil equivalent of CA. Was there anything else here?



Thanks,
Gerry


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Gerryex said:


> Could someone let me know why she thought Coulson was Hydra so strongly to order everyone in the plane to be killed.


You mean, aside from the long list of reasons she recited in the episode?


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> You mean, aside from the long list of reasons she recited in the episode?


Yes, I did get that but I thought there were other reasons that were evident in previous episodes. I guess not!

Gerry


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Okay, not having seen the movie, I have to ask:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are everyone's thoughts on whether Captain America 2 spoilers are okay in this thread? If you have seen the episode, there are plenty of movie spoilers in it so I figure this thread has people who have either seen the movie or don't mind it being spoiled.

For now I will put spoilers tags in though. But to further answer your question



Spoiler



Very few people know that Fury is alive. He even has a gravestone with a biblical quote he was fond of in another movie.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Having not seen the movie, and probably won't for some time, I'd be ok with movie spoilers in here. Since they are connected. Seems like anybody who cares about the movie spoilers probably won't watch these episodes until after they watch the movie anyways.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

My guess as to who the Clairvoyant was appears to be wrong. After the movie I had a completely new candidate for that role, one who is a surprise in the film, too, so I'll hold off saying who.

I suppose it's still possible, but I'm thinking less and less likely.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

Ereth said:


> My guess as to who the Clairvoyant was appears to be wrong. After the movie I had a completely new candidate for that role, one who is a surprise in the film, too, so I'll hold off saying who.
> 
> I suppose it's still possible, but I'm thinking less and less likely.


Yeah, having Garrett be the Clairvoyant doesn't sit well with me. I think there's someone else out there.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I'm 90% sure that is the case. They needed someone to go undercover in Hydra. You can see Coulson give Ward the nod as he leaves with the others. Somehow that gun Victoria gave him was part of the plan to fake her death (and the other guys').


The problem I have with that is you wouldn't be able to fake that in such close proximity to someone who has a lot of experience in shooting people. Did he tell you about the time he shot a guy in the chest with a flare gun?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> The problem I have with that is you wouldn't be able to fake that in such close proximity to someone who has a lot of experience in shooting people.


Which is why I'm fairly certain Hand and the two guards are actually dead.

It's one thing to (Captain America 2 spoiler)...



Spoiler



...fake your death by having doctors (who you apparently are certain are not Hydra agents ) lower your heart rate to 1 beat per minute.


But it's a completely different thing to fake the killing of three agents on a plane with no easy way to get them to one's allies. Even if Simmons figured out more details about the serum that was used on Skye and Coulson, it either would have been too late for the agents or Garrett would have realized they weren't really dead.

However, that doesn't mean that Ward isn't undercover. It's possible that Hand and the guards willingly gave their lives in order to get him inside Hydra. We know Ward has deep cover experience. And it's possible Coulson and Hand wanted to infiltrate Hydra in the same way as Hydra infiltrated them. Unfortunately, proving one's loyalty to Hydra required more extreme measures than that typically required by S.H.I.E.L.D.

Even if this is true, I don't think Ward is going to be a triple agent. He either was a double agent before or is a double agent now. This plane incident is too visible for him to jump back into working with his team while reporting (or pretending to report) to Hydra.

On another note, I think the rule regarding CA spoilers should be whatever is revealed in the show, such as Hydra having infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D., can be discussed unspoilerized. But everything else in the movie should still be considered spoilers.

The idea is that we are only discussing what the characters in the show know, even though some of us might have additional insights having seen the events that happened in another location.

For example,



Spoiler



...those of us who have seen the movie know that Fury is still alive. And many who have not suspect it. But since the characters in the show don't know that, it is still considered a spoiler.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

JoeyJoJo said:


> However, wouldn't he have said something to Lorelei when he was under her control?


Maybe he did but Lorelei simply didn't care.
It's not like Coulson can go ask her.

Here's another thing, we assumed that the other woman that Ward talked about to Lorelei was Skye.
What if it's Reina?



milo99 said:


> right about what? can't recall what you're referring to.


Skye was with Rising Tide which opposed SHIELD.
That it was too secretive and possibly evil.
Don't forget that she told Mike Peterson when they first met that SHIELD wasn't who they said they were and were not to be trusted.



loubob57 said:


> The problem I have with that is you wouldn't be able to fake that in such close proximity to someone who has a lot of experience in shooting people. Did he tell you about the time he shot a guy in the chest with a flare gun?


One more thing.
If you've got three dead bodies in your plane, why wouldn't you dispose of them by dropping them out of the plane at 10,000 feet over a remote location/body of water.
So if they were faking deaths for Ward to infiltrate Hydra, they're taking a big chance that they won't be thrown off the plane while in mid flight.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JYoung said:


> If you've got three dead bodies in your plane, why wouldn't you dispose of them by dropping them out of the plane at 10,000 feet over a remote location/body of water.
> So if they were faking deaths for Ward to infiltrate Hydra, they're taking a big chance that they won't be thrown off the plane while in mid flight.


Well, the alternative plan would be for Victoria to die with no chance at all, to get Ward into Hyrda. Some chance is better than no chance.

The way that scene played out, it was so awkward the way Victoria brought up Ward killing Garrett, it is extremely likely she was doing something tricky. I suppose it could be her giving up her life to get Ward into Hydra, but I think it would make more sense for her to have some plan with a non-zero chance of surviving her shooting.

But Victoria's character is already strange on this show. The fact that she would order the deaths of everyone on Coulson's plane (except for Coulson) based on circumstantial evidence makes her something of a wildcard.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Coulson did take Ward aside in the corridor after Garret was captured. He could have ordered Ward to fake a betrayal at that point, but it still doesn't explain killing Hand and the guards. It would be hard to fake killing them right in front of Garret.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Well, the alternative plan would be for Victoria to die with no chance at all, to get Ward into Hyrda. Some chance is better than no chance.
> 
> The way that scene played out, it was so awkward the way Victoria brought up Ward killing Garrett and giving Ward the gun, it is extremely likely she was doing something tricky. I suppose it could be her giving up her life to get Ward into Hydra, but I think it would make more sense for her to have some plan with a non-zero chance of surviving her shooting.
> 
> But Victoria's character is already strange on this show. The fact that she would order the deaths of everyone on Coulson's plane (except for Coulson) based on circumstantial evidence makes her something of a wildcard.


Yeah, Victoria seemed more of a by-the-book hardass. So letting Ward kill Garret and not go through some kind of due process seems weird.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Victoria handing Ward the gun seems suspicious, like it could have special SHIELD tech in it that would allow her to fake her death. Right now I'm in the camp that thinks Ward is going to be a double-agent working for Coulson inside Hydra.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Maybe he did but Lorelei simply didn't care.
> It's not like Coulson can go ask her.
> 
> Here's another thing, we assumed that the other woman that Ward talked about to Lorelei was Skye.
> ...


Whoa... hadn't thought of that.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Shakhari said:


> Coulson did take Ward aside in the corridor after Garret was captured. He could have ordered Ward to fake a betrayal at that point, but it still doesn't explain killing Hand and the guards. It would be hard to fake killing them right in front of Garret.


If you subscribe to the theory that Ward is actually working for SHIELD after all, one alternative is that Coulson ordered Ward to kill Hand and the other two in order to establish/protect his cover.

That has some very dark implications that I don't think this show is ready to show in Coulson.



loubob57 said:


> Yeah, Victoria seemed more of a by-the-book hardass. So letting Ward kill Garret and not go through some kind of due process seems weird.


It's not that surprising to me from what I've seen of Hand in the comics.
She was the type who would be willing to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

On a lighter note: couldn't help noticing that despite "Turn, Turn, Turn" being the episode title, they didn't play that song, they played "Don't Fear the Reaper."


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Some upcoming guest star news



Spoiler



Cobie Smulders will appear in the April 29th episode and Samuel L Jackson will be in the finale

http://tvline.com/2014/04/09/marvels-agents-of-shield-cobie-smulders-returns-agent-maria-hill/


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

It occurs to me that there may not be anyone who is the Clairvoyant. The Clairvoyant could be a totally made up persona, used as cover by Hydra. Since there are no actual powers, but just access to info (which Hydra clearly had), there is no reason there was an actual person that was the Clairvoyant.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

eddyj said:


> It occurs to me that there may not be anyone who is the Clairvoyant. The Clairvoyant could be a totally made up persona, used as cover by Hydra. Since there are no actual powers, but just access to info (which Hydra clearly had), there is no reason there was an actual person that was the Clairvoyant.


I wondered about this, too. In the producer interview I linked to above, they talked about how they kind of had to stall for the first 2/3 of the season, with the threat first being Centipede and then the Clairvoyant. This because they knew the actual threat was Hydra, but they couldn't name it until CA:TWS came out. So they had to throw those other ones out there. After reading that, I wondered if the Clairvoyant is basically just a MacGuffin, as you suggest.

That said, someone has been on the other end of the line in the few instances where the Clairvoyant has made phone calls. And when Garrett was asked how high the Hydra conspiracy goes, he said, "You have no idea." So my guess is the truth is kind of a blend: there actually is someone in the role of "the Clairvoyant" -- that is, the head guy -- but the "Clairvoyant" thing is just a label to obscure his identity. There really is no pretense that this person is all-knowing. He just has access to all the data because he's the top guy.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Sadly, all this improvement may be a moot point...

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Ratings-SHIELD-NCIS-1080241.aspx


----------



## tibruk (Nov 28, 2003)

caslu said:


> Sadly, all this improvement may be a moot point...
> 
> http://www.tvguide.com/News/Ratings-SHIELD-NCIS-1080241.aspx


I don't think that these numbers are bad enough to not renew for next year. Still in 2nd place. Give it time to get past everything that people got turned off from. Let's see how it does next week. I think it will take this week's good reviews to bring people back.

Tib


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

I think Disney has too much invested in this show, it gets renewed for sure.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

It's basically a weekly ad for for the Marvel movies. ABC will keep it, but I don't think they'll keep it opposite NCIS.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TV By The Numbers has it in the renew column.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

milo99 said:


> well here's another thought. When Ward freed Garrett, Garrett almost seemed surprised, and Ward and he nodded to each other. If Garrett was the big dog, he wouldn't have looked so surprised IMO.


I took it as:

no one really knows who is hydra... the infiltration is 70 years in the making, and has gone through several generations.

I took it as garrett was surprised.. pleasantly surprised... like, "sweet, I'm not going to die... wow, ward is hydra, didn't see that coming... "

another example of this: when the guards came to take garrett, and garrett just said: I'm guessing some of you are hydra, you know what to do... do it now... and the hydra guards shot the shield guards. he had no idea who was hydra, just playing the odds.

also, if garrett is the the big dog, everyone would know about him, but he would have no way of knowing everyone under him.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I wonder how much of the low rating for this episode has to do with people who haven't seen the movie yet and don't want it spoiled.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

DancnDude said:


> Victoria handing Ward the gun seems suspicious, like it could have special SHIELD tech in it that would allow her to fake her death. Right now I'm in the camp that thinks Ward is going to be a double-agent working for Coulson inside Hydra.


SHIELD Tech?? You mean like blank bullets and an exploding blood pouch, like they do in Hollywood?

I'm in the Ward-as-a-triple-agent camp.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

JoeyJoJo said:


> Ward swore to Coulson that he wasn't operating under anyone's orders when he shot the fake Clairvoyant, and he told May and Skye that he did it to protect Skye.


For what it's worth, that may actually be true. His shooting of the fake Clairvoyant may have been spur of the moment rather than part of a prearranged plan.

His apparent feelings for Skye may be real. That's the cheap and easy way out writers often take to have a villain defeated: they hesitate confronting their apparent love interest and lose the fight.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

It's clear now that Hand was loyal, but am I the only person that thought Hand's speech about "Hydra succeeds because they befriend you" applied as much to her as to actual Hydra agents?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't see Ward's relationship with Skye amounting to much now.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

dtle said:


> SHIELD Tech?? You mean like blank bullets and an exploding blood pouch, like they do in Hollywood?
> 
> I'm in the Ward-as-a-triple-agent camp.


Any number of things I suppose. Special bullets that when shot at somebody don't kill, but stun and dissolve into blood? Bullets with that alien serum in them (the stuff that healed Coulson and Skye), so they'll simultaneously kill somebody then heal them in a certain amount of time? It's not unreasonable to think that Hand would know more about that stuff and how much further along the research and development might have been.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> Any number of things I suppose. Special bullets that when shot at somebody don't kill, but stun and dissolve into blood?


Heh. What was the movie where the guy who all those people with the "special bullets" that looked like they kill people but don't, and then expressed his shock that the girl he was talking to was stupid enough to believe that those people weren't actually dead? 

(Heathers, I think...)


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

bruinfan said:


> no one really knows who is hydra...
> 
> another example of this: when the guards came to take garrett, and garrett just said: I'm guessing some of you are hydra, you know what to do... do it now... and the hydra guards shot the shield guards.


Give that a second thought. See the logical inconsistency now?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Give that a second thought. See the logical inconsistency now?


I had the same thought as you, but realistically Garrett was a field agent so he didn't know any of those guys, presumably hydra agents in the same unit would know each other, they had to get recruited somehow; not everyone can be an army of one.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

john4200 said:


> ...
> 
> But Victoria's character is already strange on this show. The fact that she would order the deaths of everyone on Coulson's plane (except for Coulson) based on circumstantial evidence makes her something of a wildcard.


Which is why if she's not HYDRA that still doesn't make her good or anyone you'd want having any kind of power.

And if everyone on the plane is so dangerous that they need to be shot on sight like rabid dogs, why would you take the risk of escape by Coulson, in some ways the most dangerous of all, by taking him alive?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

unitron said:


> Which is why if she's not HYDRA that still doesn't make her good or anyone you'd want having any kind of power.
> 
> And if everyone on the plane is so dangerous that they need to be shot on sight like rabid dogs, why would you take the risk of escape by Coulson, in some ways the most dangerous of all, by taking him alive?


My guess would be that Hand wanted to question him.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

JYoung said:


> My guess would be that Hand wanted to question him.


Yeah, but with good guys who are that cavalier about appointing themselves investigating officer, judge, jury, and executioner--who needs bad guys?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

unitron said:


> Yeah, but with good guys who are that cavalier about appointing themselves investigating officer, judge, jury, and executioner--who needs bad guys?


We don't know that she was planning on executing everyone on the ship, though. When she said "take them out", I don't think that was a euphemism for killing everyone. I think she literally meant to take them out of the ship.

We know that when she told her men to "tie up those loose ends" regarding Simmons and Triplett, she only meant for them to be found to ensure they weren't up to anything malicious. So when she earlier talked about crossing Garrett "off the list with the rest of them", I think she literally meant to cross them off the list of people she trusted.

Now, it is true she launched drones to shoot down Garrett's plane. But maybe she knew for sure he was Hydra. And she probably strongly suspected Coulson because of the things she mentioned as well as Garrett going to him for help. But in spite of one of her men advising her to shoot down Coulson's plane, she instead decided to bring them in. And she gave Simmons and Triplett a chance to prove themselves even though they both worked for suspected Hydra agents.

I think we can also safely assume that the people shooting up the plane when it landed were Hydra agents. We know Hand wanted Coulson alive for questioning, so she would not have ordered them to shoot at May and Coulson. The ones taking out the weapons might have been working for Hand, but the ones shooting when May got hit were either Hydra agents or unknowingly following the orders of Hydra agents.

If Garrett had been able to contact them, he might have asked them to try to take out May and Coulson to remove them as potential threats. Or they might have been simply under orders to take out any non-Hydra agents, and knowing that Coulson and his team were falsely suspected of being Hydra agents, could do so under the guise of still being on S.H.I.E.L.D.'s side.

The viewers were obviously meant to think Hand was alluding to killing Coulson's team, but she never explicitly gave the order to do that. The closest she got was her regretting not shooting down Coulson's plane, but that was after everyone had escaped the plane. At that point she probably figured they were all working together as Hydra agents, and regretted giving them the opportunity to infiltrate her base.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> We don't know that she was planning on executing everyone on the ship, though. When she said "take them out", I don't think that was a euphemism for killing everyone. I think she literally meant to take them out of the ship.


Ha! I think there is zero chance that is what she meant. In the context, "take them out" clearly meant kill them. If they were just to capture them, then she could have said "capture them all" (no need to make an exception for Coulson).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Ha! I think there is zero chance that is what she meant. In the context, "take them out" clearly meant kill them. If they were just to capture them, then she could have said "capture them all" (no need to make an exception for Coulson).


Maybe she was trying set up dates for all of them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> Maybe she was trying set up dates for all of them.


Aw, she's just a big softy deep inside.

I hope the softiness isn't the part that Garrett excavated from her skull.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Ha! I think there is zero chance that is what she meant. In the context, "take them out" clearly meant kill them. If they were just to capture them, then she could have said "capture them all" (no need to make an exception for Coulson).


The exception might have been to leave him for her to question, not to leave him alive. Until they all fled the ship together, she might have thought the rest of Coulson's team was innocent, and wanted to separate them from him. When she was talking to Simmons about Coulson, she only accused him of being Hydra. (Well, maybe Ward. But it's unclear if she meant Ward shot the "Clairvoyant" because he was Hydra or simply because he was following Coulson's orders.) I'm sure Simmons would have at the very least defended Fitz if she thought Hand suspected him of being Hydra.

If Hand was so gung ho about killing everyone on Coulson and Garrett's teams, why did she give Simmons and Triplett a chance to prove their loyalty? We saw a bunch of people being arrested under her order, but never anyone being executed. And those were people she knew for sure were Hydra agents.

If she really were the type to shoot first and ask questions later, we would have seen her act a lot more aggressively. Instead, we merely saw a lot of implied aggression that was meant to be taken out of context. After Coulson and the others escaped the plane, she told one of her men to capture who they could, but use lethal force if necessary.

Why would she want everyone on the plane dead when she wasn't sure which of them were Hydra, but then all of the suddenly want them captured alive if possible when they had escaped the plane, and it was clear they were working together?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> The exception might have been to leave him for her to question, not to leave him alive.


No, the exception was quite obviously to kill everyone except Coulson.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> No, the exception was quite obviously to kill everyone except Coulson.


It's only "obvious" if you ignore everything that I pointed out.

Again, why would she tell one of her men to capture them if possible if she wanted them all dead except for Coulson? Why not have her men walk into the room and shoot Simmons and Triplett on sight?

For that matter, you seem to think she would have specifically said "capture them" if she wanted them captured. Well, if she wanted only Coulson alive, why didn't she say, "leave him alive"? Her words were deliberately meant to be ambiguous.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Her words were "take out everyone on the plane except Coulson. Leave him to me." Now if she meant capture, how would that order be interpreted? Capture everyone, but let Coulson go free? It sounded like the Hand wanted to personally kill Coulson. 

She later said she should have blown the plane out of the sky.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> Her words were "take out everyone on the plane except Coulson. Leave him to me." Now if she meant capture, how would that order be interpreted? Capture everyone, but let Coulson go free? It sounded like the Hand wanted to personally kill Coulson.


I suppose it could have been a "Will no one rid me of this turbulant priest?" moment... 

(No, it couldn't.)


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

morac said:


> Her words were "take out everyone on the plane except Coulson. Leave him to me." Now if she meant capture, how would that order be interpreted? Capture everyone, but let Coulson go free? It sounded like the Hand wanted to personally kill Coulson.


And that's what it was supposed to sound like to us during the previous episode. But what we didn't see was shortly before, one of her men advised her to blow up the plane just to be safe, and she decided to bring it in instead.

We were deliberately shown a few of her sentences taken out of context, but presumably her men were part of a longer conversation that made it clear they were meant to secure the plane, and leave Coulson for her to deal with.



morac said:


> She later said she should have blown the plane out of the sky.


But that was after everyone had escaped the plane with Coulson and Garrett. At that point, she probably suspected that them working together meant they were all Hydra. From her point of view, they were infiltrating her base. And it was partly her fault because she had recalled the plane instead of blowing it up.

Given Garrett's plan to kill Hand and the deadly traps he set up to take out the agents boarding the plane, she was actually half right. Garrett was using Coulson's team to help him take control of the base from her.

Even at that point, however, Hand still told one of her men to capture them if possible. If she was willing to try to capture them when her suspicions were at their greatest, I don't see why she would have wanted them all dead except for Coulson at the point in time when she had just recalled the plane.

Actions speak louder than words. We saw her arresting people and giving them loyalty tests. She never called for the execution of even known Hydra agents, so why would she want to execute merely suspected ones? And given that half of the agents that showed up to arrest Coulson and the others ended up being Hydra, she apparently was erring on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

This is not a literary debate about the meaning of something from a novel.

These were quick verbal orders to soldiers. Such orders are straightforward. Soldiers know that "take out" means kill (or at the very least, disable indefinitely, with a kill being perfectly acceptable).

There is zero doubt that Victoria's orders meant to kill everyone on the plane except Coulson.

Whatever inconsistencies that may happen in later events are simply writing or production mistakes.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

The way she said it made it sound like she meant kill everyone except Coulson.

"Take out everyone on the plane" is not the same as "Take everyone out of the plane".

If that was intentional misdirection by the script writers, then congratulations to them, they misdirected me.

Although I'm not sure I understand what they hoped to accomplish by doing so.

At the time it made me suspect her of being HYDRA (and I'm still not convinced that she isn't--or wasn't, depending on the future state of her health).

Now I wonder how many other good guys she's treated unjustly.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> These were quick verbal orders to soldiers. Such orders are straightforward. Soldiers know that "take out" means kill (or at the very least, disable indefinitely, with a kill being perfectly acceptable).


If they were pointing their guns at Coulson's team, and she said, "Take them out," that would be one thing. But she said, "When that plane touches down, take out everyone on board."

That could mean any number of non-lethal things from simply removing them from the plane to knocking them unconscious. When Mike Peterson was shot with the icer in the pilot, I would have considered that to have been "taking him out".

"Tying up loose ends" is also used as a euphemism to mean killing people who are threats. But when she said that regarding Simmons and Triplett, she obviously simply meant to secure them. The fact that her men didn't interpret that to mean kill Simmons and Triplett implies that they knew she wouldn't order them to kill someone simply for being a suspected Hydra agent.



john4200 said:


> There is zero doubt that Victoria's orders meant to kill everyone on the plane except Coulson.


If she truly wanted everyone else dead, the only reason she would have wanted Coulson alive would have been because he was a high level agent, and she wanted to question him. But if so, then why would she later tell her men regarding Garrett to "cross him off the list with the others"? Even if "the others" did not include Coulson, why would she want Coulson alive, but not Garrett?

And if she did want Garrett alive, then "cross him off the list" must not have meant she wanted him dead. But if that's the case, then "with the others" implies she didn't want the others dead either. There would be no need to cross the others off of her list of allies if they were dead.



john4200 said:


> Whatever inconsistencies that may happen in later events are simply writing or production mistakes.


If there was any writing mistakes, it was in their choice of the words "take out", not in the later events. To me, it was clear from the last episode that the writers intended for the viewers to think Hand wanted to execute Coulson's team, but not have her actually want that.

They deliberately picked phrases that are often used to imply killing, but never had her specifically give that order. The idea was to make us think she was Hydra, and they reinforced that idea by making us think she wanted to kill Coulson's team.

If the goal was to make Hand into a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, they would have made her order Coulson's team to be killed after they had escaped, and had Simmons protest the others' innocence. She would, of course, have replied to that by saying that they couldn't take any chances.

That would have actually been an interesting arc, to have Coulson's team fight Hydra, while at the same time questioning whether what was left of S.H.I.E.L.D. was worth fighting for.

But as soon as we found out which side she was on, Hand's lines became less ambiguous, and she specifically said she wanted Coulson's team captured if possible. I don't think that was an accident. Once we knew which side she was on, there was no longer any need to make us think she wanted Coulson's team killed. In fact, they probably had her specifically say those lines to clear up any doubt about her intentions.

Perhaps it didn't work as well as they intended.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> That could mean any number of non-lethal things from simply removing them from the plane to knocking them unconscious.


Wrong again. In that context, "take them out" obviously means kill them (although seriously wounding them so they are helpless would be acceptable). There is no other possible meaning in the context of quick orders given to soldiers.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. In that context, "take them out" obviously means kill them (although seriously wounding them so they are helpless would be acceptable). There is no other possible meaning in the context of quick orders given to soldiers.


Quick orders? It's not like they didn't have plenty of time before the plane got there. There was no need for her to give quick orders. They only seemed "quick" to us because we were only shown a few sentences out of what I'm assuming was a longer conversation, a conversation that, given what happened in the last episode obviously did not involve her wanting the rest of Coulson's team dead.

There is another possible meaning if you take into account, oh I don't know, everything that happened in the last episode. But if you want to ignore all of that, and put everything on one sentence that she said, fine. Even so, it's not as "obvious" as you are making it out to be.

She wasn't talking to a bunch of soldiers invading the plane with guns blazing. She was talking to a few comrades while planning how to secure the plane. Why would she want to keep Coulson alive to question, arrest all of the other known Hydra agents at her base, but for some reason want May, Ward, Skye, and Fitz dead? She didn't even bring May, Skye, and Fitz up when talking to Simmons about her suspicions regarding Coulson.

Admittedly, she did order drones to take out Garrett, who presumably she knew for sure was Hydra. But that was because she couldn't take control of his plane and bring him back in for questioning. Once he was on the plane, why wouldn't she have wanted him kept alive along with Coulson? Surely if she wanted to keep Coulson, who she only strongly suspected was Hydra, alive, she would have done the same for Garrett, who she knew for sure would be someone who could give her insight into their operations.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> There is another possible meaning if you take into account, oh I don't know, everything that happened in the last episode.


Wrong again. There is only one possible meaning of those orders in that context.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. There is only one possible meaning of those orders in that context.


Why? Because you say so? Because somehow you know that nowhere in all of space and time in this universe and all fictional ones has anyone ever said "take out everyone", and not meant "kill them all"?

Saying "wrong again" a bunch of times doesn't make you right. I have fully explained my position, and all you have done is say, "There is only one possible meaning," as if that is some absolute, unquestionable truth.

The irony is that "to take out" became a euphemism for killing because people didn't want to explicitly say "kill". But now it apparently cannot have any other meaning.

Yes, in many cases those words would have meant "kill". But that was the point. We were supposed to think Hand wanted them dead. We were meant to hear those words in the wrong context.

But now, in light of every other thing that Hand did, it is obvious to anyone who doesn't look at that one sentence in isolation that Hand did not want the rest of Coulson's team dead.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> Why?


Sorry to agree with John, but, because it's the only sane interpretation.

I suspect you probably have the writers' intent nailed. But if so, the writers' intent is just plain wrong wrong wrong. "Take them out" is completely unambiguous; wishing it were otherwise don't make it so. I suspect they were trying to be too clever, and were idiots instead.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Sorry to agree with John, but, because it's the only sane interpretation.
> 
> I suspect you probably have the writers' intent nailed. But if so, the writers' intent is just plain wrong wrong wrong. "Take them out" is completely unambiguous; wishing it were otherwise don't make it so. I suspect they were trying to be too clever, and were idiots instead.


But Hand only means what the writers intend her to mean. If you want to argue that no person in the real world during this time period would have used "take out everyone" in the manner that Hand did without wanting everyone killed, that's a different argument.

This whole line of discussion was regarding Hand's character, not how realistically she spoke.

I already agreed that "take out everyone" was not the best choice of words on the writers' part. But I think it is far more likely they made the mistake there in choosing words that were not as ambiguous as they thought than that they intended for Hand to be a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, and wrote the entire previous episode wrong. (Although, if they did, maybe that's why they killed her. "Oops, we didn't make her aggressive enough! Well, I guess she can't be our ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent anymore. Take her out!" (literally) (...or is that figuratively? ))

I think they were trying to leave as little question as possible that Hand was Hydra, and so they picked a phrase that left very little room for ambiguity, but gave her a technical out so they could surprise us with the, "Hand's not the bad guy; Garrett is!" reveal. We needed to think Hand was Hydra so that her attempt on Garrett's life would make us think he wasn't.

If they intended for Hand to be a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, it would have been far easier for them to convince us she was Hydra. They could have shown her executing Hydra agents (who we would have thought were S.H.I.E.L.D.). They could have had her men attack Simmons and Triplett, forcing them to go on the run. They could have written her to order Coulson's team to be "taken out" after they had escaped, to the dismay of Simmons.

None of those things would have changed the outcome of the show. Once she found out Coulson and the others were not Hydra, she would have stopped her aggressive attempt on their lives. But it would have been an interesting dichotomy to have shown all of her actions alongside Coulson who argued against the idea of taking out Hand without question. And they could have raised the philosophical question of, "What makes Hydra Hydra? People wanting to join them or people merely acting like them?" (Perhaps along with the cheesy line from Coulson, "I don't know if I should call you Agent Hand or Agent Head.")

Instead, they wrote her using ambiguous phrases such as, "tie up loose ends", which we know did not mean "kill" and "take off the list", which I have argued also did not mean "kill". And they had her unambiguously order Coulson's team to be captured, with lethal force used only if necessary. Why waste time dancing around the issue when they could have made her much bolder in her defense of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

I have no plans to go around telling groups of people to "take out everyone" when I don't intend for them to be killed. (When I do so, it will be because I want them all dead. ) So I have no personal desire for it to be used that way, nor do I want a bunch of other people to start using the phrase in that manner. I'm not defending the use of the phrase "take out everyone" because I want it to mean what I think the writers meant. I'm defending it simply because I think that's what they actually meant.

And who knows, maybe it will eventually evolve to being used more often for non-lethal actions. After all, what is language evolution, but a big series of people getting things wrong?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> But Hand only means what the writers intend her to mean. If you want to argue that no person in the real world during this time period would have used "take out everyone" in the manner that Hand did without wanting everyone killed, that's a different argument.


No, she doesn't, and no, it's not.

She said what she said. Yes, the writers made her say it...but you and I (apparently) believe they intended for her to say something other than what she actually said (because what she actually said means, unambiguously, "Kill them").

So I think the argument here is you are talking about authorial intent, and John is talking about what's on the screen. In which case, you're both (probably) right (John clearly, you apparently), but it only matters what John thinks because it only matters what's on the screen, not what's in the writers' head. They blew this one, very very badly. And understanding why they blew it doesn't change that.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

/unsubscribe


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, she doesn't, and no, it's not.
> 
> She said what she said. Yes, the writers made her say it...but you and I (apparently) believe they intended for her to say something other than what she actually said (because what she actually said means, unambiguously, "Kill them").
> 
> So I think the argument here is you are talking about authorial intent, and John is talking about what's on the screen. In which case, you're both (probably) right (John clearly, you apparently), but it only matters what John thinks because it only matters what's on the screen, not what's in the writers' head. They blew this one, very very badly. And understanding why they blew it doesn't change that.


We're not watching a documentary here. There was no actual real person who said those words. If this were based on a true story, and we found out that the person Hand was based on didn't actually want Coulson's team dead, we would probably think the writers took artistic license with her words. But that doesn't change Hand's character. (By which I mean, the virtuousness of her traits, not the person played by the actor.)

The only thing that matters with regards to Hand's character is how Hand's fictional men interpreted her orders, not how any of us interpreted them. If Hand did not intend to order the deaths of Coulson's team, and her men did not interpret it that way, then that's what her words meant.

Whether or not her intent was badly communicated to the viewers is irrelevant with regards to the question of whether or not she was a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent.

Many people questioned why the characters didn't talk to each in realistic ways in Lost. But nobody claimed that the characters must have talked off screen, and only pretended not to know certain information because no real people wouldn't have shared information like that.

Writers bend the laws of physics, geography, and governments all the time. It's not surprising they would do so with language as well in attempt to add dramatic effect. This isn't the first time writers have cheated by making a character act unrealistically in a situation to throw off viewers.

In light of this episode, I think it's clear that the writers did not intend for Hand to be a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. The fact that she spoke unrealistically at the end of the previous episode doesn't change that.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> In light of this episode, I think it's clear that the writers did not intend for Hand to be a ruthless S.H.I.E.L.D. agent. The fact that she spoke unrealistically at the end of the previous episode doesn't change that.


Of course she is. She gave a gun to Hand to kill Garret in cold blood, while restrained to his seat. How much more ruthless do you want?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> /unsubscribe


Seriously.

The only way this thread could get any worse is if SHIELD had a crossover episode with The Big Bang Theory.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> Seriously.
> 
> The only way this thread could get any worse is if SHIELD had a crossover episode with The Big Bang Theory.


At least the BBT arguments actually make sense, even if they are wild derailments. This one, not so much.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I wonder if Agent Hand is a felonious alcoholic...


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I'll be a dissenting opinion--I thought the episode was lousy, in large part because of the things people are debating about in this thread. The entire episode was lazy writing. Everybody said whatever it took to keep the viewer completely misdirected, even if they later conflicted themselves.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> I have fully explained my position, and all you have done is say, "There is only one possible meaning," as if that is some absolute, unquestionable truth.


You just have to come up with the correct interpretation of what I wrote, then you will see that it is indeed unquestionable truth. Because that is what this writer intended.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Of course she is. She gave a gun to Hand to kill Garret in cold blood, while restrained to his seat. How much more ruthless do you want?


That depends on whether or not she was giving her life to get Ward into Hydra.

But even if she truly wanted Garrett executed, there's a difference between that (which she already demonstrated by launching drones at him) and killing unknowns like Ward, May, Skye, and Fitz just to be safe.



doom1701 said:


> I'll be a dissenting opinion--I thought the episode was lousy, in large part because of the things people are debating about in this thread. The entire episode was lazy writing. Everybody said whatever it took to keep the viewer completely misdirected, even if they later conflicted themselves.


No matter what people's thoughts are on what the writers intended by the use of "take everyone out", they cheated in order to surprise us with the fact that she wasn't Hydra. Either they cheated by using a phrase that doesn't realistically mean what they intended it to mean, or they made Hand arbitrarily do a 180 from wanting Coulson's team dead to captured if possible.

If we're talking about the quality of the writing, I would even go so far as to say the phrase "tie up loose ends", which we know Hand didn't use to mean "kill" was not realistically used. When that phrase is not used to refer to something mundane, it typically means "kill". I've never heard of anyone in the real world using that phrase to mean "bring in for questioning at gunpoint".

But Hand used that phrase because the writers wanted to imply that she wanted Simmons and Triplett dead while being able to surprise us with the fact that she really didn't.



john4200 said:


> You just have to come up with the correct interpretation of what I wrote, then you will see that it is indeed unquestionable truth. Because that is what this writer intended.


If we were talking about a universe that you created, then of course whatever you intended with that universe would be the unquestionable truth. If you wrote about a character that you said was 6 years old, but the character didn't realistically act like a 6-year-old, that wouldn't mean the character within your universe wasn't 6 years old. It would just mean the character was poorly written.

But we aren't talking about your universe; we are talking about Marvel's.

Even in the real world, if I told my men, "take everyone out", and I didn't intend for them to kill anyone, but they did, that wouldn't make me ruthless. It would make me stupid and still at fault for people's deaths, but my ruthlessness would depend solely on what I intended my men to do, not on how anyone else interpreted my words.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> That depends on whether or not she was giving her life to get Ward into Hydra. But even if she truly wanted Garrett executed, there's a difference between that (which she already demonstrated by launching drones at him) and killing unknowns like Ward, May, Skye, and Fitz just to be safe.


I'm fairly certain Hand believed Garrett was Hydra because of his association with Coulson, not the other way around. Remember didn't say she suspected Coulson was Hydra, she flat out said he was Hydra and listed the reasons: not following orders, going off on his own missions, etc. Garrett was targeted because he had recently been with Coulson's group. She attacked his plane because she couldn't control it to land it. She mentioned she wanted to keep the hardware which is why she didn't just shoot down Coulson's plane as will.

Also remember she was trying to covertly dispose off Hydra agents while at the same time pretending to be one. She would have killed Simmons if the guy she was with hadn't said he'd rather die than join Hydra. She mentioned a number of times that there are no prisoners in this war.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> But we aren't talking about your universe; we are talking about Marvel's.


Wrong again. We are talking about my post. I intended to write the unquestionable truth in the post I created -- "take them out" has zero ambiguity in that context. You simply have to find the correct interpretation of my post and you will see the unquestionable truth as this writer intended.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. We are talking about my post. I intended to write the unquestionable truth in the post I created -- "take them out" has zero ambiguity in that context. You simply have to find the correct interpretation of my post and you will see the unquestionable truth as this writer intended.


There is a difference between fiction and reality.

If I write, "The sky is red," the fact that I wrote it doesn't make it the unquestionable truth. But if I create a story, and in that story I say that the Earth has a red sky, then it is (within the context of that universe).

If I write, "We can travel faster than the speed of light," the fact that I wrote it doesn't make it the unquestionable truth. But if I create a story, and in that story I say that people can, then it is.

When it comes to real people, each of us gets to decide the intent of our words. When it comes to fictional characters, the authors get to. You don't get to decide that Hand wanted Coulson's team dead anymore than I get to decide that she did. Neither of us created the Hand character, so we only get to interpret the authors' intent.

Whether or not that intent is properly communicated to others is a separate issue.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

morac said:


> I'm fairly certain Hand believed Garrett was Hydra because of his association with Coulson, not the other way around. Remember didn't say she suspected Coulson was Hydra, she flat out said he was Hydra and listed the reasons: not following orders, going off on his own missions, etc. Garrett was targeted because he had recently been with Coulson's group. She attacked his plane because she couldn't control it to land it. She mentioned she wanted to keep the hardware which is why she didn't just shoot down Coulson's plane as will.


That is a good point. The writers never let us know how much Hand knew about Garrett. I have argued that she didn't mention May, Skye, and Fitz when talking to Simmons, but it is just as true that she didn't mention Garrett. I could argue that she didn't mention Garrett because his allegiance to Hydra went without question, but that would only be a guess. If Hand didn't know about Garrett's allegiances anymore than the rest of Coulson's team, her actions against him would imply she would have been just as willing to kill the rest of them.

But if she was willing to have them executed when they were on the plane, it doesn't make sense to me that she would take the risk of trying to take them alive after they had infiltrated her base. The latter circumstances would have been far more of a threat to her than the former. That, combined with the fact that the writers clearly wanted to surprise us with the reveal that she wasn't Hydra, is what led me to think that they were playing word games with her orders at the end of the previous episode.

Using the phrase "take out everyone on board" to not mean "kill them all" might not be realistic, but relative to her explicit orders to capture Coulson's team alive if possible, I think the latter points more clearly to the writers' intent than the former. In both cases, she would not have been acting realistically. But in the former, there is a technical, if not realistic, room for doubt, while in the latter, there is no question about her (and therefore the writers') intent.

Talking about wanting to preserve the hardware was to me another unrealistic misdirection on their part. The writers wanted to give us a justification for why a Hydra agent wouldn't shoot down Coulson's plane. If Hand truly didn't want the rest of Coulson's team killed on sight, and her men knew that, she wouldn't have been talking with them about bringing the plane back simply to preserve the hardware.



morac said:


> Also remember she was trying to covertly dispose off Hydra agents while at the same time pretending to be one. She would have killed Simmons if the guy she was with hadn't said he'd rather die than join Hydra. She mentioned a number of times that there are no prisoners in this war.


Do we know she was killing anyone who failed her loyalty test? I thought I recalled one of her men talking about having rounded up people, and putting them in a room. At the time, we were meant to think that they were S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, but in retrospect, they were Hydra. She told Simmons and Triplett that they were added to her short list of trusted people, but I don't recall her even implying, let alone outright stating, that they would have died had they failed her test.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> Neither of us created the Hand character, so we only get to interpret the authors' intent.


Wrong again. I created my post, and I get to say in my post what is unquestionable truth. You are simply failing to get the right interpretation of this author's intent.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. I created my post, and I get to say in my post what is unquestionable truth. You are simply failing to get the right interpretation of this author's intent.


Do you have a rational, objective argument for why it is more likely that the writers intended for Hand to want Coulson's team dead at the end of the previous episode, but arbitrarily changed her attitude in this one, than that the writers never intended for Hand to want Coulson's team dead, and deliberately had her use words to mislead us? Or are you just going to keep making baseless statements about how wrong I am?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> Do you have a rational, objective argument for why it is more likely that the writers intended for Hand to want Coulson's team dead at the end of the previous episode, but arbitrarily changed her attitude in this one, than that the writers never intended for Hand to want Coulson's team dead, and deliberately had her use words to mislead us? Or are you just going to keep making baseless statements about how wrong I am?


If only you could correctly interpret the intentions of the writer of these posts, you would not have to ask such questions. Or, you know, if you would just read what was actually written.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

I like the Marvel universe, as I'm guessing everyone here does. But did anyone else find it to be a bit of a BS move for Marvel to essentially say, "So the new Captain America movie comes out this weekend, and you really should watch it before you continue watching this show"? I'm not a huge Captain America guy so had they not indicated that such a twist was going to have a major role in the movie I probably would've waited for it to come out on video. It's not a huge deal, but it just struck me as a bit of a crappy move.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

I think it's cool to have it integrated with the film. I thought earlier crossovers were just b.s. cameos. As much as I liked seeing Hill and Fury in the early episodes, I thought, "if you're going to have a crossover, have a crossover."

I liked CA2. Though I saw it because someone at work recommended it, and I like ScarJo, not to avoid having AoS spoil it. For that, I just read the wikipedia plot summary before seeing the film. My only complaint about CA2 is really:



Spoiler



If you're holding an automatic weapon and some guy is running at you with a shield, why don't you shoot at his feet?



That reminds me, I still need to watch CA1.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> I like the Marvel universe, as I'm guessing everyone here does. But did anyone else find it to be a bit of a BS move for Marvel to essentially say, "So the new Captain America movie comes out this weekend, and you really should watch it before you continue watching this show"? I'm not a huge Captain America guy so had they not indicated that such a twist was going to have a major role in the movie I probably would've waited for it to come out on video. It's not a huge deal, but it just struck me as a bit of a crappy move.


It was basically a move to increase weekend sales for the movie and boost ratings for the show. Yeah it's kind of a cheap shot, but I guess they figured if you're enough of a fan to be watching SHIELD, then you'll see the movie opening weekend anyway. I was planning on seeing it, just not right away, but ended up doing so so there ploy worked.

What I think is more BSy is showing movie spoilers in promos for SHIELD during other shows on other networks. I saw a problem for this week's episode which is 2 hours with the first hour being a repeat of last week. Any way the promo specifically mention HYDRA, so if you're trying to avoid movie spoilers you can't just stop watching this show, you need to stop watching TV period, that or make sure you're really quick on the draw with fast forward/skip.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

morac said:


> What I think is more BSy is showing movie spoilers in promos for SHIELD during other shows on other networks. I saw a problem for this week's episode which is 2 hours with the first hour being a repeat of last week. Any way the promo specifically mention HYDRA, so if you're trying to avoid movie spoilers you can't just stop watching this show, you need to stop watching TV period, that or make sure you're really quick on the draw with fast forward/skip.


Except HYDRA had been prominently mentioned in this week's SHIELD episode, so you can't really expect the networks to avoid that type of plot line in future trailers. I get the argument that HYDRA was "revealed" in the movie, but it was also in the show. Networks are never going to protect spoilers in their promos for people who haven't watched the prior week's episode.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

alpacaboy said:


> My only complaint about CA2 is really:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't tell you how many times I thought that same thing.

As for CA1, do it. It gets better every time I see it--they were able to go a little more over the top "comic booky" than with the other Marvel Universe movies, which made it a lot of fun, IMO.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Except HYDRA had been prominently mentioned in this week's SHIELD episode, so you can't really expect the networks to avoid that type of plot line in future trailers. I get the argument that HYDRA was "revealed" in the movie, but it was also in the show. Networks are never going to protect spoilers in their promos for people who haven't watched the prior week's episode.


Yes but the promos are airing on other entirely different networks owned by Disney . If someone was trying to avoid spoilers they basically can't watch any Disney owned network (ESPN for example).


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

morac said:


> Yes but the promos are airing on other entirely different networks owned by Disney . If someone was trying to avoid spoilers they basically can't watch any Disney owned network (ESPN for example).


This isn't anything new. Corporations have been cross-promoting shows on other networks they own for years. To my knowledge they're not running promos that say...



Spoiler



Nick Fury is alive



...which is a legitimate movie spoiler. They're saying, "HYDRA exists", which is something that has aired on the show. Keep in mind that the networks - and the corporations that run them - don't give a damn about anyone's spoilers. After that show has aired all they care about is getting you to watch the next one.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I think it would have been a crappier move to run this episode without any warning and spoiled the movie.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Apologies for the quote fest - I got to this episode late because I didn't have the chance to see the movie until yesterday; and had held off on the episode until post-movie. Then was able to read this thread.
_So_ glad I saw them in the correct order.


Azlen said:


> Looks like Fury can thank Fitz for the mouse hole device.


Yeah I saw that and loved it. (Had to rewind after Fitz mentioned it; I'd initially missed the slightly glowing cut edges beneath the floor grating. Really liked this episode!



Gerryex said:


> Also I'm probably not going to see Winter Soldier for a while and I don't mind being spoiler-ed but is this the main stuff in the movie that relates to the show:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beyond what you mentioned the


Spoiler



destroyed Helicarriers at the Triskelion were a pretty big part of the movie. In fact on a couple of the TV monitors in the show during the scene where that is mentioned you can see bits of movie footage related to that.





eddyj said:


> It occurs to me that there may not be anyone who is the Clairvoyant. The Clairvoyant could be a totally made up persona, used as cover by Hydra. Since there are no actual powers, but just access to info (which Hydra clearly had), there is no reason there was an actual person that was the Clairvoyant.


True, the secrets could have been coming from a number of lower level agents rather than one high level agent. Normally you'd assume the later is more likely, but since we know Hydra widely infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D. they could have been getting their intel from all their lower level personnel.

Someone (or at least a small group) must still have issuing orders in the Clairvoyant's name. But that person (or people) need not have been within S.H.I.E.L.D. itself; as long as they received the intel they needed to work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> Beyond what you mentioned the
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Then again, that's in the movie's trailers/commercials, so I would hardly consider it a spoiler...


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Then again, that's in the movie's trailers/commercials, so I would hardly consider it a spoiler...


Guess I managed to successfully miss (almost) all the movie's trailers/commercials so I didn't realize that.

(I _think _the only one I saw was the Nick Fury car scene from the end of the previous episode)


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

morac said:


> It was basically a move to increase weekend sales for the movie and boost ratings for the show. Yeah it's kind of a cheap shot, but I guess they figured if you're enough of a fan to be watching SHIELD, then you'll see the movie opening weekend anyway. I was planning on seeing it, just not right away, but ended up doing so so there ploy worked.


I wouldn't be surprised to find out that their marketing department took full advantage of the situation, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that sales wasn't their primary motive.

They are kind of between a rock and a hard place by having both the movies and television show in the same universe.

On one hand, they could write the stories so that people could watch the movies and show independently without having to worry about spoilers, as they did with Thor. But then they couldn't have any major world-changing events.

On the other hand, having anything big happen requires that it be addressed in both places. Even with the movies alone, it's already kind of gimmicky that during the major conflicts in the hero-specific stories, the other Avengers don't show up to help. So at some point the major events in one medium need to be referenced in the other.

There was no sensible way to tell the story of Hydra practically destroying S.H.I.E.L.D. from the inside without also referencing those events in the show. So they either had to not go that route, or bite the bullet, and hope most fans would see it soon enough to not get mad at them. The existence of DVRs probably helped because they figured many who couldn't see the movie the first weekend could save episodes until they had a chance. Time-delaying the show so that it was set in the past of the events of the movie would simply trade one set of spoilers for another. Everyone who saw the movie would know where the show was going.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> I like the Marvel universe, as I'm guessing everyone here does. But did anyone else find it to be a bit of a BS move for Marvel to essentially say, "So the new Captain America movie comes out this weekend, and you really should watch it before you continue watching this show"? I'm not a huge Captain America guy so had they not indicated that such a twist was going to have a major role in the movie I probably would've waited for it to come out on video. It's not a huge deal, but it just struck me as a bit of a crappy move.


It's funny because a lot of complaints i have been hearing about the show for most of the season and a reason a lot of people blame for the low ratings is that the show didn't feel connected enough to the Marvel movie universe. Now your complaining that it is too connected. I guess you really can't please everyone.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

zuko3984 said:


> It's funny because a lot of complaints i have been hearing about the show for most of the season and a reason a lot of people blame for the low ratings is that the show didn't feel connected enough to the Marvel movie universe. Now your complaining that it is too connected. I guess you really can't please everyone.


I don't take issue with the fact that the movie and TV universes are connected, in fact I like it quite a bit. It was the fact that they basically said, "Here are the previews for next week's episode, and you REALLY need to see this movie we're releasing this weekend before you continue with the show." If this had happened over the winter hiatus, or over the summer break, I'd have no issue.

And in the grand scheme of things it really didn't make a huge difference to me. I've got a DVR, and if I need to delay it a week or two it's not a huge issue.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Except you don't need to see the movie. Everything that you need to know for the show, they gave in the show. As far as the show is concerned, the movie is "deleted scenes."


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Yes you don't need to see the movie to enjoy the show or vice-versa. They enhance each other, but aren't required. Though because they overlap, if you wanted to see the movie without being spoiled you pretty much had to see it opening weekend.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

This episode was at best marginally better than the others, and even then it's probably just because I'm becoming familiar with the idiocy and tropeishness of this show. Sure, I like what they are trying to do with the connections to the rest of the Universe, but that's not enough. And they already told us that was going to be happening a while ago and claimed that was "the big payoff" for sticking with this show. Eh... not really.

Question about the Captain America movie as it relates to SHIELD:



Spoiler



From what I've read (have not seen the movie and won't for some time), it seems pretty clear that Arnim Zola is/was the actual Clairvoyant based on what we learn in the movie. Is that not the case?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Question about the Captain America movie as it relates to SHIELD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



The only thing we know from the movie is that Zola's mind was uploaded into an old computer system. At this point, it is only speculation that he is the Clairvoyant. When watching the movie, I thought he could be, but then wasn't sure how quickly the show would reveal Hydra being involved. Since they did in this episode, I think there's a good chance it could be him. But we don't know for sure one way or the other.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I think I'll stop reading tv episode threads after the second page. It's just people arguing after that point.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing we know from the movie is that Zola's mind was uploaded into an old computer system. At this point, it is only speculation that he is the Clairvoyant. When watching the movie, I thought he could be, but then wasn't sure how quickly the show would reveal Hydra being involved. Since they did in this episode, I think there's a good chance it could be him. But we don't know for sure one way or the other.


Thank you.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I think I'll stop reading tv episode threads after the second page. It's just people arguing after that point.


Well, I do apologize to john4200 for the unnecessarily sarcastic nature of these two posts:



BitbyBlit said:


> There is another possible meaning if you take into account, oh I don't know, everything that happened in the last episode.





BitbyBlit said:


> Why? Because you say so? Because somehow you know that nowhere in all of space and time in this universe and all fictional ones has anyone ever said "take out everyone", and not meant "kill them all"?
> 
> Saying "wrong again" a bunch of times doesn't make you right. I have fully explained my position, and all you have done is say, "There is only one possible meaning," as if that is some absolute, unquestionable truth.
> 
> ...


It was not fair of me to suggest that his disagreement with me meant that he did not comprehend the show. We are all entitled to our opinions. This is, after all, a thread for people to share their thoughts about the show.


----------



## oscarfish (Mar 2, 2009)

Several people have referenced Hand giving the gun to Ward that he used at the end on the plane. When did she do that? I rewatched the end of this episode a couple of times and I just don't see it.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Seems like he draws his own gun to me...


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

latrobe7 said:


> Seems like he draws his own gun to me...


Agreed. For some reason I had a clear memory of her giving him a gun.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

john4200 said:


> Agreed. For some reason I had a clear memory of her giving him a gun.


Odd. I remember it the same way. I would have sworn that she gave him the gun.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Me too! That's really weird.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Didn't she give it to him earlier? I thought it was when she invited him to tag along.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

jehma said:


> Didn't she give it to him earlier? I thought it was when she invited him to tag along.


In my mind's eye, she gave it to him and he immediately used it to take out the two guards and then her (triple-tap).


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Nothing like capping off rounds in a pressurized airplane.  


I guess everyone forgot the lesson learned from Goldfinger.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

danterner said:


> In my mind's eye, she gave it to him and he immediately used it to take out the two guards and then her (triple-tap).


Get out of my head!


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Nothing like capping off rounds in a pressurized airplane.


Yeah, if a round does make it to the skin of the airplane after going through a person a 1/3 to 1/2 inch hole shows up somewhere, and you hear an annoying hissing sound for the rest of the flight.

(Note: planes are already very leaky, that's why you don't get CO2 poisoning during a long flight.)



> I guess everyone forgot the lesson learned from Goldfinger.


Because movies are SOOOO scientifically accurate.

--Carlos V.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Nothing like capping off rounds in a pressurized airplane.
> 
> I guess everyone forgot the lesson learned from Goldfinger.


Mythbusters busted that myth.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> Mythbusters busted that myth.


To be fair, Mythbusters is not always scientifically rigorous either.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

eddyj said:


> To be fair, Mythbusters is not always scientifically rigorous either.


Not always, but this one looked to be rather well done.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I am no longer clear how to feel about the realism of a show that features superheroes with magic powers and a guy brought back from the dead using blue alien goo because I don't know how serious the depressurization threat is on the totally realistic cargo plane with VTOL capabilities carrying a small sports car with hovercraft features.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> Not always, but this one looked to be rather well done.


Bah! They did not go to 30K feet and shoot guns. Totally wimped out on it!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Edit: this post is about the wrong episode.



Spoiler



Ok, so am I the only one who asked, when they get out of the bus in the frozen wilderness, why they were going to WALK to the coordinates when they brought a FLYING CAR with them?

Yes, we now know that the cannon would have shot them down, but they didn't know that when they went for a trek through the frozen wilderness and spent the whole time complaining about how miserable it was.

Flying car, folks. Short trip, 7 miles, in a flying car.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

I was thinking that too, Ereth.

I was talking to a coworker about it and he reminded me that Lola only has two seats.

It wouldn't have been all that safe to have 6 people crowding onto it, not too mention the hell they would catch from Coulson if they scratched her.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

JoeyJoJo said:


> I was thinking that too, Ereth.
> 
> I was talking to a coworker about it and he reminded me that Lola only has two seats.
> 
> It wouldn't have been all that safe to have 6 people crowding onto it, not too mention the hell they would catch from Coulson if they scratched her.


I also thought about the flying car. (And there was a the non-flying SUV parked next to it; which might well have been able to cope with the terrain.)

If you've got a flying car, and time is of the essence, why not just take 2 or 3 people in the car to check out the coordinates and leave the rest to secure the plane. If the location pans out you can shuttle the remaining crew there in Lola more quickly than the whole party could have hiked there. (Or as it turns out they had to go back and move the plane into the hanger anyway; so it would have been quicker all around to split up)


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Unbeliever said:


> (Note: planes are already very leaky, that's why you don't get CO2 poisoning during a long flight.)


That's why if I ever again sit in the first row of coach on a 757 (right next to exit doors), I'm wearing an extra pair of socks.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Ok, so am I the only one who asked, when they get out of the bus
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


That would be because they didn't do that in this episode.
They did it in the next episode "Providence".


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Did I post in the wrong thread?

SORRY! Honest mistake, but silly me.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Obviously, Ward hacked your account and framed you for this.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Obviously, Ward hacked your account and framed you for this.


It was that darned Jr High School kid!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Heh. I haven't watched this week's episode yet and I was wondering what the heck you were talking about.

Might want to edit your posts and spoilerize them.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Finally saw the movie, and caught up on these two episodes. LOVED this one, in particular! Wow! the ending threw me, and I was so glad to have one more full ep just waiting on the TiVo. 

I have nothing substantial to add, as y'all have discussed all of the exciting (and eye-rolling) points. But, I did want to thank you for indicating that the movie should be seen first. Well worth the wait!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

And another new one tonight!


----------

