Will the Marvel films ever sever ties completely with the TV shows?

[mace1]

For me shield and jessica jones so far are the most exciting mcu shows.
The quality of the stories for shield is on par with the mcu netflix.I have not seen all of daredevil season 2 however,but the shield story has gotten stronger and the inhuman stuff is exciting.In fact the action is more diverse then the netflix stuff.
The show reminds me of a combination of men in black,star trek and g.i.joe.

 

[Mjölnir]

I asked what the difference between a contradiction and continuity error is, so this doesn't really answer that. They might as well be the same thing. In the case of my example, showing the MetLife building in Jessica Jones contradicts what we saw in Av1 because it takes place before that. And it is a continuity error for the same reason.

I didn't think it was about semantics. I thought it was pretty clear that the other poster referred to deliberate contradictions and mistakes, even though his wording wasn't perfect.

We established that, but as far as I'm concerned, "contradiction" isn't the word for that. TV shows separating canonicity from the MCU is a completely different topic.

It's the topic of the thread so it's a bit odd to disregard that. Semantics isn't really worth hanging a discussion on either if there's a point behind it imo.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I didn't think it was about semantics. I thought it was pretty clear that the other poster referred to deliberate contradictions and mistakes, even though his wording wasn't perfect.

I didn't bring up a topic of semantics. The OP said "that's more likely just a continuity error than a directly open contradiction" and they're the same thing as far as I'm concerned, I don't know what the difference is and that's why I asked.

It's the topic of the thread so it's a bit odd to disregard that. Semantics isn't really worth hanging a discussion on either if there's a point behind it imo.

I know what the topic of this thread is, and I've said my piece on it that it hasn't nor will it happen in my opinion, other than the Luke Cage/Doctor Strange actress.

 

[The_Manhunter]

I love Agents of Shield, Daredevil, and Jessica Jones so Id be really dissapointed

 

[The_Manhunter]

Daredevil season 2 was far better than season 1 IMO.

SHIELD got real boring once the Inhuman storyline started up, so I dropped it. The quality difference between that and Netflix is really noticeable

I love how different tastes can be. Ever since they started that storyline it has become must-watch TV for me

 

[SyntaxError]

Marvel's Jessica Jones: Season 1 (2015)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/jessica-jones/s01/


Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 3 (2015)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/marvel-s-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-/s03/

JJ is based on first 6 episodes, AoS on the first episode.... not a good metric at all. It is quite clear that the Marvel ABC shows lag behind in quality.

 

[mace1]

JJ is based on first 6 episodes, AoS on the first episode.... not a good metric at all. It is quite clear that the Marvel ABC shows lag behind in quality.

I disagree,because i seen all except most of daredevil season 2 and i plan to watch it later.Aos quality is at least on par with the netflix shows to me and audiences and critics agree.
Most folks by the way believe the early 5 OR 6 episodes of jessica jones were the best ones and the last episodes.

It's clear that the quality of season 3 of aos has gotten better then the first episode of season 3 of agents of shield.
Last week's episode i have seen and it was better then the first episode of season 3 of aos for a example.

The quality of the episodes for aos for season 1 and 2 became better overtime as well,just like season 3.

So the ratings for season 1 and 2 for aos should have gotten higher scores. Season 3 should have a higher average critic score.

Season 3 rt score is already at 100%,so they got that right.
The point is aos has gotten better and better each season and it's more exciting to me then daredevil.

I realize tastes differ,heck there are some folks who think superman 1 was bad or not as good as man of steel.Whatever,i really like them both however and to me both were really good.

Interesting when comes to man of steel and the first superman movie,the first superman movie has a stronger story then man of steel,but i enjoy man of steel more.

 

[psylockolussus]

I really dislike Agents of SHIELD... so yes.

Definitely!

Worst part of the MCU!

 

[MbJ]

Even though the schedules don't quite align, they could put some AOS cameos in the Avengers. They could've been aboard that helicarrier in Age of Ultron when SHIELD came to help out. It's then up to the TV show to find a way nearer the time to explain it and fit in with the show's current plot line since they're more flexible.

It had nothing to do with schedules, Whedon explained why the Agents of SHIELD weren't in the movie. He's operating on the (correct) assumption that many people who watch the movies don't pay attention to the TV shows, so he didn't want to waste time explaining who these people are or how Coulson was still alive.

It's the same with the people who kept saying they were sure Team Coulson, Daredevil and the Punisher would show up in Civil War. When you're making a big movie with a bunch of moving parts, you don't want to take time out of it to explain who these people are.

If they think an occasional guest star from MCU character or the existence of Agent Coulson in AOS are enough to justify their promise of connecting these two universes, then they are terribly wrong.

They don't have to "justify" anything. Are there that many people begging for Coulson and his buddies to show up in the movies?

 

[Fincher]

It's hypothetically possible to include characters from TV without explaining them or assuming any knowledge, if they're included in a way that they could just be some bit part. Take, for example, Ashley Johnson's character in The Avengers. She's just some waitress there to serve as an innocent bystander. However, she could have been from a tv show prior to The Avengers where she was some superhero's romantic interest, and the tv show fans would get their connection while the movie fans don't need to worry about it.

 

[Mike Murdock]

It had nothing to do with schedules, Whedon explained why the Agents of SHIELD weren't in the movie. He's operating on the (correct) assumption that many people who watch the movies don't pay attention to the TV shows, so he didn't want to waste time explaining who these people are or how Coulson was still alive.

It's the same with the people who kept saying they were sure Team Coulson, Daredevil and the Punisher would show up in Civil War. When you're making a big movie with a bunch of moving parts, you don't want to take time out of it to explain who these people are.

Coulson might be a bit more complicated (although a quick gag would probably be enough), but that doesn't mean the rest of the cast can't have a quick guest appearance. Star Wars would work as a model - characters that existed in the EU were brought into the movies. If you followed that stuff you went "hey cool." If you didn't, it was no loss, it was just another character. Most people don't know that General Grievous didn't appear first in Revenge of the Sith and those people weren't confused when they saw him.

The better argument, to me, is a schedule one. People thought they saw Agent Triplet in Age of Ultron. Obviously they didn't. But, more importantly, they couldn't have based on creative decisions in the show that probably weren't even made until after the movie was filmed. It's just the way the two are made that movies have to be filmed way in advance. But it shouldn't stop the show from doing a sort of retroactive introduction. They could coordinate a little better and say "we have this character with a small role in the movie or some concept being introduced. The scenes are already filmed, but can you introduce it first so the hardcore fans will get a little kick out of it?"

 

[SirStrangefolk]

It had nothing to do with schedules, Whedon explained why the Agents of SHIELD weren't in the movie. He's operating on the (correct) assumption that many people who watch the movies don't pay attention to the TV shows, so he didn't want to waste time explaining who these people are or how Coulson was still alive.

It's the same with the people who kept saying they were sure Team Coulson, Daredevil and the Punisher would show up in Civil War. When you're making a big movie with a bunch of moving parts, you don't want to take time out of it to explain who these people are.

Would you have been confused if Ming-Na Wen or Patton Oswalt were on the Helicarrier in Age of Ultron? Do you think people who didn't see Winter Soldier went "Who is this one SHIELD agent deploying lifeboats? It's almost as if I missed a scene in another movie where he refused to launch Helicarriers for Hydra or something". Why would there need to be any explanation at all for who they are?

 

[Dark Raven]

It had nothing to do with schedules, Whedon explained why the Agents of SHIELD weren't in the movie. He's operating on the (correct) assumption that many people who watch the movies don't pay attention to the TV shows, so he didn't want to waste time explaining who these people are or how Coulson was still alive.

It's the same with the people who kept saying they were sure Team Coulson, Daredevil and the Punisher would show up in Civil War. When you're making a big movie with a bunch of moving parts, you don't want to take time out of it to explain who these people are.



They don't have to "justify" anything. Are there that many people begging for Coulson and his buddies to show up in the movies?

In the Star Trek the Next Generation movies, they had cameos from the various TV series all the time. They never bothered explaining things though, because many of these were just in the background on the ship or on a planet. But at least you saw them. They didn't even bother to explain things like the EMH, which appeared in First Contact.

They could easily have done that with SHIELD agents (not necessarily Coulson). If they wanted May or FitzSimmons or whoever on that helicarrier at Sokovia (or wherever it was in Age of Ultron), then they could've put them there in the background. To the general audience, these people just look like random crew members who might say a line or two, but they might not even know them. But to the fans, they would recognise these people as cast members from the show. Then it's down to the show to find a way nearer the time of the movie how to get them onto that helicarrier since they're more flexible.

It would be like if Jasper Sitwell were only a TV character but they decided to put him in Winter Soldier and have him on that ship at the beginning of the movie. In AOS they found a way to explain why he had to leave suddenly so that he could actually be there instead of doing whatever he was doing at the time on the show.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I really don't see what the big deal is. Sure things all exist in the same world but it's a big world. Not everyone is going to cross paths and that's far more realistic than the contrived likelihood that all these heroes would somehow cross paths. I've never personally met Snoop Dogg, Donald Trump, or Peyton Manning but it doesn't mean they don't exist. And why in the world do we need a handful of street vigilantes from Hell's Kitchen fighting a cosmic being like Thanos?

Not to mention the different target audiences for these films. Jessica Jones was dark and disturbing. Daredevil is extremely violent. They target older, more mature audiences whereas the films play to a broader demographic. I just don't see it working well and frankly don't even see the need.

 

[MbJ]

Would you have been confused if Ming-Na Wen or Patton Oswalt were on the Helicarrier in Age of Ultron?

Patton Oswalt maybe because I would have been "Wait, is that the guy from Parks and Rec?"

 

[metaphysician]

All I want is Daredevil in Infinity War. That's literally it, I can deal with no further connections... Please Feige

This might be a silly question, but. . . what exactly is Daredevil supposed to *do* in Infinity War? He's a street level vigilante who beats up gangsters and drug dealers, and the occasional ninja. What relevance does he have against a cosmic god-being seeking to obliterate reality?

 

[metaphysician]

The difference is intent. The shows have clearly referenced the Avengers and some events in the movies, so the intent is clearly that they belong to the same world.

This thread is about the movies and tv shows cutting ties, and you brought up that continuity error as proof of that it's happening. The other poster correctly pointed out that it was just that, an error, and not an intentional severing of the worlds.

Doubly so, given that the same show with that "error" also directly referenced, and drew thematic ties from, the movies.

 

[metaphysician]

As for the broader issue. . . honestly, my main problem with movie references to the TV shows is that one of the shows, Agents of SHIELD, kind of sucks. Even at its best, its nowhere near the quality the audience expects from the movies, or from the Netflix shows.

 

[MbJ]

I have no idea how anyone can say Jessica Jones isn't part of the MCU when it literally had an entire episode subplot about someone trying to kill Jessica because she blamed the events of The Avengers on her.

This might be a silly question, but. . . what exactly is Daredevil supposed to *do* in Infinity War? He's a street level vigilante who beats up gangsters and drug dealers, and the occasional ninja. What relevance does he have against a cosmic god-being seeking to obliterate reality?

Pray Thanos has a soft skull? Though admittedly you could make the same argument for some of the other human heroes. The big hurdle for this is why would he even be involved in this story.

 

[metaphysician]

At least the more human level Avengers are used to operating on a global scale with global stakes. They may not be able to punch Thanos, but they could at least sneak around and fight minions and sabotage stuff.

 

[OB12]

So, in my opinion there is a way that the MCU could include both AoS and the Defenders
in the Infinity Wars event. This is the way that I would tackle the issue, taking into
account productions schedules and the like.

Current Production Schedule:
Infinity Wars I & II - starts shooting late 2016 and films for about a year
Agents of SHIELD - renewed for season 4; starts shooting season 4 in summer 2016
Defenders - most likely starts shooting late 2016 for a fall 2017 release

Start now by having the Jed and Maurissa (showrunners of AoS) along with the showrunners of the Defenders work closely with the Russo brothers. The seasons for AoS and Defenders could go along as already planned but with the idea that characters be positioned for IW.

Renew AoS for a season 5 mini-series event only to be aired in April 2018 leading up to IW. This would be a 6-hr event that would include:

Hawkeye
Agent 13
Quake
Nick Fury
Maria Hill
Coulson
Deathlok
Yo-Yo
Daredevil
Jessica Jones
Luke Cage
Iron Fist

This mini-series could be filmed at the same time that IW is being filmed, leveraging the
production and VFX staffs to make something truly epic. I'd have this be a global scavenger hunt for something related IW, maybe have some villains (Black Order?) also on the chase standing in their way. Abomination would a good one to bring back for this. I'd title it something like Agents of SHIELD: Race to Infinity. Highly unlikey, but I'd love to see this take place.

 

[OB12]

At least the more human level Avengers are used to operating on a global scale with global stakes. They may not be able to punch Thanos, but they could at least sneak around and fight minions and sabotage stuff.

And why couldn't DD do the same things?

 

[Dark Raven]

In the final 6 episodes of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, they were fighting the Dominion War on all fronts. Each episode concentrated on a different aspect with some doing more covert missions etc.

For Infinity War, they couldn't be only fighting Thanos for the whole 2 films the entire time. They'd have to do other stuff. That leaves plenty of room for the Defenders to be able to operate and be required for something.

 

[MbJ]

This mini-series could be filmed at the same time that IW is being filmed, leveraging the
production and VFX staffs to make something truly epic. I'd have this be a global scavenger hunt for something related IW, maybe have some villains (Black Order?) also on the chase standing in their way. Abomination would a good one to bring back for this. I'd title it something like Agents of SHIELD: Race to Infinity. Highly unlikey, but I'd love to see this take place.

You can't do the Abomination on a TV budget.

 

[OB12]

You can't do the Abomination on a TV budget.

Eh, I think it can be done under a certain set of circumstances. Maybe they could get a what would normally be a half season's budget for this 6-hour event. Also, as I said I'd make this part of the IW production utilizing the same production locations, sets, and VFX staffs to lower the cost of production. We are seeing more and more realistic CGI-looking creatures on TV these days, so I don't think Abomination is out of the realm of possibility. Now, all that said, my scenario is more wishful thinking than anything. While I do believe that it would be one way tighten the bond between TV and film and make IW an event that even more massive in scope, I think this could realistically only happen if Perlmutter is ousted and Marvel TV slides under Marvel Studios organizationally.