Bazza Posted April 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 Second musing: Coulson wasn't cleared for the name SHIELD. Cygnia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 Maybe he was talking about his badge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 6 hours ago, Bazza said: Second musing: Coulson wasn't cleared for the name SHIELD. He was only Level Five at the beginning of Iron Man. You have to be Level Six (which Coulson achieved when Stane went down) to be cleared to use the name S.H.I.E.L.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 8 hours ago, Greywind said: Maybe he was talking about his badge. We don't need no stinking badges! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 15 hours ago, zslane said: It's these little failures of continuity that make me shake my fist in rage at Hollywood screenwriters. Or at morons on YouTube. Here's the actual clip, where after hearing the full name, Pepper says, "That's quite the mouthful," and Coulson quips -- quips, I say -- "I know, we're working on it." It was very clearly a JOKE. They made a similar one on the first episode of Agents of SHIELD: Armory 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 I took Coulson saying the name of SHIELD rather than using the acronym as part of an effort by a spy agency to be covert. Random people who aren't necessarily cleared to know much about government spy agencies will remember "SHIELD". On the other hand, five minutes later they'd have trouble remembering whether they were told "Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate", or if it was "Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage and Law-Enforcement Division", or (God help us) "Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division". And perhaps agents make up new words to fit the letters of the agency so when conspiracy theorists get together to share what they know about SHIELD activities that they'll be diverted into instead arguing over what the name of the agency is. Yeah, Coulson was having a joke. But those SHIELD agents are really deep. And part of a sinister conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 In 2008 there was no way of knowing that there would even be an MCU, much less that its timeline would need or benefit from being more deeply worked out. This understandable lack of foresight leaves future writers in a bit of a bind when they want to write certain things that contradict what appears in the earlier films. I understand the quandry, but I also think there are better ways of handling it (as a writer) than just disregarding established canon and sneaking in retcons whenever it is convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, zslane said: In 2008 there was no way of knowing that there would even be an MCU, much less that its timeline would need or benefit from being more deeply worked out. This understandable lack of foresight leaves future writers in a bit of a bind when they want to write certain things that contradict what appears in the earlier films. I understand the quandry, but I also think there are better ways of handling it (as a writer) than just disregarding established canon and sneaking in retcons whenever it is convenient. The way to have dealt with it, IMO, is to have made the first writer be more careful and not go for cheap laughs at the expense of unintentionally establishing a continuity which later writers might have to break. There were plans to have a MCU when the script was being written so there's no excuse for the writers to have flubbed it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 I apologise in advance for the rant break... God I hate continuity being a holy grail in the comics, it ultimately meant that I stopped buying monthly comics and it is putting me off going to see movies now too. Dont get me wrong there is something cool in things that happen in one film being referenced in a later one but the fact that great stories might never be told, great films might never be screened because they dont fit with the continuity really grinds my gears... You can go back to your regular programming.... Starlord and Duke Bushido 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said: I apologise in advance for the rant break... God I hate continuity being a holy grail in the comics, it ultimately meant that I stopped buying monthly comics and it is putting me off going to see movies now too. Dont get me wrong there is something cool in things that happen in one film being referenced in a later one but the fact that great stories might never be told, great films might never be screened because they dont fit with the continuity really grinds my gears... You can go back to your regular programming.... Yeah, I rewatched the scene in question and it's nothing IMO. Pepper says it's a mouthful and Coulson says we're working on it. Meh, no big deal. There is no way that this vague banter could definitively be argued as setting something in stone. massey and RDU Neil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 Continuity is a cornerstone of filmmaking. It is regarded as a cornerstone of long-form storytelling in general. It shouldn't be sacrificed at the altar of someone's so-called "creative vision" unless they are knowingly aiming for something avante-garde or surrealist in nature, where continuity is one of the elements being played with intentionally. Now granted, sustaining continuity is difficult with any narrative that lasts decades (comic books, soap operas, etc.), especially when it becomes regarded as an inconvenience rather than a measure of quality. But sometimes just a little bit of planning and foresight (and discipline) can go a long way towards maintaining continuity. In all honesty I'd say that Marvel Studios has done an impressive job with it overall, but that's why the small, easily avoided mistakes are so frustrating to witness. archer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 IMHO small mistakes are also easy to ignore. slikmar and Matt the Bruins 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 When I was growing up there was not a single superhero movie that I would not have travelled miles to see, including the Return of Captain Invincible.... I find myself now feeling like I have to see a movie just so that I get the most out of the next one. It is too much work for me and I find myself opting out. I am now choosing not to see films that are far superior to those that I fought to watch simply because it feels like I need to do my homework (I was always rubbish at that). Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 Small mistakes are easy to ignore from the perspective of a viewer indifferent to the craft behind it all. As a member of the filmmaking community, however, I have a different perspective, and I have a higher set of standards I apply to the product put out by my "peers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slikmar Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 I would argue, that with the exception of the Avengers movies, you really don't need any others, especially fringe ones, to enjoy these movies. To see the 2 Ant Men movies, you don't have needed to see any of the others, knowing the character of Tony Stark and his father would help, but not needed. Only the 3rd Captain America movie really required knowing any of the other movies, but truly only needed to know the characters and what had happened in Winter Soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 I haven't seen the third Iron Man, either Guardians of the Galaxy movie, Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-Man: Homecoming, or Ant-Man and the Wasp. I have watched a few clips from them online or seen spoiler reviews for them. I probably won't see the whole Captain Marvel before Infinity War comes out. So far I haven't felt a lack of anything I needed to enjoy the other MCU movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 The end of Ant-man and Wasp is fairly important to Endgame, but might be briefly explained in that movie anyway as it's a bit complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 The SHIELD thing doesn't bother me. The fact that Coulson kind of has a stick up his ass in the first Iron Man movie does not (in my opinion) establish a canon refusal to use the term "SHIELD". It was meant to be a joke for the fans. What the scenes from Iron Man established is that for a little while back in '08, one agent was walking around using the agency's full name, for some reason that is not explained. That doesn't mean nobody uses it. Now, how some random mall security guard managed to get Nick Fury's phone number, that I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 2 hours ago, massey said: Now, how some random mall security guard managed to get Nick Fury's phone number, that I don't know. He obvious spent all of his character points on a single high-level Contact. massey, Pattern Ghost, slikmar and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, massey said: The fact that Coulson kind of has a stick up his ass in the first Iron Man movie does not (in my opinion) establish a canon refusal to use the term "SHIELD". It was meant to be a joke for the fans. Well, it wasn't a terribly good joke, whether it was the for the fans or not. And it had the unfortunate side effect of establishing the notion that its most trusted field agents (remember, Coulson was entrusted with the task of finding, investigating, and retrieving Mjolnir) don't believe the agency they work for has a stable enough name to warrant simply calling it by its eminently pronounceable acronym. Joke or not, it's in the movie, therefore it is canon. You can dismiss the "trivial" bits of a movie all you like, but they are still canon by the definition of the word. I just think writers and producers of movie franchises ought to show a little more respect and care for the fact that everything they write and put on screen becomes canon, whether they think that is reasonable or not. archer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 If we're still talking about Coulson-- wasn't he in Transformers, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 No, he was not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massey Posted April 9, 2019 Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 4 hours ago, zslane said: Well, it wasn't a terribly good joke, whether it was the for the fans or not. And it had the unfortunate side effect of establishing the notion that its most trusted field agents (remember, Coulson was entrusted with the task of finding, investigating, and retrieving Mjolnir) don't believe the agency they work for has a stable enough name to warrant simply calling it by its eminently pronounceable acronym. Joke or not, it's in the movie, therefore it is canon. You can dismiss the "trivial" bits of a movie all you like, but they are still canon by the definition of the word. I just think writers and producers of movie franchises ought to show a little more respect and care for the fact that everything they write and put on screen becomes canon, whether they think that is reasonable or not. Your conclusion isn't canon. What is canon is that when Coulson was talking to Pepper Potts, he used the full name of the organization. That's it. Starlord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted April 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 1. Coulson gave the full name of the organisation for those non-comic book readers & fans so they would know what SHIELD means. 2. This has an in-universe point in that as a secretive agency, nobody has heard of it, ergo saying "We are from SHIELD" doesn't make a lick of sense to someone like Pepper. Giving the organisation's full name does. 3. Coulson was having a joke with Pepper. It is a fun guy. 4. It is called a comic book, not a super-serious book. Lightheartedness and humour is a-given. slikmar, Pattern Ghost and Starlord 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Bushido Posted April 9, 2019 Report Share Posted April 9, 2019 3 hours ago, Greywind said: No, he was not. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.