If I had been asked... Agents vs. Arrow
If I had been asked, I would say I agree with the premise of the above statement, Arrow and Agents are completely different. Having watched season 1 of Arrow, and all of the episodes of Agents shown so far, I have made some observations that I would like to share.
Arrow is the superhero, and I would argue that even if the show wasn't about a DC hero (albeit on the b-beam of the justice league) it would still work. If it was called vigilante, or "the undertaking" its formula would still garner an audience on the CW, and it isn't because of the green arrow that people are sticking around. Also I read some of the links on that article, such as in the actors comments where Stephen Amell had to say.... "we are protective of the script".
Ok, Stephen, get off the salmon ladder and really read the script. Perhaps you shouldn't be so protective. Things like "Open your eyes Tommy", a line which could've used a rewrite and the melodrama behind arrow is sickening. I have a low threshold for melodrama, which is why I don't watch soaps. and there are a lot of aspects of Arrow that would qualify it as a night time soap, mostly the love triangle (pentagon, etc) between Tommy, Laurel, and Ollie. Not to forget the family issues between the mom, the new husband, Thea... all these plot lines would work on a soap opera, and need not be isolated to the Green Arrow. Perhaps Stephen needs to pay more attention to the script than the work outs. About the only non barf area in the show was the island, and even that started to get melodramatic. I can't say it makes me excited to see season 2.
Now what Gregg said is a little mean, (calling certain fans 'losers') and fans could get upset. I'm not the biggest hater of agents, and it really isn't that bad. Agents is the attempt to bring the Avengers money to the small screen, yet have no actual super hero show up. Occasionally Agent Hill or Nick Fury make an appearance, but aside from Coulson the rest of the agents are new. Besides no hero showing up, the main villains seem to be someone invisible (the Clairvoyant) or victims. Turning victims into villains is tricky, for one episode we're rooting for their survival, but the next we're hoping they die? Not exactly a recipe for success, and also not exactly setting up people to enjoy watching the show, which could be why their ratings are a little low.
Also, was it best to make a show around Coulson who is the only main link to the avengers universe? Spin-offs are tricky, and the next blog post will focus on that. In the movies, Coulson's role was limited as he had a few lines, often to comic relief. In the Avengers his role was the largest, and it was him who tracked everyone down, and his death that united them, but aside from that he wasn't flushed out as a character. and I can't emphasize enough that people didn't go to see Iron Man or Thor because of Coulson... people went for the super hero. It is kinda in the name, thus we the audience want Super. But the Agents of Shield, while possibly amazing, aren't superheroes so perhaps Joss needs to take the show back from his brother, and re-think the rules they set up if they want the show better connected to the Marvel Universe and get people to play their game.
It didn't help Shield's cause that Arrow is on the CW (which face it, is targeting a certain audience) and that ABC promoted the heck out of Agents (quick, name another 1 hr drama that ABC debuted in the fall of 2013? no? Exactly my point) ABC set high expectations, and over hyped what is just a so-so show. and instead of realizing this, ABC online seems to be doubling down on more access to agents and their secrets. Um, no. That isn't what is wrong with the show. Dial back the expectations, and be true to their vision, whatever it is. There was some comment about listening to viewers criticism in the article link, I'm like find your own voice. 'Cause- haters going hate. Simple as that.
-L. Sue
Comments
Post a Comment