Discussion YMMV / AgentsOfSHIELD

At the same time, Fitz's surgery on Daisy, while painful and extreme, was motivated by a serious belief in I Did What I Had to Do on his part, influenced further by an Evil Counterpart whose life Fitz experienced in its totality (albeit largely offscreen). And it was done to reverse the invasive procedure performed by the Kree (also offscreen) that gave Daisy the Restraining Bolt in the first place — and that Daisy's powers were the only known way to control the Gravitonium to seal the Rift that was continuously spawning lethal fear-manifestations and threatening an Earth-Shattering Kaboom. And Daisy refused to go through the surgery simply based on other people's Unreliable Narrator assertions that her powers caused the Earth's prophesied destruction, for which there is no solid proof.

And for all that, Fitz gets treated by Daisy and her fanbase as the purveyor of simple Cold-Blooded Torture and the crosser of the Moral Event Horizon. Like you said, it's a complicated situation overall.

I'll agree its a complicated situation and he is getting some unfair treatment (this isn't anything new, though; I've seen people try to blame him for the Framework and what the Doctor did there, never mind the people who called him racist for butting heads with Trip), *but* I feel that the above assertion is crossing into Draco in Leather Pants level of justification.

He is mentally ill, no question there, but what he did was wrong, and it was far from the only course of action. I mean, for starters, ignoring that the Rift being the cause of the Bad Future is a wild guess on their part, Fitz is smart, he knows how to hack technology and he (via the Doctor's framework studies) knows how to artificially recreate Inhuman powers. Tearing out the implant, which they established beforehand could kill her, was a shitty plan and the only reason he thought it was right is because the Doctor is a sadist with no respect for Inhumans.

By all means he is getting RTDE treatment, with people downplaying the fact he's essentially still partially brainwashed by Aida, but let's not forget that too while saying he was right to do what he did, which a lot of people do.

I would say putting entries for both categories for Fitz would be a smart solution, since as said, it is complicated and both sides are trying to downplay the other.

That would be textbook Strangled by the Red String.

"THEY LOVE EACH OTHER BECAUSE THE PLOT SAYS SO" especially when there isn't enough buildup. Please move.

I wouldn't say it counts as Strangled by the Red String either. Coulson/Price didn't instantly get together, it took them several episodes of flirting and spy stuff before they became a thing. Lincoln/Daisy meanwhile had basis in their attraction-they both supported one-another when the other needed it-and avoided just being instantly serious as they spent most of their screentime together casually flirting and developing their relationship. It didn't even get to 'love' until around the time she was brainwashed.

Designated Love Interest maybe, then?

I removed it because nobody complained about it elsewhere. Hell, from what I have heard, people are glad that Ward is dead now, with no feelings that he was wasted. This seems to be a personal opinion, which is not allowed under YMMV. It's about general audience reactions, not yours. In the conversations about it on Ask The Tropers, the mods agree with me about YMMV.

Perhaps the issue is that it should be posted under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. Their personal feelings on the character aside, I think a lot of people would agree that Ward's storyline seems to have been pretty hastily re-written in order to serve the Malick/'It' plot.

If it was, then there would actually be people complaining about that. You say "think", but that's you believing that people would share that opinion, which is not enough.

Keep it off the page. Nothing about Ward or his role in the plot was a waste. He was starting to get rather played out honestly.

I agree with the original poster. Ward has both fans and haters. Haters were happy. Fans weren't.

But even in the former case, while the haters are happy he's gone, they don't necessarily feel his arc was satisfactory.

Yes, you are. And you clearly have not been paying attention to episodes where both of them do a hell of a lot more than that.

Yeah, keep this off the page. Triplett is not a Creator's Pet by any stretch of the imagination.

I think part of the issue is how ill-defined The Scrappy and Base Breaker are. The Scrappy itself specifically says that a character can be a Scrappy even if there are people who don't dislike them or sympathize with them.

Personally, I think she's got enough of a hatedom to qualify for a Creator's Pet. Even if she does have fans, there's at the very least a very loud portion of the fandom who dislikes her, which makes her fit the Creator's Pet cycle very well (Creator's Pet is, at its core, about a feedback/response loop where creators try to push an unpopular character more which just makes them more unpopular, which is exactly what has happened with Skye).

I think the Scrappy or Creator's Pet entries rely on exaggerating and twisting her actual role (i.e., the only time she's "talked up" in a "What would Skye do?" sense has to do with hacking, which is the exact reason she's on the Bus in the first place). Oh, and heaven forbid one of the main characters be central to the show's myth arc.

Plus, in that particular instance, she had been shot and her chances of survival were grim. It would make sense that her teammates would want to honor her by completing the mission in a way that does her justice. They're not asking "What would Skye do?" because they think Skye's awesome; they're pissed that they're teammate was shot and want to avenge their friend.

Eh, not worse than in any other YMMV page.

Eh, I don't think so. The first entry at least is fine; the point of this show is a Lower-Deck Episode so complaining it doesn't have enough heroes is silly since that's the entire premise. Though the second is... I dunno about that. That could sort of go.

I think it does come across as complaining in that it is (perhaps unintentionally) a strawman characterization of complains.

Critics (myself included) are pointing to the fact that the show isn't drawing on all of the SHIELD agents existing in the comics as well as the fact that there are a fair amount of "lower level" heroes and villains, some of which interact with SHIELD or become SHIELD members.

So, the criticism is really more that "the show feels like a Dolled-Up Installment that Whedon placed in the MCU following his success with The Avengers". I don't think anyone necessarily expects members of the film's Avengers team to show up, nor do people really have a problem that the main cast don't have superpowers.

As a corrolary to the Dolled-Up Installment thing, its also that while the show didn't need to use SHIELD members from the comics, if they were going to have a bunch of Canon Foreigners, they could have created a much more diverse and interesting bunch.

I personally think they do have a diverse and interesting bunch, without going the route of Five-Token Band. Hell, we have two older people, and two UK people who actually aren't Fake UK people. We have scientists that specifically are scientists and not really super-ninjas-with-a-side-of-science. We have a Non-Action Guy who is still considered valuable and not crapped on for being Non Action.

I sometimes get this vibe that because the show is actually gender-neutral and age-mixed, people have to find something to still complain about.

I'm also thinking they may be a bit reluctant to use some of the pre-existing heroes and Agents too much because it then restricts the possibilities for their future movie appearances if any.

I don't see what whether or not they're interesting characters has to do with the entry.

But I do agree that them being Canon Foreigners is sort of the point of this show and complaining about it is a bit Hate Dumb. As AD says, it's likely done by Marvel to keep characters free for movies, plus it gives the show more freedom for characters to develop. If they had a canon character, they'd either A: stick with the comics incarnation and be accused of being predictable or B: change the characterization and be accused of ruining the character. I don't necessarily like the characters, but I definitely like the fact they went with Canon Foreigners. It was a smart choice.

... that said, why is Fan Dumb even part of this entry? The context is pure Hate Dumb and has nothing to do with Fan Dumb.

People like to conflate the two nowadays for simplicity.

Well, I changed to just Hate Dumb when I restored a bunch of examples that were cut without a valid reason.

It still needs a citation, though, per the rules of Unfortunate Implications.

Only for going on the UI Main Page. It can go on works' YMMV pages without a citation. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to google something up. At the moment I'm thinking this rewrite:

• Unfortunate Implications: The main antagonist of the pilot episode came across as an Angry Black Man by some, which along with the Monochrome Casting and the fact that as the show went on, the majority of people of color have also been in antagonistic roles has been a sore point to some.

I don't see anything that says that only applies to it going on the UI main page. If anything, it should be just as important for the citations to be needed on a work's page.

Larkman is correct on Unfortunate Implications only needing citations on it's own mage page, not the various YMMV pages. However I agree with this tropes pulling entirely.

Where does it say that? The UI page only says "no example may be added without proof that it's not just one person thinking" without specifying further.

It came up during a recent forum thread (can't remember the title). I was definitely under the impression that all UI entries need citations, and that it made more sense that way, but it's less clear now.

Doesn't that kind of imply that the trope on the page is different than the trope on the YMMV works pages?

Cuz seriously, the biggest problem with UI is that people use it to whine or complain, and not needing the citation just enables that. The citation is really the only thing separating UI from rampant complaining.

I agree. UI really gets turned to a dumping ground for people to express their dislike for the show.

It's on the UI discussion page. Doesn't make any sense, but those are the rules. Not much we can do about it. Honestly, it seems backwards to me. I'd want citations for examples put on a work's YMMV page, since that's the page every fan of the show will be seeing, whereas the UI page itself is something that you'd only see if, you know, you're looking for UI.

Anyway, potential citations: http://showratings.tv/articles/marvels-agents-of-shield-episode-5-girl-in-the-flower-dress-review/, http://www.teenlibrariantoolbox.com/2013/10/agents-of-shield-shielding-you-from-poc.html, http://princessvsperil.com/2013/10/11/agents-of-predictable/, http://www.therainbowhub.com/agents-of-shield-1-5-girl-in-the-flower-dress-review/.

And here's the thread.

So... are people cool if I readd this following example? I mean, at this point we've got citations, we know that they're implications that different people have gotten from the show, and I think it's worth documenting. I don't want to risk seeming like I'm edit warring, though:

• Unfortunate Implications: As early as the first episode, the show took criticism for having the first super powered threat be a Scary Black Man. Since then, a disproportionate number of villains have been ethnic minorities, while the main cast is primarily a group of white people saving the day.

Also thinking of adding this bullet point. I think it's fairly interesting, though Skye doesn't really fit the Asian and Nerdy stereotype as a whole, and May is a fanfavorite.

• Of the non-white members of the main cast, it's been pointed out that the Asian actress plays a stoic close combat specialist, and the half-Asian actress plays a genius hacker.

I'd like for it to stay off. The show's still in it's first season. After it's done we'll look at how many people of different races end up antagonistic as opposed to how many non whites are heroic. With the seemingly skewed numbers, there's no basis for for actual unfortunate implications.

It's an Audience Reaction and we've got several sources cited that all have noticed it so we know it's not just one person who noticed it. Even if the show balances out, that doesn't change the fact that there was an audience reaction to the current racial balance.

I say add it. It's YMMV and it's not factually inaccurate. Though don't add the bit with Skye and May. It's a superhero-ish government agent show... pretty much everyone in The Team is going to either be a badass at combat or a genius. Just because there happens to be two Asian stereotypes associated with that, it's not like that's significant. Plus, I'm not sure Skye counts as Asian. Her actress is half-Asian, but it's not like she's visibly obviously Asian (she could certainly pass for white) and without more knowledge of her family, she might just be presented as a white girl. Also, that's the first and only time I've heard that complaint so I think it's just one yahoo's opinion.

In fact, I had no idea whatsoever that Skye's actress had any Asian ancestry until I looked at this discussion.

Yeah, I would agree that the Asian-stereotype idea is really a stretch, especially (or at least) with Skye.

Alright, I was just floating that one out there since I noticed it in one of the sites I saw looking for citations for the primary point. I honestly didn't make the connection until I saw that site, but it is pretty tenuous.

Any more input on the main one?

If we absolutely must, it looks alright to me.

(That said, my personal opinion is that UI is such a magnet for whining and bashing that it shouldn't be anywhere on the wiki, but that's a discussion for another place.)

Didn't realize a discussion was going on, sorry. I stand by my assertion that the show is actually making an effort to put in non-white actors and the nature of the show just means most roles available are antagonists, there have been as many white antagonists as non-white ones, there have been non-white allies too, at least one of the antagonist roles was originally meant for a white actor, and two of the roles were set up to be very, very sympathetic, and three had the crew going out of their way to try to save the antagonist. A few people seeing offense where there obviously is none intended—especially when looking at context—does not make actual Unfortunate Implications.

You should reread the UI page. It specifically says that people seeing offense where none was intended is the trope. That's why it's unfortunate implications. "They didn't mean to" doesn't disqualify it from the trope.

From the page:

"Keep in mind that Unfortunate Implications are unintentional."

"Even when authors are being careful with story elements, it is impossible for one or a couple of creators to really consider every perspective of the audience and just how certain tropes can be construed as troublesome."

Thing is, it's one thing where even when you look at the context there's something genuinely worth finding unfortunate.

But when you entire reasoning boils down to "some of the non-whites are villains", then it's a worthless entry. That's not Unfortunate Implications unless you think only white people can be villains.

I mean, I could even buy if you could say "all of the antagonists have been non-white", but it's been about half and half at most.

The reasoning is "a disproportionate number of the relatively few non-white characters are antagonistic." Thus far, a single episode did not have the primary threat be non-white. Since this is a page for audience reactions, it's worth noting that, well, the audience has reacted. It's not an isolated case where someone noticed it.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. Literally only the Commandante is a non-white that's a full-blown villain the entire episode. Everyone else is set up to be sympathetic and not actually a genuine threat to the team, or the team at least tries to take them in non-violently; there's absolutely zero indication, even unintentional, of "Non-whites are horrible people who must be killed by the whiteys". When there was room in the narrative for allies, we've had one white (Agent Mack) and one non-white (Agent Quan) and technically Amador is an ally (note how she merely moves to disable the team's van, and helps the desk clerk lady and the one time she aims to actually kill one of the team members it's the team's non-white). We've had as many if not more white antagonists.

IMHO those people's sole reasoning is "OMG, a non-white was a villain, the show is racist!!!111!"

Nor is it remotely remarkable that only one member of a team is non-white, as that's extremely common.

So it's like, I'm not seeing the issues here. The only way to avert the matter would be to never have any non-white new characters at all except for the occasional Agent, at which point the SJ Ws would be complaining that was racist.

I'm sorry, but, like I said, there needs to be some legitimate actual implications of unfortunateness to be included, IMHO. Otherwise, if we use "at least a single SJW squinted and saw something offensive" as the criteria, we'd have to list just about every single story in creation on the page.

Sounds like your issue isn't with the example, but with the trope itself. Which really is broken, I admit.

I have no idea, TBH. I can definitely understand the overall concept, where an author didn't intend a given bad thing but it still comes off as dodgy.

I feel like there has to be some... reasonable criteria, though. "Half the antagonists are non-white on a show where the only room for new characters is mainly as villains, and meanwhile half the few ally slots available have also been non-white" is like... well, like I said, I'm not seeing the issue. Out of ten named antagonists on our character page, four have been non-white (five? Not sure how to categorize Raina). Out of 2 named allies, one has been white, one's been non-white. Out of the named people who've been killed, two were white, two were non-white. Where is the issue, seriously?

I'm not seeing any. It's a Whedon show. The dialogue is clever. If someone has more specific examples, that might be useful, but as is it's barely more than a Zero Context Example. There's not enough context to know what the person is really talking about.

I do rather agree that Cliché Storm fits, but I don't get the context they added.

Like you said, it's a Whedon show. The man LOVES his cliches, if only so he can lampshade them to death and back. Or subvert them to hell and back, but there's been surprisingly little of that so far.

I thought she looked awful in the trailers, but she didn't grate so much in the actual pilot.

Tumblr seems sort of 50-50, at least. Kind of this weird thing where people seem to love and hate her for the exact same traits/reasons. Ward seems to have more of the consensus on finding him flat/boring/cliche.

There's been only one episode so far. Give it time.

Don't even bother adding something like that until at least the second episode.

So... three episodes in. My feelings haven't changed any, and I do know for certain that at least a decent portion of the fans dislike her.

Any thoughts?

Someone just added her to Base Breaker. That's good enough for now.

Works for me.

Although someone should clarify why she's a Base Breaker, asis it just sounds like The Scrappy (in other words, mention what the two bases are). Based on Arkady's post I assume that some people like her, but I honestly cannot say why.