Does anyone actually remember when this whole back-and-forth about Coulson's state started? And, more importantly, why it actually started in the first place?
Because the last couple of pages have been rather tedious with argument about something that's almost purely speculation, on both sides of the issue.
All your safe space are belong to Trump
It started with the rather joking speculation of "Phil Coulson, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.". Then Coulson got Whedon'd in Avengers Assemble. Then rumors started swirling that Coulson would be on this new show somehow, that were neither confirmed nor denied.
![]()
Actually, this is pure speculation vs. the absence of speculation. One side wants to take the film and Nick Fury at face value when Coulson dies onscreen and Fury corroborates his death, the other side is speculating scenarios that would allow Coulson to still be alive.
And that first side also wants to ignore actual evidence found in the movie that cast doubt on their position. I find it very irksome that they like to self-righteously mock the other side while just treating to huge hints and foreshadowing as somehow irrelevant.
The whole basis for the "Coulson lives!" theory is that Fury lied about one aspect of Coulson's death, so it's possible he lied Coulson dying in the first place. And, I'll grant, if Coulson really was Not Quite Dead, Fury probably still would have told Steve and Tony he was dead in order to motivate them.
But all that proves is that Fury's word is completely unreliable, so, in trying to determine whether or not Coulson died, Fury should be taken out of the equation. Therefore the only evidence we're left to work with is Coulson's last scene in the movie, where we see him stop breathing and go limp with his eyes still open. That gives us ample reason to believe he's dead.
Could the sequel feasibly say that Coulson was revived shortly after that scene ended? Yes. But a sequel could also feasibly say that all the Chitauri who collapsed at the end got back up a few minutes later, and there are now a bunch of alien warriors hiding out in New York City. It's plausible, and may or may not be a good story idea, but there's no particular reason to think that's what happened.
edited 9th Dec '12 1:29:21 AM by RavenWilder
That requires that Maria Hill know about this, at the moment she made that statement.
We don't know anything about when the series will take place or the extent of his role in it.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
If it was something they wanted the audience to know, then she would have known about it. Just like they wanted her to know that Coulson had the card in his locker so that she could ask Fury about it, letting the audience know.
![]()
No, we're not forgetting anything. We're saying that if they do bring him back, it'll be a obnoxious retcon.
edited 9th Dec '12 10:19:19 AM by Bloodsquirrel
Retcon? Maybe, depending on how it's handled. Obnoxious? No. Bringing back a popular character with a lot of remaining potential might be a retcon, but it's far from obnoxious.
Personally, if I like a character, I want them to live. So I'm grateful when they find a way to resurrect a character I enjoy, not offended that they dare change something that added emotional impact to the work.
It's Coulson! Having Coulson back will be awesome.
Fear is a superpower.As I tend to look at story over all rather than individual characters in action, I think that reviving Coulson, no matter how interesting and entertaining he can be, would undermine some of the poignancy of the climax of The Avengers and, therefore, could be called "obnoxious."
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."There is such a thing as a character overstaying his welcome. Coulson's story can be over. He was a great character, but he filled his role in the story, and his death contributed in a meaningful way. Coming back to life is guaranteed to cheapen that death while, at the same time, doesn't really add anything to the character. He comes back to life and just goes back to what he was doing, business as usual? Then he becomes a stagnant memory of a character, a shadow that's only still around because the fans love him too much to let him be done, but with nothing to really do other than hang out and remind people that he exists.
edited 9th Dec '12 4:33:27 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yes.
And along that line of thinking, stuff like this is why fans should be thoroughly ignored by creators, because they will often concentrate on aspects of a story (like one character), and pandering to those fans can be to the detriment of the overall work.
(EDIT: actually, that came out harsher than I intended... obviously some fan interaction is OK, and putting in the occasional reference that dedicated fans will appreciate is fine, so long as it doesn't interfere with the main work... but it's a fine line to walk)
This is one of the causes of the problems with superhero comics, that fans have become the people in charge of things. It's where stuff like One More Day and DC's crisis of infinite reboots stems from.
edited 9th Dec '12 4:53:59 PM by imadinosaur
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Its not a "misinterpretation" when one notes that the whole theme for a given character in a movie is "He lies and deceives to achieve what needs to be done." Yes, its *possible* he really truly did die, but the movie very carefully kept it from being definitive. All they'd have needed to do to make it the inarguably more likely explanation would be to *show* the paramedics arriving, being waved off by Fury, and very much not doing anything with Coulson besides zipping him up in a body bag.
Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com