Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Series / AgentsOfSHIELD

Go To

Mar 24th 2017 at 10:30:32 PM •••

Why would someone change the image without a discussion?!

May 11th 2016 at 9:26:15 AM •••

Should the spoiler warning at the top of the main page be updated to include Civil War? The episode that aired on May 10 had a few pretty major spoilers for the movie for anyone who hadn't seen it yet.

Sep 29th 2015 at 10:34:23 PM •••

Should we include a different opening quote for the page topper? Since, you know, Grant Ward hasn't been a good guy since, well, season one? I was thinking this quote from the Season 1 finale:

Nick Fury: The principle SHIELD was founded on was pure.
Melinda May: Protection.
Nick Fury: Protection. One word. Sometimes to protect one man from himself, other times to protect the planet against an alien invasion from another universe. It's a broad job description.
Phil Coulson: No need to tell me.
Nick Fury: But the belief that drives us all is the same. Whether it's one man, or all mankind.
Phil Coulson: That they're worth saving.

Or maybe some shortened version of this quote.

Edited by alliterator
Apr 27th 2015 at 2:33:04 PM •••

Should we go ahead and add the spoiler warning for Avengers: Age of Ultron?

Aug 16th 2014 at 3:25:26 PM •••

"Season 2 will also include Mockingbird joining Team Coulson."

Can anyone confirm this ? I've searched and either this is wishful thinking based on no evidence to date (that Mockingbird will be a regular) or it's badly written (Mockingbird will be in the show, not a member of the bus).

I was thinking of rewriting it to say Mockingbird would be appearing in Season Two.

Thoughts ?

Jun 19th 2014 at 10:15:30 AM •••

So the edit page asks not to reinstate Five-Man Band because it was removed due to shoehorning. How the heck is it shoehorning? Agents of Shield has one of the straightest cases of a Five-Man Band I've ever seen:

  • Coulson is The Leader. Self-explanatory.
  • May is The Lancer. Her chilly demeanor contrasts with Coulson's open one, and she often clashes with him idealistically. She is also his confidante and second-in-command, and has taken over for him when he was captured or incapacitated.
  • Ward is The Big Guy. He's the one who always comes in guns blazing, and he expresses helplessness when he can't physically fight something, as opposed to May's more rounded duties. Trip is too new to tell for sure, but he seems intended to replace Ward in this regard.
  • Fitzsimmons are The Smart Guy. If something needs to be figured out, they'll be on it. They can share a role because they're The Dividual.
  • Skye is The Chick or, more accurately, The Heart. She's the most "feminine" as well as the moral center of the team. She is extremely idealistic and forms meaningful relationships with each member. If you need any more proof, look at the team's reactions when she gets shot. They are willing to go to hell and back for her, something explicitly mentioned on the page for The Heart. Heck, even her formal job, communications, is traditionally relegated to The Chick.
Each of these character's personal pages even have these roles listed on them. Really, I'm not sure why the Five-Man Band was removed in the first place.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Jul 23rd 2014 at 4:54:43 PM •••

At a guess, it's the Fitzsimmons that breaks it. I agree with you, but this is one particular trope that is resistant to tweeking.

May 11th 2016 at 3:16:54 PM •••

Nope. Doesn't count. The Lancer can never be female.

Sadly, I'm not just being a jerk. Five-Man Band is stupidly strict. It must be four males and a female, with the female being The Chick, or it doesn't count.

The reason it's like this is that at one time this was a hugely common trope seen everywhere and always in this exact formation, but it's become less common recently and has become something of a Dead Horse Trope, in part because it's so strict... since that formula's fallen out of vogue it's next to impossible now to find straight examples unless the author was intentionally going for that trope.

Check out The Team for a possible replacement.

Edited by wrm5
Apr 24th 2014 at 5:40:31 PM •••

This may be very silly of me, but here it goes. In "Light in the Darkness" there are two references to other members of the MCU, namely Skye mockingly calling Konig "Steve Rodgers", and Fitz saying that the solution he comes up with for the episodes Big Bad is based on stuff from Bruce Banner. Do these count as Mythology Gags, Shout Outs, or some third opption that has escaped me?

Hide/Show Replies
FastEddie MOD
Apr 24th 2014 at 5:42:37 PM •••

Shout-Out, I'd say. A mythology gag is about the Meta-text of the story. AGENTS is clearly in The 'Verse.

Edited by
Apr 25th 2014 at 5:44:02 AM •••

Wouldn't it be Continuity Nod? Shout-Out is usually a Shout-Out to something completely unrelated to the work.

Apr 22nd 2014 at 11:58:33 PM •••

I think we need to cut back on what counts as a Wham Episode on this show. According to the trope, it is:

"The point in a series where the story takes a sudden dramatic turn. Things will never be quite the same again.

When advertisements tease you with words such as "The most shocking episode of the season!", they're probably referring to this (unless they're not). This is the episode meant to radically alter the status quo, and in doing so send a major shock through the viewership."

Having multiple Wham Episodes is understandable - just look at Game of Thrones, but when the Main page lists Episodes 10 through 17 all as Wham Episodes and the Recap page adding 19 to the list, something is very wrong. It definitely needs some trimming down. Now, "Turn, Turn, Turn"... that is a definite example, but "Seeds" for two low-key cases of The Reveal? Cut. Wham Lines and whatnot are fine on their own, but that alone does not a Wham Episode make.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Apr 23rd 2014 at 10:59:03 AM •••

I agree with you completely. I'm actually not sure any episodes other than "Turn, Turn, Turn," count, personally. Maybe "End of the Beginning". A Wham Episode should vary from the baseline, and the baseline has been raised.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 11:12:29 AM •••

"Only Light in the Darkness" definitely isn't, but I can't recall most of the others by name, so I'm not sure.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 11:56:51 AM •••

Listing "Yes Men," which is almost entirely disconnected from the rest of the series except a ten-second stinger, is also pretty ridiculous.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 12:07:52 PM •••

I agree with "Turn, Turn, Turn," being the only Wham Episode in the show.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 9:13:58 PM •••

I cut most of them:

  • "The Bridge": With this episode, the series enters an unbroken string of Wham Episodes. Skye's faith in Coulson is damaged by May admitting they're not looking for her parents, Centipede kidnaps Coulson, Mike is seemingly killed in an explosion covering Centipede's escape, and Ward gets shot in the process.
  • "The Magical Place" finally addresses the mystery of Coulson's apparent death and resurrection: he was dead for days, and S.H.I.E.L.D. had his memories rewritten to stop him being a Death Seeker. And if that wasn't whamy enough, the last scene reveals that Mike is still alive, but minus a leg and prisoner to Centipede.
  • "Seeds": Skye is an 0-8-4, and Ian Quinn is working for the Clairvoyant.
  • "T.R.A.C.K.S.": Mike is turned into the Clairvoyant's new enforcer, Deathlok, and Skye is left comatose after being shot by Quinn.
  • ''T.A.H.I.T.I.": Coulson finally learns exactly how Fury brought him back: through the transplant of alien tissues turned into potent drugs. What's more, Skye is given a similar treatment.
  • "Yes Men" is for the most part an ordinary episode, until the very end reveals that May is spying on the team for (presumably) the S.H.I.E.L.D. conspiracy that resurrected Coulson.

I think "End of the Beginning" is borderline and wouldn't mind if someone else wants to cut it (it's almost like a two-part episode with "Turn, Turn, Turn", given the massive cliffhanger it ends on). "String of Wham Episodes" is not possible by definition. Given the new Arc-centric direction of the show, I think it's safe to say that even one or two major reveals can't qualify an episode; it has to seriously change the trajectory of the arc somehow, like HYDRA's reemergence did.

Apr 14th 2014 at 9:36:04 AM •••

The spoiler tag situation on this page has gotten out of hand. Just eyeballing it I'd say somewhere from 2/3-3/4 of the examples are tagged, many of which are completely whited out which is technically not allowed. It's one thing to tag major spoilers, it's another thing to tag every single remotely surprising plot development. Normally I just singlehandedly fix things like this, but this is a long page and at least some of the tags are legitimate. From the recent history alone, I notice someone tagged Fitz shooting a Mook. That clearly falls under "If you didn't want that spoiled, don't read the work page."

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 20th 2014 at 8:18:17 AM •••

Well, since there are no responses, I've started slashing and burning. If anyone disagrees with some of the stuff I'm untagging, feel free to post it here. The current page is a Signal To Noise Trainwreck.

Edited by
Apr 20th 2014 at 8:38:05 AM •••

I got to the letter "D" before deciding it was getting too exhausting to continue for the time being. I'll come back later but it would be nice if someone else wanted to help make the page minimally legible.

Apr 20th 2014 at 10:16:25 AM •••

There's a glitch that discussion pages don't always show up on watchlists. That's why no one replied.

Anyway, you are allowed to spoiler-tag entire entries (minus the trope name, which should never be tagged). You're supposed to try to avoid it, but it's not flat-out against the rules. That being said, most of your edits look fine, though I'm still looking over them. A good number of them were indeed unnecessary tags. I just want to make sure you're not un-tagging things like HYDRA's existence under the logic "everyone already knows."

Apr 20th 2014 at 11:14:05 AM •••

I actually did un-tag that particular development, but for a different reason; it is literally impossible to talk about current episodes without talking about it, so spoiler-tagging that particular development means being essentially unable to talk about recent episodes at all. There comes a point where you're spoiler-tagging so much that there's nothing left for the people who don't highlight the spoilers, and I think trying to keep the existence of HYDRA a secret crosses that line.

Oh, and FWIW, I definitely erred on the side of un-tagging too much. Intentionally. The pendulum was so far in the other direction that I figured it was better to untag the borderline cases and let other people argue with me about the ones that turn out to be mistakes than to leave the status quo.

Edited by
Apr 20th 2014 at 11:31:06 AM •••

Actually, it's better to err on the side of not untagging too much, so people don't have to waste their time cleaning up after your mistakes.

If you're deliberately going to not even try to not make mistakes everyone else will have to fix, do everyone a favor and don't edit.

People who don't care about spoilers can just deactivate them. People who do care would rather err on the side of caution.

Apr 20th 2014 at 11:42:59 AM •••

Not un-tagging stuff that should be un-tagged is also a mistake. It's better to make a mistake someone else will be motivated to fix, than to make a mistake that hardly anyone will care to fix and will just accumulate with the other similar mistakes that have made the page the mess it is right now. And I'm by definition only un-tagging the things that I believe are at least close to the line, so the "damage" I'm "risking" is both minimal and a matter of opinion.

Ironically, I care about keeping the use of spoiler tags reasonable because I don't want to deactivate spoiler tagging completely. Having 70%+ of the examples spoiler-tagged means the only reasonable way to read the page is to highlight everything, so the spoiler tags become useless. Keeping them limited to actual spoilers allows them to do their job.

Apr 20th 2014 at 12:09:00 PM •••

All of that said, I'm glad other people are paying attention to this because I really didn't intend to just unilaterally decide how this stuff is going to work. In that vein, I'm going to start posting general principles I'm using when making these edits so other people can offer their opinions.

  • One convention I've adopted to help make things less spoilery (and therefore allowing me to delete tags) is to refer to Garrett and Ward as "The Clairvoyant" and "The Mole" when talking about their activities under HYDRA, as long it keeps the substance of the example the same. That way people who know about that particular plot development will know what's going on but it won't spoil anyone who doesn't.

  • In a similar vein, I've started un-spoiling mentions of the existence of Deathlok, but it might be possible to keep his identity under spoilers without ruining the page. So, my current convention is to just call him "Deathlok" if referring to him after "T.R.A.C.K.S.", and "Peterson" otherwise. He was showing up in the promotional materials anyway so it might just be a Late-Arrival Spoiler at this point.

  • Things that are revealed the next scene after they become relevant are not spoilers. I consider Thomas Nash to be on the borderline of this principle because while he was revealed as a fake right after he was killed, he also spent the entire episode being a Red Herring.

  • I'm inclined to say that Victoria's fake villainy can't be kept under spoilers, because even though it could be considered a spoiler in a vacuum, it's only for like half an episode and requires hiding almost everything that comes after it, right down to avoiding pronouns when referring to The Clairvoyant.

Apr 20th 2014 at 12:29:37 PM •••

Agree with everything but the last one. We've made it clear that we're using male pronouns for the Clairvoyant out of convenience's sake; the fact that he actually is male isn't really relevant. Furthermore, it's not too difficult to hide stuff about the fake reveal of Victoria Hand being the Clairvoyant, since she dies the episode after.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 11:49:21 AM •••

Another addition:

  • "Character gets the exact same superpowers he has in the comics" is not a spoiler.

Apr 23rd 2014 at 11:55:58 AM •••

So I'm 99% done with my rampage now, though I may come back and do something about Wham Line; quotes are offically Spoilers Off material, though I'll probably show a little more finesse than cutting the quotes or removing the spoiler tags.

Apr 25th 2014 at 9:22:22 AM •••

That's quotes at the top of a page.

May 18th 2014 at 5:11:26 PM •••

The character page says "WARNING. These pages assume that you are up to date with the films up to The Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Relevant spoilers will be unmarked." Should we announce the same here?

May 21st 2014 at 8:09:25 PM •••

I don't think anything left in The Avengers is a spoiler (I mean the biggest one is Coulson getting killed by Loki and that's necessary backstory for this show), but I think the biggest stuff from Captain America should be tagged. I think it's bad form to spoil movies that came out after the show started.

To be clear, I don't mind it on the character pages. I think that the more detailed a page gets, the less should be tagged, with the extreme case being the Recap pages which are 100% tag free. But I don't think it's fair to say "you shouldn't read the main page about this series unless you've watched movies that are chronologically after parts of it"

Edited by
Jun 3rd 2014 at 7:05:48 PM •••

What about Fury being Not Quite Dead? It makes sense in the movie, as he dies and is revealed later to be alive. But here, you either saw the movie (the full movie) or you didn't; if you saw it, you know that he staged his death, if you didn't, you didn't even know it. In the series, he is mentioned to have been killed. Off screen, somewhere else, very far away from the action, and without influencing the plot other for increasing the Diabolus ex Machina. And he's mentioned to be alive but hiding at the next episode. Again, without influencing the plot. Nick Fury eventually makes a second appearence, but at this point it was a surprise only for the characters who were not up to the secret, not to the audience.

Jun 4th 2014 at 6:09:40 AM •••

I don't have a strong opinion either way since it's revealed in the very next episode (by Eric Koenig). I was actually kind of pissed that people spoiled it for me on the "Turn, Turn, Turn," recap page, but it's kind of old news now.

Apr 4th 2014 at 11:51:19 AM •••

After the Winter Soldier. Is it safe to say that Centipede is affliated with HYDRA?

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 9th 2014 at 12:30:59 PM •••

I'd say so. It's leader is a member of HYDRA, after all.

Apr 30th 2014 at 9:39:01 PM •••

Well yeah, I mean Garrett is Hydra. He created the project, so yeah.

Nov 14th 2013 at 12:09:43 PM •••

Re: "Just Plane Wrong". Those engines on the tail of the "bus"? In "The Hub", we find out that the "bus" has vectored thrust and full VTOL capability. May even uses an engine to literally blow away some troops.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 15th 2013 at 1:24:28 AM •••

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too - especially since the aft engines don't seem to be running in regular flight. (They didn't ingest any debris in the second episode, either.)

They remain strangely placed, though.

Nov 15th 2013 at 9:18:53 PM •••

How do they remain strangely placed?

Also, wouldn't the hot exhaust damage the rear engines even if they weren't running?

Edited by
Nov 17th 2013 at 1:33:02 AM •••

That's what I meant by 'strangely placed'. (According to the official bluebrints, they are not directly in line, though.) It doesn't make much sense and can't be good for the engines, but it does make a little bit more sense if they are only used for VTOL.

Oct 21st 2013 at 9:07:03 PM •••

Am I the ONLY one who found the reference to Fitz-Simmons wanting a fish tank installed on the Bus (in 0-8-4's Stinger) a Shout-Out to Picard's fish tank in Star Trek: Next Generation? If it doesn't "qualify" as a shout-out, why not?

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 22nd 2013 at 5:02:49 AM •••

For the same reason it didn't count as a shout out to the fish tank in mass effect.

Fish tanks are fairly common decorations, so there's no reason to take the idea of one being used as such as a reference to any of the billions of fish tanks in fiction (you might as well argue that it was a reference to A Fish Called Wanda or a certain Monty Python sketch.

Oct 22nd 2013 at 7:22:46 AM •••

How many of those fish tanks were aboard the main vehicles of the characters, as in Star Trek or (I suppose, I don't know the game) Mass Effect? Putting the fish tank on the ship is what does it for me. Plus, the element of the British Dividual being the one that wanted it, also mirroring Picard's character (yes, we know he was supposed to be French, but aside from the name, what about Jean-Luc Picard was not British?).

"Billions" of fish tanks? You've just named the only 2 I can bring to mind and added 1 I have only read about. :grinning:

Oct 22nd 2013 at 7:44:29 AM •••

... huh? You totally lost me.

A fish tanks in an executive's quarters is a common trope. Both Picard and the Mass Effect are just examples of this. Ditto Coulson. It just so happens that their quarters are all mobile. I mean, it's not like Coulson has the opportunity to have a non-mobile fish tank.

Oct 21st 2013 at 9:50:27 AM •••

It seems that several editors have independently added/removed Skye not knowing the difference between the safety catch and magazine release and making this mistake later in the episode at a critical moment as an example of Chekhov's Skill.

It seems, to me at least, that while it's neither an aversion or straight example, it's clearly an Inverted Trope (as opposed to a skill someone's shown practising which shows up and comes in handy, it's a mistake someone keeps making which causes complications at a critical moment) which is worth mentioning.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 21st 2013 at 9:02:28 PM •••

As the OP on the entry I would agree that it is inverted rather than averted, but probably belongs under the Gag category also. Sice my entry has been deleted twice I am gunshy about trying a third time however.

Oct 18th 2013 at 7:09:29 PM •••

It mentions that the trailer driver in episode 3 being named "Mack" is a Punny Name. Could someone clarify?

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 17th 2013 at 7:33:00 AM •••

Arc Words: I don't want to start an edit war, so I mention it here. The definition I read is not "phrases mentioned that have greater significance" That's some kind of foreshadowing, not Arc Words. Can someone justify the current entry to me, because right now it reads as "Little hints that Coulson is an LMD" as opposed to Arc Words. Have we even had an Arc, yet?

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 17th 2013 at 7:44:20 AM •••

Part of the issue is that Arc Words is a horribly, horribly defined trope. There's a reason it's in TRS. I'd say just leave it for the moment, and once TRS figures out what it means, we'll deal with it then.

Oct 9th 2013 at 6:28:04 PM •••

Regarding: "Asset"

Is there a trope for the situation in which Coulson knows for a fact since he was there that Franklin Hall wanted the Gravity Machine destroyed along with all who know about its existence, but yet Coulson doesn't actually destroy it and his sentimentality for the person in question appears to have been part of his reason for just putting it away where no one ever will find it?

I know meta-wise that it had to be so because of what happened in The Stinger, but in-character it seems like a dopily out of character move (or perhaps stupidly sentimental?) for Coulson.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Oct 10th 2013 at 8:13:17 AM •••

What Coulson says is entirely Due to the Dead, but it's the exact opposite of what he would have wanted. It might just be Idiot Ball. I think when Graviton finally shows up and Coulson has to defend his decision, we'll learn more about what his reasons were. Maybe.

Oct 10th 2013 at 9:39:55 AM •••

Coulson might not be able to destroy it. Given what happened in the episode, I got the impression that destroying it could only entail massive collateral damage. So instead he does the next best thing he can and has it locked away as completely as he can.

Oct 11th 2013 at 12:02:32 AM •••

I got the impression that Coulson doesn't want it destroyed because he thinks at some point in the future they might be able to extract Professor Hall.

Jan 9th 2014 at 11:38:59 PM •••

I agree with Mr Death. Unlike many other objects that can be flung into the sun, a big chuck of gravity altering stuff might not be the wisest move. Potentially altering the gravity of the sun should be one of those things that you don't do. And given that their one expert on the substance is dead as far as they know, they've likely got no one else they can consult about destroying it. If you can't safely destroy something, then it's better to hide it away without documentation and hope that's the end of it.

Edited by
Oct 8th 2013 at 6:40:01 AM •••

The Rebel Attack in "0-8-4": Was it staged?

I had assumed so from the get-go, with the convenient timing and the cars blowing up seemingly for no reason. Plus the members of the army were conveniently well-equipped (a drill and knockout gas dispenser cannot be standard issue).

Reasons against: No one noticed the fact that Every Car Is a Pinto, and it seems like the Comandante wouldn't have enough time to devise a plan and get resources after seeing Coulson.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 8th 2013 at 7:16:55 PM •••

I believe so considering the episode's villain had a personal history with Coulson and used it to their advantage.

Oct 8th 2013 at 7:49:47 PM •••

I don't think it was. After all, if there wasn't a rebel attack, the villains could have just killed the team as soon as they had the drop on them, blamed the rebels as they were going to and drove straight home. Being stuck on the Bus added another complication to their plan (since they needed to keep Coulson alive to redirect the plane, and the team alive to extort Coulson).

Sep 29th 2013 at 3:57:10 AM •••

Is it fair to call the flying car an homage to Back to the Future? In the comics, SHIELD has a long history of such vehicles, using the rotating wheel commonly:

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 29th 2013 at 5:29:23 AM •••

Well, the placement at the end of the film (including how it was suddenly revealed to surprise someone) and the way it takes off look very similar....

Sep 29th 2013 at 8:15:22 AM •••

Put it on YMMV and problem solved, yes?

Oct 8th 2013 at 6:45:31 AM •••

That's not how YMMV works. Specific tropes go there.

Anyway, it's pretty clearly an homage. It's done in such a similar way to the Back To The Future scene that it would have to be a pretty huge coincidence. And it's not like Joss Whedon is averse to pop culture references. There's certainly no way that the similarities would have slipped by him unnoticed.

Sep 26th 2013 at 7:49:59 AM •••

Can we start a Headscratcher Page? Only one episode in and I already have one. It's how they were able to stop Mike from exploding even though they made it clear there's no way to stop it and they hadn't figured out a third option yet. Taking the centipede off shouldn't work, as the Extremis virus changes the host's physiology, and it's not something you can turn off at will, especially under a few minutes.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 26th 2013 at 11:16:03 AM •••

The Centipede bracelet may incorporate extremis, but it doesn't work exactly the same way.

Sep 26th 2013 at 11:22:19 AM •••

You can make it yourself, just manually edit the url in your address bar and start the page.

Sep 26th 2013 at 11:28:58 AM •••

They did find the third option - which is what they shot Mike with at the end. Fitz and Simmons were there too.

Sep 26th 2013 at 1:07:10 PM •••

Yes, they found a third option. They loaded it into the "Night Night" gun which was what Ward shot Mike with.

Sep 29th 2013 at 8:16:10 AM •••

Yeah, there was some technobabble earlier that stated it was tied directly to his metabolism or something and the only way to stop it was to kill him... or tranq him.