Originally posted by Gen. Chris
View Post
-
I think he's still a collection of parasites. Keep in mind he refers to himself as "We"Please do me a huge favour and help me be with the love of my life. -
SO what COULD take him out permanently??Comment
-
-
Originally posted by P-90_177 View Post
With a name like "hive" it makes sense. But it could also be the "royal we."Comment
-
Controlling people by making them 'believe' and eating people? Sounds like Jasmine from Angel to me.
I REALLY hope they don't play the plot card of Skye saying, "Ward! I know you're still in there! You need to fight it!" That would be a sucky climax.sigpicComment
-
With how it was her that tried killing ward in S2 (bullet to the side), i am not sure why she would try that.Comment
-
It's happened in worse and stranger instances in shows and movies. And given how hard the writers have been forcing the Ward character into the show for 2 seasons now, they might want to give him a redemption arc. But, I really hope not.Originally posted by garhkal View PostsigpicComment
-
Do any Ward fans really want a redemption? Besides, technically, Ward is no longer a character. He has joined all of his dead Hydra compatriots.Comment
-
There is no redemption for him at this point. Between seasons 2-3 has was not conflicted or appearing to be conflicted like he was in the last few episodes of season 1. He was a fully fledged and somewhat high ranking member of Hydra who murdered Rosalind for no reason other than to make Coulson suffer.
He's dead anyway, and this does not seem like the kind of thing you can really recover from. Ward may be "strong" but he is one mind among many.sigpicComment
-
I agree. With all Ward has done, there is no coming back..Comment
-
I completely agree. I've disliked him as a character (as in remaining on the show) since the end of season 1. I just mean that I hope that is a story road the writers/producers go down merely to artificially keep Brett Dalton on the show, as they have been doing.
But, it's something I could see them trying.sigpicComment
-
First off, because I'm not a regular poster here, hello again. Been awhile.
Second, Agents of Shield is, in the main, excellent entertainment and very skillfully written.
Third, I just saw this episode and I have one major grievance with the basic premise which is probably more to do with real world politics than with the story, itself.
But first, I have to agree with the other comments about the two principle relationships being played out. Bobby and Hunter have no reason to be together. I cannot see why they should. Bobby is way above Hunter in terms of her moral and ethical standing, and intellect. What does she see in this shallow fool? And there is no spark at all between Daisy and Lincoln. That one feels very forced. I think that relationship was probably demanded by the producers in order to tick various marketing demographic boxes, because there's got to be a relationship between two cool kids who are under 30 (Gemma and Fitz don't count because they're geeks, not athletic and don't have magazine cover sex appeal).
Compare this with Coulson and Price who were completely believable once they got over there initial hurdle of mistrust. Their relationship lasted all of five minutes, but in that time it was clear they were on each other's level, they jibed, they understood each other, they could communicate as equals not just professionally, but personally, intellectually and emotionally. This only also applies to Fitz and Simmons. It doesn't apply to Bobby and Hunter, or Daisy and Lincoln.
And now, my grievance. You can stop reading here if you're not interested in the socio-political and cultural dynamic of the US-UK relationship as it is portrayed in works of fiction.
The symposium. Members were the USA, Australia, Japan, Russia and Taiwan.
Now, obviously, there are many deep references to the original comics in all the episodes, no doubt including the members this symposium, most notably the Australian unit. But it still annoyed me because the first thing this line-up reminded me of was the sixth season SG1 episode Disclosure in which the UK ambassador was portrayed as a fauning, gutless, gullible, yes-man who was just there to do whatever the USA told him to do and expressed not a single opinion of his own, nor disagreed for one moment with anything that was said. This is a constant trend in American TV shows and I'm getting really sick and tired of it. The UK is a more significant consumer of US TV and related products than Australia - in fact, it's a bigger market for everything made in the US with the exception of defence technology (oops, just gave myself away with that spelling, didn't I?) and yet the UK is treated in all instances with contempt.
Why do I bring this up? Because until this episode I was giving Agents of Shield a free pass on this one. They hadn't done their own version of 'Disclosure' and, instead, had shown powerful British characters (even though Hunter is a total fecking moron at times).
But this episode aggravated the chip on my shoulder, so there it is. As a member of my culture and society, I'm sick of my culture and society being used in works of fiction as the butt of jokes, or treated like a pathetic little client state. And I'm probably sick of it because it reflects real life too closely. But that being the case, I don't watch fictional TV shows because I want more real life. I don't watch them to be reminded that British politicians are often so useless that they couldn't beat a strip of used, wet toilet paper in a fair fight. No, I want to escape real life during that particular 45 minutes, not have yet more of it slapped in my face. Like used, wet toilet paper. With a union jack on it.
Bah humbug.
Now I shall crawl back into my hole and shut up.
P.S. I still like the show and consider it one of the best things on TV at the moment.Comment
Comment