Image Courtesy www.screenrant.com |
Note: This isn't intended as troll-fodder and clickbait; it's intended as a response to troll-fodder and clickbait. That is kind of is troll-fodder and clickbait is a mostly-unintended side effect!
Is there a war going on
between Marvel Television and Marvel Studios, as ScreenRant’s Anthony Ocasio
suggests? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say “no,”
because among other things Marvel Television is a division of Marvel
Studios! To say that there’s a war
going on between Marvel TV and Marvel Studios would be like saying that there’s
a war going on between the United States and Florida because they don’t agree
on everything. The people at the one
might not like the way that the parent company is handling their department, but
that is far from a “war.” If Marvel
Studios had a problem with their Marvel TV division, they would really only
have themselves to blame.
But if that’s the
case, why aren’t there any references to the TV shows in the movies? That’s a very good question, but there is no
simple answer. I have a couple of
thoughts to share, but I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, as
well.
Image Courtesy www.twitter.com/Marvel |
Simple Logistics
Movies are planned out
years in advance, with scripts done well in advance of casting and shooting. By contrast, TV series are normally shot as
they go (though they work a few weeks to a month ahead). As such, the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
crossover with Avengers: Age of Ultron was shot close to a year after
production wrapped on the movie itself. The
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. show runners were able to see a script for the
movie and set themselves up to feed into it and work off of it, but it couldn’t
really go the other way due to the logistics.
Avengers: Age of Ultron was, however, able to present the
original helicarrier without a long explanation because Joss Whedon knew that AoS
was going to provide the full explanation for how Fury managed to keep a helicarrier
secret while he didn’t actually have anyone officially working for him.
Image Courtesy www.facebook.com/AgentsofShield |
There’s Just Too
Much Going On
Agents of
S.H.I.E.L.D. has currently produced 44 episodes (2 seasons of 22 episodes
each). Add to that 8 episodes of Agent
Carter, 13 episodes of Daredevil, and SIXTY episodes of Marvel
Netflix between A.K.A. Jessica Jones and The Defenders, and you’ve
got 125 hours of content from Marvel TV (oversimplified since network TV shows
are closer to 45 minutes than an hour, but you get the picture) that we know
about. By contrast, Marvel Studios has
produced 11 shows, with another 11 in the pipelines, for a total of 44 hours of
content. For a current comparison, there
are currently 44 hours of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. alone (plus another 21
hours of additional Marvel TV), and 22 hours of Marvel movies. That is a lot of stuff going on in the
MCU. If the movies were to try working
all of the TV material in, it would be a Herculean effort! They can work in a few things here and there,
but beyond a couple characters reprising their roles from the small screen on the
big screen (and vice versa), they just wouldn’t be able to do it.
There are a few things
that I expect to carry over from TV to the movies. I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Lorelei
(AoS 1x15); my guess is that Loki (in the form of Odin) wanted her back
on Asgard as part of his plan to solidify his rule of Asgard. As such, she could very well have a small
part in Thor: Ragnarok which builds off of her Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
appearance. Similarly, I expect the
movie The Inhumans will not talk about Terrigenesis too much—and probably
will not show it at all—because Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has now
established how it works and what it looks like. Instead, because its universe, scientific
explanation, and culture have already been established, The Inhumans
will focus on the new characters and moving the plot forward. But both of these movies are still at least 2
years away and were still very early in their development when Agents
of S.H.I.E.L.D. planted those seeds.
Image Courtesy www.facebook.com/AgentsofShield |
It’s a Big Sandbox
to Play In
The Marvel Cinematic
Universe is pretty darn big. I mean, huge. Nothing says that everything has to interact
on a weekly basis. Some events are big enough
that you have to expect them to have ramifications on the other media,
particularly on a serialized TV show like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but
for the most part that is not necessary.
There was no crossover between AoS and Daredevil because
there didn’t need to be; both series’ events are small-scale enough that they
didn’t have to come to the other’s attention.
Thor: The Dark World impacted AoS to some extent, but the
major events were over too soon to really expect S.H.I.E.L.D. to respond in a
meaningful way (beyond the meh cleanup scene on AoS). The major events in the MCU since Agents
of S.H.I.E.L.D. started—the ones which we could expect the series to
address—have been the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. and rise of Ultron, both of which
S.H.I.E.L.D. was directly involved with and both of which had major
ramifications on the show. Beyond that, movie
events haven’t really required or allowed a commensurate response by Agents
of S.H.I.E.L.D.
An Example:
Image Courtesy en.wikipedia.org |
Marvel is not the
first company to attempt a large interconnected universe spanning multiple
semi-independent features on both the small screen and the big screen. I think that honor would go to the Star
Trek franchise (someone can correct me on that if I’m wrong). In the 1960s, Gene Roddenberry produced the
original Star Trek TV series, which only ran for 3 seasons. However, that series spawned 6 feature films
starting a decade later, the last of which were produced concurrently with the
next TV series in the franchise (Star Trek: The Next Generation), which
itself spawned 4 feature films, including a crossover with the Original
Series. Meanwhile, 2 additional
series were produced roughly concurrently in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
and Star Trek: Voyager which take place around the same time, later in the
continuity of Next Generation.
Confused yet? It gets
better: The final TV series in the
franchise (pre-reboot) is Star Trek: Enterprise, which takes place before
the Original Series. All told,
there are over 600 hours of Star Trek content, not including
books, before the recent franchise reboot.
And everything before 2009 is considered to be part of the same
universe.
However, in those 600+
hours of content, there are a surprisingly small number of crossovers and
tie-ins. Original Series actors
reprise their roles in the films and in future series on occasion. Kirk appears in Star Trek Generations
somehow. Voyager left from Deep
Space 9 to begin its voyage, and features a guest appearance by at least one DS9
actor in the pilot, with a couple more in the final seasons. Both Voyager and DS9 deal with
the Maquis rebellion to some extent.
Janeway appears in Star Trek: Nemesis as an admiral giving Picard
his mission following her promotion after Voyager’s return to the
Federation. The Borg serve as a major
antagonist for half the TV series—the Borg who travel back in time in Star
Trek: First Contact even appear in Star Trek: Enterprise. But those are the major crossovers and
tie-ins I know of between all the different Star Trek installments. Not a lot considering the amount of content
we’re talking about.
Why is this? One of the biggest reasons is probably that
it takes place throughout the galaxy, meaning that the various ships and
stations don’t need to cross paths a lot.
Another reason is that there is a 300+-year time span between the
earliest events of Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Nemesis,
so many of the movies and 2 of the series are not concurrent with the
rest. So there really aren’t a lot of
opportunities for crossover with some of the content.
However, Next
Generation, Voyager, and DS9 all take place around the same
time (Next Generation concludes right before Voyager begins, and
the Next Generation movies take place during that time, with DS9
beginning during the final seasons of Next Generation and running most
of the same time as Voyager). However,
there is virtually no crossover of actors and plots between the shows. Voyager deals with the Maquis in the “Pilot,”
but that plot is put to rest within a couple episodes and only mentioned in
passing in the final couple seasons. Aside
from an appearance by DS9 in the Voyager pilot, the 2 series don’t
reference each other at all until the end of their respective runs from what I understand. Given that these three shows happened in such
close proximity to each other, why is this the case? Why did they decide to send Voyager to
the other side of the galaxy in the first 10 minutes of the series instead of
allowing it to interact with the DS9 cast more? Why are Worf and O’Brien the only regular
characters on Next Generation to make the jump to Deep Space Nine? Why is Q the only character to appear in all
3 series more than a couple times?
If I had to guess, I’d
say that it’s just easier to keep all the series separate because then you don’t
run into the kind of continuity errors that plague other interconnected
franchises like the X-Men franchise (which is only 7 movies in with no
TV shows and couldn’t even figure its own chronology out after using a giant “reset”
button in Days of Future Past!). It’s
easy to take an omnipotent character like Q and have him jump between shows
like he’s playing hopscotch; it’s a lot harder to put a Next Generation
character into Voyager without running into complications—like what’s
this character doing here, and where’s the Enterprise? In order to keep the series all separate,
they reduced the opportunities for crossover to virtually nil by shooting Voyager
across the galaxy and keeping DS9 pretty well planted in one location
while the Next Generation crew of the Enterprise ran around doing
Enterprise-y things in the Alpha Quadrant. As it is, they already have continuity issues with things as simple as "what's the scale for 'Warp'?" That changes between the series.
If a massive franchise
like Star Trek avoided crossovers to such an extent between most of
their series, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that Marvel does the same
with its movies referencing the TV series.
Conclusion
There are plenty of
good business reasons to keep the crossovers and references going from the
movies to the TV shows, and they don’t involve a “war” between Marvel Studios
and Marvel TV. However, as the shows
continue to flourish and establish themselves in the MCU, I expect there to be
more of a reciprocal relationship between them.
Could this lead to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. team showing up
during Civil War? Possibly, but I
doubt it. I would expect it to happen
more over the course of the Infinity War movies, with Agents of
S.H.I.E.L.D. very obviously filling in the gaps between the two movies. Following that, I expect a lot of the themes
(and perhaps some characters) from AoS’s introduction of the Inhumans to
carry over into The Inhumans movie.
Why do you think there
aren’t more TV references in the Marvel movies?
Do you think there should be more?
What would your idea movie/TV crossover event (in a movie) look like?
If you want to get an
email whenever I publish a new article, go to the top of the page and enter
your email address in the box labeled “Subscribe to Mostly MCU Reviews” and
click “Submit.”
I am not an expert on how scripts and movies get made, but I would think you would have to consider the amount of creative license the director has. Usually there is no one telling these guys that they have to make the story connected. Without that central authority literally telling them to do so, it won't be connected. And, I think we can say that Whedon really didn't want to connect AOU in any way to AOS.
ReplyDeleteStan
There is a lot of tension between the director's creativity and the demands of the shared universe when it comes to Marvel movies (and the TV series). Joss Whedon said as much about Age of Ultron: The actors could go directly to Kevin Feige for ideas of what their character should do. Likewise, Marvel's shared universe needs were what caused Edgar Wright to leave Ant-Man.
DeleteDude, I like your blog. How long have you been a Marvel fan?
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I don't have the same "geek cred" as some bloggers or YouTubers.
DeleteGrowing up I was always interested in comic book superheroes, though I didn't read the comic books themselves--something I've started correcting recently. I remember watching the first Iron Man movie in the theater, as well as the Ang Lee Hulk movie. However, I kind of missed the post-credits scene from Iron Man, so I didn't really get into the MCU until just before The Avengers came out, when I bought all 5 Phase 1 movies and watched them in the space of a week!
So I guess you could say I was a casual fan pre-Avengers, but really got into it around when The Avengers came out.
Thanks for the info. Forget to ID myself when I asked you that question. I'm an old timer, started reading in the silver age, so called, when I was 9 or 10, early sixties. Stopped in 68 in the 9th grade when our family home burned to the ground and I lost about 2000 comics in pristine condition. So I don't like all the new stuff and the silly new iterations of the characters. For example, I don't pan to see the new FF movie this summer. Who cares about a young 20 something Reed Richards, boy genius. To me Reed Richards has some silver in his hair and he's in his 40s, like in the silver age comics. So, not all the new stuff Marvel has done, I like, like a female Thor, what an idiot idea.
DeleteStan
I find a lot of the Ultimates stuff to be pretty interesting in the way it reimagined the characters for today (reducing the amount of clutter from several decades of stories being told, retconned, and retold). The Miles Morales Spider-Man is a pretty cool addition to the Peter Parker narrative, for example. However, there are some weird things with the Ultimates--Pietro and Wanda's... ahem... "relationship," for one thing.
DeleteThey've been using the Ultimates for much of their inspiration in the MCU--things like Hawkeye's look and even the existence of a secret family are taken straight from there. The Fant4stic movie is also using the Ultimate version of the team for inspiration. So it's not all just weird new things that Fox is doing to the characters. But I can definitely understand why someone who's used to the silver age iterations of the characters wouldn't be a fan of movies that follow later iterations which made major changes to those characters.
To me there's nothing wrong with a female character wielding Mjolnir; it's just a weapon which gives its wielder the power of Thor. However, my understanding has always been that "Thor" is not a codename like "Captain America" or "Hawkeye"; it's the guy's actual given name. It's interesting that when Thor became unworthy of wielding Mjolnir he chose to abandon his given name and just go by "Odinson," but I don't know if we can go from there to the new wielder of Mjolnir taking Thor's given name for herself. But I haven't actually read those comic books for myself, so maybe it makes better sense in the narrative. I wouldn't exactly mind if Natalie Portman wields Mjolnir at some point in the MCU, but I'm not exactly holding my breath for it, either!
Portman doing battle. At some point, man, the actors have to look the part, and she definitely does not. Incidentally, I've discovered the ideal actress for Captain Marvel. I saw San Andreas last night and Alexandra Daddario would be wonderful in the role. She has the acting chops, the physicality at 5-8," the athleticism, etc. And what a sexpot. Wow! Ideal. All Marvel female superheroes have super sex appeal.
ReplyDeleteStan
I haven't really seen Alexandra Daddario in anything since she was in White Collar. I wouldn't think of her for Captain Marvel based on her White Collar role, but I guess I wouldn't have thought of Chris Pratt for Star Lord based on Parks and Recreation, so previous roles aren't always an indicator!
DeleteI don't think it's just the female heroes who have super sex appeal--at least in the movies. Considering that pretty much every single movie with Thor has at least one shirtless scene, you can't say there isn't some sex appeal to him. Plus they've done the same thing with Steve Rogers, Scott Lang (in the trailers), and Chris Pratt on at least 1 occasions.