Yo I love the first Seasons of Daredevil and Jessica Jones, but those were both highly flawed.

Daredevil Season 2 and Luke Cage got unbearable in their second halves after coming out the gate pretty strong.

I'm scared for Iron Fist cause Scott Buck is the showrunner. He was the showrunner for the last 3 or 4 seasons of Dexter (yikes).

The Punisher mos def doesn't need 13 episodes seasons.

What would you do to improve these shows?

Like everyone's been saying ad nauseam these shows are about 3 to 4 episodes too long and do too much wheel spinning.

Maybe break the arcs up so they focus on 2 separate cases a Season.

Mos def write some the characters better or sideline 'em.


What do y'all suggest?

Now that these characters are established, let 'em cook togetherm ore than just the DEFENDERS.

Roll LC and IF into one show or have them help each other out in solving cases in each others shows.

and I second bwood, HFH needs at least one season all to itself.

I would like to see more interaction between these characters going forward. Not a ton but a couple eps that start to tie them all together a little tighter each season would be good.

Finished LUKE CAGE Season 2 last week.

The show was at its strongest when it was some sort of combination of Luke, Danny, Misty, and Collen all on screen together.

Literally they should just do HEROES FOR HIRE.

- Open the season with some episodic episodes. Give us a sense of the area, the side characters, etc. I think you could do one half of the season episodic and then those episodes bring you to the arc.
Model the shows after Justified. (Or better yet, don't have every show be the same shit, different superhero.)

- Write the shows in standard broadcast format; you need act outs every 10 minutes or so and you only have 42 minutes to tell your story. If you have a story that requires a longer run time, go for it but don't let scenes ramble on and trim the fat. Also, I think forcing yourself to write big act out type moments (even if you don't act out on them) helps the pace of the show. Right now, it seems like the writers' freedom to do what they want isn't helping.

- Improve the side characters by giving them something to do besides nagging the heroes. Or just improve them in general (looking at you, Daredevil.)
Let's see more of the lives of the villains besides their evil plots. Let's see Domingo and Cottenmouth pit some boxers against one another ala the hoops game in The Wire. Let's see more of the henchmen to get a better feel of them.
If you improve the side characters or the villains, you could get away with having more of an ensemble piece and not force the main characters to carry the weight.

- Saner, smarter villains. I hated Fisk and Diamondback. The bad guys can be crazy ala Heath Ledger's Joker but they have to be competent. I think season 1 of Luke Cage could have been about Cottenmouth, Mariah, and Shades - slowly choosing sides, playing each other against the other, etc. I thought Shades and Mariah could have been much deeper characters than they were.
And get a smart henchman or two. I feel like they're just there to do something stupid and get themselves discovered/killed by the main bad guy. They're never a real threat.

- Lighten up. By jumping into the serialized stories right away, the shows are HEAVY. It's weird how Marvel TV is more like DC films while DC TV has more humor like Marvel movies. (To be fair, SHIELD made hamfisted attempts at humor that usually fell flat.)

Also, make it so people are one upping one another and not: Evil guy fall into trap, good guys don't have the evidence or ability to hold the bad guy, bad guys spin that into making it seem like good guys are bad, Run, good guys, run!

- Get out of NYC. People will probably hate this but I don't see any reason why Luke Cage could have taken place in the South. Have him walk into Harlem at the end of Season 1.

As far as getting out of NYC: there's 5 boroughs. Why not have Iron Fist take place in Brooklyn? They could easily have the Rand Industries tower in Downtown Brooklyn.

>- Open the season with some episodic episodes. Give us a
>sense of the area, the side characters, etc.

There’s been a ton of this from what I’ve seen. I can’t think of a single side character that needed more screen time. Further, I think the call for short eps and shorter seasons makes these even more problematic.

I see zero benefit in devoting more time to guys like zip or that dude Luke put in the dumpster.

I think you could
>do one half of the season episodic and then those episodes
>bring you to the arc.

What about this makes the show better or tells the story 90% of us actually care about more effectively?

>Let's see more of the lives of the villains besides their evil
>plots.

We saw an awful lot of that in each of these shows thus far. The villains and their lives have gotten a ton of screen time telling their back story and those stories have been told at least as well as the heroes in each outing.

I’m not sure what’s lacking there.


>Let's see
>more of the henchmen to get a better feel of them.

For what? Particularly given that you want shorter eps and shorter seasons. In a 16 ep season of 52 minute eps, knock yourself out, but when you’re calling for 42 minute eps and think 13 eps is too much it’s unfathomable to devote a greater percentage of less screen time to throwaway characters.

Cage has four central villains: Cottonmouth, Shads, Mariah, and Diamondback and they each got a significant amount of time. We don’t need zip getting more time in a smaller window when there’s plenty to work with there, particularly when you add at least two crooked cops and one cop who is on the fence for a fair portion and is still a protagonist to our hero despite being a hero herself.

There’s just no good reason to devote more screen time to Henchman 1 and 2, particularly when you’re calling for less screen time overall.
>- Saner, smarter villains. I hated Fisk and Diamondback. The
>bad guys can be crazy ala Heath Ledger's Joker but they have
>to be competent.

Each his own i guess. Fisk was excellent. Diamondback was fine, i’m not excited for him but I’m not terribly bothered by him. He could definitely be improved but Fisk? Fisk was on point. You can always improve but he doesn’t particularly need anything more.

>And get a smart henchman or two. I feel like they're just
>there to do something stupid and get themselves
>discovered/killed by the main bad guy. They're never a real
>threat.

Nor should they be. That’s why secondary villains like Shades are there and helps Mariah rise through the ranks. We have Mariah playing two sides of the fence all through the show.

>- Lighten up. By jumping into the serialized stories right
>away, the shows are HEAVY. It's weird how Marvel TV is more
>like DC films while DC TV has more humor like Marvel movies.
>(To be fair, SHIELD made hamfisted attempts at humor that
>usually fell flat.)

Two different formats and it makes perfect sense to establish a different identity for each.

This just further proves the point that some people really do just want all their comic book shows and movies to ape the MCU blueprint and add a joke every two minutes. Serialized dramas are huge hits over and over and over again, so I don’t see an issue with keeping that formula for these. The MCU has plenty of gut busting, side splitting wisecracks to keep people properly sedated. This format doesn’t really need more of the MCU temperament, particularly with the characters they’ve chosen for these shows.

>Also, make it so people are one upping one another and not:
>Evil guy fall into trap, good guys don't have the evidence or
>ability to hold the bad guy, bad guys spin that into making it
>seem like good guys are bad, Run, good guys, run!

Well this I can agree with.


>- Get out of NYC. People will probably hate this but I don't
>see any reason why Luke Cage could have taken place in the
>South. Have him walk into Harlem at the end of Season 1.

Well, again, that’s just not the story being told and NYC is absolutely central to these characters. Sure, this season could have taken place in the south, but for what? But NY is central to the story being told and central to all the characters chosen for these shows.

1 ) "There’s been a ton of this from what I’ve seen. I can’t think of a single side character that needed more screen time. Further, I think the call for short eps and shorter seasons makes these even more problematic."
- "I see zero benefit in devoting more time to guys like zip or that dude Luke put in the dumpster."

I think you dismissal of my idea is actually more of a condemnation of the side characters than my idea. The side characters are (in one case, quite literally) throw aways. Or you have Turk who just rats out Luke and Pops, disappears, and laughably reappears fairly inexplicably for one scene and then disappears.
The stories could be better if they had stronger side characters. Giving Bobby Fish more of a backstory would make his involvement more interesting.

But yes, if they cut the episode order down, they don't necessarily have to do this.


2. "What about this makes the show better or tells the story 90% of us actually care about more effectively?"

You have more set-up of the characters, more set-up of the actual stakes or plot. Purple Man was just basically hanging out, fucking with people. Cottenmouth was running his club and getting jacked every step of the way. It's really not that hard to think about how more episodic episodes could help establish things better.


3. -- "We saw an awful lot of that in each of these shows thus far. The villains and their lives have gotten a ton of screen time telling their back story and those stories have been told at least as well as the heroes in each outing.

I’m not sure what’s lacking there."

I've thought the villains have sucked. Mariah didn't do shit. Shades just milled about. We got Cottenmouth's backstory but I thought we could have seen more of his rise to power rather than the family backstory, which I didn't think was effective. What we did see of Cottenmouth working was pretty much always his trying to figure out what went wrong or punishing one of his crew for fucking up. Oh, and deciding the right course of action to take out Luke Cage was shoot a fucking rocket launcher at a building. The actor carried that role but it was a pretty laughable villain.


4. -- "For what? Particularly given that you want shorter eps and shorter seasons. In a 16 ep season of 52 minute eps, knock yourself out, but when you’re calling for 42 minute eps and think 13 eps is too much it’s unfathomable to devote a greater percentage of less screen time to throwaway characters."

Again, if knock the shows down, they don't need to do this. But a show like Justified established an entire world filled with great characters in 13 42 minute episodes. The side characters in these Marvel shows have ranged mostly from forgettable to annoying. Fucking Barb from Stranger Things was in like three scenes and made more of an impact than any side character in any Marvel show.


5. "Nor should they be. That’s why secondary villains like Shades are there and helps Mariah rise through the ranks. We have Mariah playing two sides of the fence all through the show."

Mariah wasn't playing both sides all through the show. She was basically saying she didn't want to know what was going on and then, instead of finally seeing her cousin was a fuck up and cutting him loose, she freaks out over some molestation in the past. The entire Shades/Mariah/Cottenmouth thing could have been played much better. Ditto for the other gang members.


6. "This just further proves the point that some people really do just want all their comic book shows and movies to ape the MCU blueprint and add a joke every two minutes. Serialized dramas are huge hits over and over and over again, so I don’t see an issue with keeping that formula for these. The MCU has plenty of gut busting, side splitting wisecracks to keep people properly sedated. This format doesn’t really need more of the MCU temperament, particularly with the characters they’ve chosen for these shows."

I'm actually not for all the movies being the same. I'd like some variety in the films. I'd like some variety in the TV show. The Marvel Netflix shows are pretty much the same story, same mood, same shit.
But the tone of the Marvel shows is unrepentantly down. The original Luke Cage outfit moment was cheesy but it was a bit of levity. There's no reason you can't have some funny moments in the show. Very few serialized dramas are as bleak as the Netflix/Marvel shows IMO.


7. "Well, again, that’s just not the story being told and NYC is absolutely central to these characters. Sure, this season could have taken place in the south, but for what? But NY is central to the story being told and central to all the characters chosen for these shows."

Besides a couple of mentions of Harlem being the pinnacle of Black America, I don't think the city was all that central to things. I think you could have changed the name and not change the story at all. The only real reason to do it is if you have more crossovers but all they did was add Night Nurse into this.


Finally, it seems like you're someone who liked these shows so I'm not sure why you're bothering with this post since you don't really seem to think much needs to be changed.
And per usual, you knock people's ideas but fail to put forth any of your own.

Goddamn. If you don't like your ideas being critiqued, keep them to yourself.

>I think you dismissal of my idea is actually more of a
>condemnation of the side characters than my idea.

No, it’s your idea.

>The side
>characters are (in one case, quite literally) throw aways.

But that’s the point: those characters don’t need to be anything beyond that.

>The stories could be better if they had stronger side
>characters. Giving Bobby Fish more of a backstory would make
>his involvement more interesting.

I’m sure we’ll see some of that as time goes on but there was a ton of storytelling in here and doing more with guys like Fish, who does have a key roll beyond that of the other two I named will most likely happen over time.

>You have more set-up of the characters, more set-up of the
>actual stakes or plot. Purple Man was just basically hanging
>out, fucking with people.

Well… that’s Purple Man.

> It's really not that
>hard to think about how more episodic episodes could help
>establish things better.

So… no ideas or context to support the assertion that more episodic episodes will be a benefit, particularly since you want to trim screen time and episodes?

>3.
>I've thought the villains have sucked. Mariah didn't do shit.
>Shades just milled about. We got Cottenmouth's backstory but I
>thought we could have seen more of his rise to power rather
>than the family backstory, which I didn't think was effective.
> What we did see of Cottenmouth working was pretty much always
>his trying to figure out what went wrong or punishing one of
>his crew for fucking up. Oh, and deciding the right course of
>action to take out Luke Cage was shoot a fucking rocket
>launcher at a building. The actor carried that role but it was
>a pretty laughable villain.
Yes, a rocket launcher is a pretty good way to take someone out who seems to keep slipping through your grasp. That, of course, happened before Cottonmouth fully understood what Luke was. Personally I rather enjoyed the family aspect of the back story and thought that made much more sense from a character standpoint since these relationships are central to each of these shows.

>4. -- "For what? Particularly given that you want shorter eps
>and shorter seasons. In a 16 ep season of 52 minute eps, knock
>yourself out, but when you’re calling for 42 minute eps and
>think 13 eps is too much it’s unfathomable to devote a
>greater percentage of less screen time to throwaway
>characters."

>Again, if knock the shows down, they don't need to do this.

Cool, though this was written before you wrote that initial answer.

>But a show like Justified established an entire world filled
>with great characters in 13 42 minute episodes. The side
>characters in these Marvel shows have ranged mostly from
>forgettable to annoying.

And yet they fleshed out all the major characters pretty damn well. Perfect? Flawless? No, but the solution to that isn’t to beef up characters who are ultimately disposable. The solution is to adjust and improve on the characters who matter.

Fucking Barb from Stranger Things was
>in like three scenes and made more of an impact than any side
>character in any Marvel show.

Cool, I don’t really care about the side characters at all since there was plenty of attention paid to the characters who matter.

>5. "Nor should they be. That’s why secondary villains like
>Shades are there and helps Mariah rise through the ranks. We
>have Mariah playing two sides of the fence all through the
>show."

>Mariah wasn't playing both sides all through the show. She was
>basically saying she didn't want to know what was going on and
>then instead of finally seeing her cousin was a fuck up and
>cutting him loose, she freaks out over some molestation in the
>past. The entire Shades/Mariah/Cottenmouth thing could have
>been played much better. Ditto for the other gang members.

You’re just 100% incorrect about this . 100%. She KNEW what was going on, she simply maintained plausible deniability and kept a distance. You can’t say she wasn’t playing both sides with a straight face when she was knowingly funded through Cottonmouth’s activities and she knew he wasn’t legit.

Sorry but that’s ridiculous.

>6.
>I'm actually not for all the movies being the same.

Yeah you are. You’ve made similar references throughout these posts lamenting the darker/more serious tone of non-MCU properties. You’re not alone in that either, but yeah. You guys want all these jokes and habitually complain about things that have a dead serious tone to them.

I'd like>some variety in the films. I'd like some variety in the TV
>show. The Marvel Netflix shows are pretty much the same story,
>same mood, same shit.

There’s a definite similarity to the plot devices but they all ring perfectly realistic and in Cage’s case, it’s a theme central to the character that makes perfect sense. I can’t argue against deviation though, but I think the issue is overblown.

>But the tone of the Marvel shows is unrepentantly down.The
>original Luke Cage outfit moment was cheesy but it was a bit
>of levity. There's no reason you can't have some funny moments
>in the show. Very few serialized dramas are as bleak as the
>Netflix/Marvel shows IMO.

And there’s no reason why they need more funny moments either. It’s a wash really.

>7. "Well, again, that’s just not the story being told and
>NYC is absolutely central to these characters. Sure, this
>season could have taken place in the south, but for what? But
>NY is central to the story being told and central to all the
>characters chosen for these shows."
>
>Besides a couple of mentions of Harlem being the pinnacle of
>Black America, I don't think the city was all that central to
>things. I think you could have changed the name and not change
>the story at all. The only real reason to do it is if you have
>more crossovers but all they did was add Night Nurse into
>this.

Cool, these characters are all NY based characters. Your critique on this front is pretty generic. You don’t cite any real issues with the setting or reasons why it should be changed or how the setting is somehow detrimental or how changing the scenery would have improved it.

>Finally, it seems like you're someone who liked these shows so
>I'm not sure why you're bothering with this post since you
>don't really seem to think much needs to be changed.

1. Because it’s a message board?

2. It’s awfully arrogant to deduce that I don’t think anything needs to be changed simply because I didn’t think the changes *you* presented were all that necessary or even good. The only options there are I either think the show is flawless and above reproach, or I didn’t you’re your personal critiques all that valid.

>And per usual, you knock people's ideas but fail to put forth
>any of your own.

Cool. You’re ridiculously defensive and taking this awfully personal. If you’d like to run a perfectly good thread into the ground because you’re wounded , I’ll be happy to help. I don’t see you complaining about me cosigning two ideas above yours.

Further, if you don’t like your ideas to be critiqued, keep them to yourself and don’t post them to the public. Otherwise get thicker skin or better ideas I guess, I dunno what to tell you. I just disagreed and explained why and you’re having a goddamned tantrum over it. If you can’t handle a perfectly civil disagreement that’s on you and if you want to turn a perfectly civil thread into a long ass back and forth because your ego is apparently fragile, that’s also on you. I don’t see where I was confrontational or disrespectful but you’re awfully upset and again… that’s your problem.

Lastly, I post plenty of ideas so I have no clue what you’re blithering about on that front.

You saying, "Nuh uh" or "Side characters don't matter" is not critique. It doesn't add to the discussion.

1. >The side
>characters are (in one case, quite literally) throw aways.

"But that’s the point: those characters don’t need to be anything beyond that."

That's bad writing. You can have memorable side characters. Every quality show on TV has memorable side characters. The Marvel/Netflix shows have weak side characters; I think most people would agree. To simply dismiss that out of hand seems to dismiss the entire premise of this post.


2. > It's really not that
>hard to think about how more episodic episodes could help
>establish things better.

"So… no ideas or context to support the assertion that more episodic episodes will be a benefit, particularly since you want to trim screen time and episodes? "

I noted twice in the previous post that you don't necessarily have to do this is you're cutting time/episodes.

And I think it's just obvious logic that if you have a story that only fits 8 episodes, that having four episodic episodes to kick things off and establishing the characters is better than having filler episodes or a lot of overlong or filler scenes in the middle of when the show should have momentum.
You could have Luke handle something for Pops or for Chico so, you know, maybe we give a damn about him.
Maybe show Mariah actually doing something politically instead of talking about plans. Maybe show her keeping her cousin at bay for her political career or doing something that might tick him off because it helps her.
Maybe within his case, Luke actually UNCOVERS that the Rebuilding Harlem movement is a fraud rather than have a dude literally hand him a pamphlet while they are rousing people.
Maybe show Cottenmouth actually successfully doing something to establish that he's even remotely competent.
There are countless options that could have established a stronger foundation for the show and not forced them to stretch out some of the storylines.

Or, if you don't want to do that, then you rewrite your main conflicts so that they are more involved and have more than the usual Marvel/Netflix bad guys falling into traps, traps not working, good guys face backlash.


3. "Yes, a rocket launcher is a pretty good way to take someone out who seems to keep slipping through your grasp."

LOL. Besides being the epitome of "Well, that escalated quickly." It makes no sense for him to blow up a building that his cousin might want to take over for her project or that he would want to get money out of through his collections.
And yes, I know that a lot has been going on in NY in this universe but I think a rocket launcher attack would still bring on some undue attention. It's nonsensical.


4. "And yet they fleshed out all the major characters pretty damn well. Perfect? Flawless? No, but the solution to that isn’t to beef up characters who are ultimately disposable. The solution is to adjust and improve on the characters who matter."

We're talking about the side characters and there shouldn't be characters who just don't matter to the point that you don't bother writing them well. Your utterly disposable characters can have personality. Again, Justified was filled with them. And, no, I personally don't think they've done a good job with the main characters because I thought the villains in Luke Cage especially were all pretty lousy. One way to fix that is to give them stronger foils to battle against. If the side characters are stronger, it helps the main characters. It's one of the reason why they're called supporting characters.


5. "You’re just 100% incorrect about this . 100%. She KNEW what was going on, she simply maintained plausible deniability and kept a distance. You can’t say she wasn’t playing both sides with a straight face when she was knowingly funded through Cottonmouth’s activities and she knew he wasn’t legit."

A. That's not what I meant by playing both sides. Playing both sides would be working with her cousin but then also cozying up to Shades because she sees her cousins is slipping and she doesn't want to go down if he goes down.
B. When it comes to what you were referencing as playing both sides, well, it was kind of non-existent because she was constantly hanging out with her criminal cousin and nobody ever seemed to have any doubts that she and her cousin were in cahoots.
But maybe an episodic episode that includes the two of them clashing in public about their separate approaches or maybe them actually taking separate approaches to solve a problem could have buoyed this. Or hell, just introducing them in a way that might make us think that she's using him to get ahead politically would work but isn't on his side would work. Knowing everything that is going on, heading to his club but saying, "I don't want to know the details" isn't really playing both sides all that much to me.

On top of that, what is she getting from him? She funneled money from her project to help him build the club. He uses her office to story his money. Let us see him doing something for her. Build that plotline and make it matter instead of it being Revenge for Pops.


6. "Yeah you are. You’ve made similar references throughout these posts lamenting the darker/more serious tone of non-MCU properties. You’re not alone in that either, but yeah. You guys want all these jokes and habitually complain
about things that have a dead serious tone to them."

OK. Thanks for telling me what I think.
But I don't have a problem with more serious films. My problem has almost always been when people make films with a serious tone and then require massive suspensions of disbelief for the plot to work. To me, you can't have it both ways.


7: "It’s awfully arrogant to deduce that I don’t think anything needs to be changed simply because I didn’t think the changes *you* presented were all that necessary or even good. The only options there are I either think the show is flawless and above reproach, or I didn’t you’re your personal critiques all that valid."

Your first post was dismissive of every other idea in this thread. And all you offered to improve it was more crossover eps. Of course, you offered "no ideas or context to support the assertion" that that would make the show better.
I call 'em how I see 'em.


8. "Cool. You’re ridiculously defensive and taking this awfully personal. If you’d like to run a perfectly good thread into the ground because you’re wounded , I’ll be happy to help. I don’t see you complaining about me cosigning two ideas above yours."

A "perfectly good thread" that you were dismissive of in your first post in it. And then that you offered nothing to but disagreeing with people and demanding they offer more evidence that you're willing to offer.
It's laughable for you to say that you want discussion and then not actually try to discuss anything, instead just saying they're wrong.
It's my problem with this board in general over the last few years, where it's a bunch of "You're wrong" or "Co-sign" and little actual discussion.


9. "Further, if you don’t like your ideas to be critiqued, keep them to yourself and don’t post them to the public. Otherwise get thicker skin or better ideas I guess, I dunno what to tell you. I just disagreed and explained why and you’re having a goddamned tantrum over it. If you can’t handle a perfectly civil disagreement that’s on you and if you want to turn a perfectly civil thread into a long ass back and forth because your ego is apparently fragile, that’s also on you. I don’t see where I was confrontational or disrespectful but you’re awfully upset and again… that’s your problem."

Again, a critique is fine. You offered nothing besides:
No.
Who cares about side characters
But I liked the main characters so no, you're wrong.
It has to be New York
and assuming that if the order was cut that wouldn't alter some of my other ideas.

There's absolutely no opening for discussion in any of your comments. Those that you do agree on, you make no addition to the discussion about where they could go. Those you disagree on, you just dismiss.

>That's bad writing. You can have memorable side characters.
>Every quality show on TV has memorable side characters. The
>Marvel/Netflix shows have weak side characters; I think most
>people would agree. To simply dismiss that out of hand seems
>to dismiss the entire premise of this post.

It’s not bad writing to have unmemorable side characters. That’s a very rigid definition. Personally I’d rather focus more on the major players. Again, Zip doesn’t need tick. Dumpster dude IS memorable, but doesn’t really need more than he has. Any time spent on a guy like him is better spent on fleshing out a character like Shades.

These shows are extremely top heavy and have plenty of characters worth exploring. The henchmen don’t really need anything more than they got.

>2. >
>"So… no ideas or context to support the assertion that more
>episodic episodes will be a benefit, particularly since you
>want to trim screen time and episodes? "

>And I think it's just obvious logic that if you have a story
>that only fits 8 episodes, that having four episodic episodes
>to kick things off and establishing the characters is better
>than having filler episodes or a lot of overlong or filler
>scenes in the middle of when the show should have momentum.

It’s “obvious logic” to make half of an 8 ep show episodic? Also, where was all this “filler” you’re talking about? I saw an awful lot of back story and fleshing out of characters who actually matter. You’re going hard to elevate weed carriers to hypemen and hypemen to people who matter.


>You could have Luke handle something for Pops or for Chico so,
>you know, maybe we give a damn about him.

Give a damn about who? Luke? People gave a damn about Luke. Maybe not you, but you seem to hate these overall anyways. If you mean Chico? Why do we need to care about Chico? His character wasn’t exactly designed for sympathy and Pops was the vessel to make us care about Chico and that was very effective for both Chico and Pops. How much more did we need to care about Chico, if that’s who you’re talking about?

>Maybe show Mariah actually doing something politically instead
>of talking about plans. Maybe show her keeping her cousin at
>bay for her political career or doing something that might
>tick him off because it helps her.

>Maybe within his case, Luke actually UNCOVERS that the
>Rebuilding Harlem movement is a fraud rather than have a dude
>literally hand him a pamphlet while they are rousing people.

>Maybe show Cottenmouth actually successfully doing something
>to establish that he's even remotely competent.

>There are countless options that could have established a
>stronger foundation for the show and not forced them to
>stretch out some of the storylines.

>Or, if you don't want to do that, then you rewrite your main
>conflicts so that they are more involved and have more than
>the usual Marvel/Netflix bad guys falling into traps, traps
>not working, good guys face backlash.

Again, what was stretched out? Those are perfectly reasonable suggestions but I didn’t see anything stretched out. You talk to me about not adding to the discussion and dismissing things while you keep using generic critiques like “filler” and “stretch out story lines” but aren’t actually explaining what those flaws were.

>3. "Yes, a rocket launcher is a pretty good way to take
>someone out who seems to keep slipping through your grasp."

>LOL. Besides being the epitome of "Well, that escalated
>quickly." It makes no sense for him to blow up a building that
>his cousin might want to take over for her project or that he
>would want to get money out of through his collections.
>And yes, I know that a lot has been going on in NY in this
>universe but I think a rocket launcher attack would still
>bring on some undue attention. It's nonsensical.

Not in this world. This is the epitome of you looking at what you would do in this world and applying that to a desperate character in a world where outlandish is the quickly becoming the new normal. Of course it escalated quickly, he’s trying to wipe out a serious thorn in his side and brought out the big guns.

Further, Luke already fucked up his people for trying to collect money in that very building. Yes, it’s heavy handed and there are always potential consequences that we can pick to death and point out all the variables…… but then this was a guy who was shooting people in the face on a whim. The rocket launcher was perfectly in line with his character and this is still a comic book in TV form.

>4. "And yet they fleshed out all the major characters pretty
>damn well. Perfect? Flawless? No, but the solution to that
>isn’t to beef up characters who are ultimately disposable.
>The solution is to adjust and improve on the characters who
>matter."

>We're talking about the side characters and there shouldn't be
>characters who just don't matter to the point that you don't
>bother writing them well. Your utterly disposable characters
>can have personality.

They didn’t have personality? None? That’s not what I watched.

>Again, Justified was filled with them.

Go watch Justified then.

>And, no, I personally don't think they've done a good job with
>the main characters because I thought the villains in Luke
>Cage especially were all pretty lousy. One way to fix that is
>to give them stronger foils to battle against. If the side
>characters are stronger, it helps the main characters. It's
>one of the reason why they're called supporting characters.

Misty was a supporting character. Scarfe was a supporting character. Both well done. Zip was a side character, a simple henchmen sitting atop the henchmen heap. We’ll just agree to disagree on the villains. I already suggested shoring up those characters going forward anyways.

>A. That's not what I meant by playing both sides. Playing both
>sides would be working with her cousin but then also cozying
>up to Shades because she sees her cousins is slipping and she
>doesn't want to go down if he goes down.

That’s not what I meant by playing both sides. Don’t be obtuse. She’s a council woman pushing an initiative to rebuild Harlem using money funded the destructive activities of her cousin. This is extremely cut and dry.

>B. When it comes to what you were referencing as playing both
>sides, well, it was kind of non-existent because she was
>constantly hanging out with her criminal cousin and nobody
>ever seemed to have any doubts that she and her cousin were in
>cahoots.

Because she wasn’t blindsided by a reported in her own home and categorically denied that her cousin did anything wrong live on TV.

Come on.

>But maybe an episodic episode that includes the two of them
>clashing in public about their separate approaches or maybe
>them actually taking separate approaches to solve a problem
>could have buoyed this. Or hell, just introducing them in a
>way that might make us think that she's using him to get ahead
>politically would work but isn't on his side would work.
>Knowing everything that is going on, heading to his club but
>saying, "I don't want to know the details" isn't really
>playing both sides all that much to me.

Well now that’s a suggestion.

>On top of that, what is she getting from him? She funneled
>money from her project to help him build the club. He uses her
>office to story his money. Let us see him doing something for
>her. Build that plotline and make it matter instead of it
>being Revenge for Pops.

I’ll have to rewatch to comment on this. I recall both of them reaping financial benefits there but I’ll need to have another look.

>6. "Yeah you re. You’ve made similar references throughout
>these posts lamenting the darker/more serious tone of non-MCU
>properties. You’re not alone in that either, but yeah. You
>guys want all these jokes and habitually complain
>about things that have a dead serious tone to them."
>
>OK. Thanks for telling me what I think.

I’m telling you what your consistent beat is on the subject. I’m telling you what you say. I imagine what you say stems from what you think.
So..… I guess you’re welcome.

>But I don't have a problem with more serious films. My problem
>has almost always been when people make films with a serious
>tone and then require massive suspensions of disbelief for the
>plot to work. To me, you can't have it both ways.

That has zero to do with the jokes. Dam near every plot in damn near all of these films is ridiculous when we think about it. that’s the nature of the medium.

>7: "It’s awfully arrogant to deduce that I don’t think
>anything needs to be changed simply because I didn’t think
>the changes *you* presented were all that necessary or even
>good. The only options there are I either think the show is
>flawless and above reproach, or I didn’t you’re your
>personal critiques all that valid."

>Your first post was dismissive of every other idea in this
>thread. And all you offered to improve it was more crossover
>eps. Of course, you offered "no ideas or context to support
>the assertion" that that would make the show better.
>I call 'em how I see 'em.

What ideas or context are needed for that suggestion? You want a dissertation on why having *some* interaction between these characters, who are being primed for a team up series, would be a good thing? Particularly when two of those characters are an actual team in the comics with one of them being married to another central character in the mix?

Yeah, THAT sure needed a deeper explanation.


>8. "Cool. You’re ridiculously defensive and taking this
>awfully personal. If you’d like to run a perfectly good
>thread into the ground because you’re wounded , I’ll be
>happy to help. I don’t see you complaining about me
>cosigning two ideas above yours."

>A "perfectly good thread" that you were dismissive of in your
>first post in it.

Like I said: YOU were ridiculously defensive and too it awfully personal. I didn’t like any of the ideas presented. What’s the problem? Again, if you don’t like people not liking your ideas… keep them to yourself.

>disagreeing with people and demanding they offer more evidence
>that you're willing to offer.

LOL@”demanding more evidence”. What are you even talking about?

>It's laughable for you to say that you want discussion and
>then not actually try to discuss anything, instead just saying
>they're wrong.

Welp that’s not what happened. I told Cap that was the first good idea in the post. I responded to your post and explained everything I disagreed with. You’re ridiculously reductive here. You talk like I just ran down your post and said WRONG WRONG WRONG and gave no reasons why.

>It's my problem with this board in general over the last few
>years, where it's a bunch of "You're wrong" or "Co-sign" and
>little actual discussion.

That’s literally not what I did, but please feel free to elevate and distort what actually happened into something that will help you justify your hurt ass feelings.

>Again, a critique is fine. You offered nothing besides:
>No.
>Who cares about side characters
>But I liked the main characters so no, you're wrong.
>It has to be New York
>and assuming that if the order was cut that wouldn't alter
>some of my other ideas.

LMAO you’re a goddamned liar. Here is my very first response:

“>- Open the season with some episodic episodes. Give us a
>sense of the area, the side characters, etc.

There’s been a ton of this from what I’ve seen. I can’t think of a single side character that needed more screen time. Further, I think the call for short eps and shorter seasons makes these even more problematic.

I see zero benefit in devoting more time to guys like zip or that dude Luke put in the dumpster.”
I disagreed and explained why.

OH AND THEN?

“>I think you could
>do one half of the season episodic and then those episodes
>bring you to the arc.

What about this makes the show better or tells the story 90% of us actually care about more effectively?”

No opening for discussion in any of my comments? I LITERALLY ASKED YOU FOR MORE DETAILS. Pretty much the definition of “opening for discussion”.

Next?

“>Let's see more of the lives of the villains besides their evil
>plots.

We saw an awful lot of that in each of these shows thus far. The villains and their lives have gotten a ton of screen time telling their back story and those stories have been told at least as well as the heroes in each outing.

I’m not sure what’s lacking there. “

That doesn’t sound closed for discussion at all. Not in the slightest. That says I disagree and that I don’t know what’s lacking there. Gee whiz, we’re three comments deep and still no “you’re wrong! No follow up comment or question, you’re just plain wrong”.

AND THEN…

“>Let's see
>more of the henchmen to get a better feel of them.

For what? Particularly given that you want shorter eps and shorter seasons. In a 16 ep season of 52 minute eps, knock yourself out, but when you’re calling for 42 minute eps and think 13 eps is too much it’s unfathomable to devote a greater percentage of less screen time to throwaway characters.

Cage has four central villains: Cottonmouth, Shads, Mariah, and Diamondback and they each got a significant amount of time. We don’t need zip getting more time in a smaller window when there’s plenty to work with there, particularly when you add at least two crooked cops and one cop who is on the fence for a fair portion and is still a protagonist to our hero despite being a hero herself.

There’s just no good reason to devote more screen time to Henchman 1 and 2, particularly when you’re calling for less screen time overall.”

So… four comments deep, still NOTHING like what you’re pretending I said. Nothing at all. Not even a vague resemblance. This far what I actually said and the way you’re portraying it are night and day.

NEXT? AND NEXT? OH AND NEXT?


>- Saner, smarter villains. I hated Fisk and Diamondback. The
>bad guys can be crazy ala Heath Ledger's Joker but they have
>to be competent.

Each his own i guess. Fisk was excellent. Diamondback was fine, i’m not excited for him but I’m not terribly bothered by him. He could definitely be improved but Fisk? Fisk was on point. You can always improve but he doesn’t particularly need anything more.”

First words? “Each his own I guess”. I don’t know how much more reasonably disagreeable one can get than “each his own I guess”. I agree that he could be improved but that I wasn’t bothered by him. I disagree completely on fisk, hence… each his own. That’s miles away from “wrong! “.

Yeah, I literally said a whole hell of a lot more than your badly misleading summary.

Here are the rest of my comments in the exchange:

“Nor should they be. That’s why secondary villains like Shades are there and helps Mariah rise through the ranks. We have Mariah playing two sides of the fence all through the show. “

“Two different formats and it makes perfect sense to establish a different identity for each.

This just further proves the point that some people really do just want all their comic book shows and movies to ape the MCU blueprint and add a joke every two minutes. Serialized dramas are huge hits over and over and over again, so I don’t see an issue with keeping that formula for these. The MCU has plenty of gut busting, side splitting wisecracks to keep people properly sedated. This format doesn’t really need more of the MCU temperament, particularly with the characters they’ve chosen for these shows. “

“Well this I can agree with. “


“Well, again, that’s just not the story being told and NYC is absolutely central to these characters. Sure, this season could have taken place in the south, but for what? But NY is central to the story being told and central to all the characters chosen for these shows.”

So… like I said… you’re a goddamned liar.

A lying ass liar with hurt feelings. Bruised ego. I dunno what it is but you’re super duper sensitive and just plain didn’t like the fact that I didn’t fawn over your ideas. Suck it up cowboy. All I know is this conversation is over and I won’t bother reading your next bullshit truth bending response because you can’t even be honest, liar.

>And I think it's just obvious logic that if you have a story
>that only fits 8 episodes, that having four episodic episodes
>to kick things off and establishing the characters is better
>than having filler episodes or a lot of overlong or filler
>scenes in the middle of when the show should have momentum.

"It’s “obvious logic” to make half of an 8 ep show episodic?"

Think for a second. Seriously. Just read and think instead of jumping to disagreement. "If you have a story that only fits 8 episodes" means the story isn't long enough to fill the show order. Therefore, instead of having overlong stuff to extend that story, why not have some episodic eps at the start.



-- "Again, what was stretched out? Those are perfectly reasonable suggestions but I didn’t see anything stretched out."

WTF? Pretty much everyone has agree the shows are too long and there are too many episodes. Now you're dismissing that?
Again, your response to something is to deny it's a problem even though the premise of my approach. If you don't think so, great, then there's nothing to discuss here. But most everyone else seems to think the show could have been much tighter.


">Again, Justified was filled with them.

Go watch Justified then."

You want an example and then you are dismissive when one is given. Typical.



-- "What ideas or context are needed for that suggestion? You want a dissertation on why having *some* interaction between these characters, who are being primed for a team up series, would be a good thing? Particularly when two of those characters are an actual team in the comics with one of them being married to another central character in the mix?

Yeah, THAT sure needed a deeper explanation."

So when someone asks you for more explanation, you can't imagine why that would be needed and dismiss the need for discussion but everyone else has to spell it out for you after your dismissive posts. And apparently you don't know it but when you write a post saying there are no good ideas in the entire post and then respond with stuff like "What for?", "I see zero benefit", "Nor should they be." it comes off as dismissive and not exactly opening up a discussion.
And all of your evidence is to set-up the future shows. How would a team up have fix Luke Cage? Didn't they have a team up with Claire? Why would they have teamed up for one episode and then taken off and not gotten a call when Luke was in trouble?



Although this is my favorite part of your nonsense:


"LOL@”demanding more evidence”. What are you even talking about?"

AND THEN!

"No opening for discussion in any of my comments? I LITERALLY ASKED YOU FOR MORE DETAILS. Pretty much the definition of “opening for discussion”.


So you didn't demand more but then you claim you weren't dismissive because you demanded more. And again, I thought your tone in this entire post was dismissive. Rereading it, I still think so.

I'll be more than happy to resume when you're ready to lay down the bold face lies you told. lies I easily debunked by re-posting the actual exchange you got so upset about.

Otherwise, please, don't further derail this thread because we're well past the point of fruitful discussion. A point you already said we were past after my first post to you, so really, why bother? Just let it go because I won't read the content of your post and will just respond with another variant of this one.

Like Donald, the more you call someone a liar, the more you expose your own bullshit.

I reread my response and stand by what I wrote. Did I cover everything? No. But I think you're deluding yourself that your responses weren't dismissive, especially given your initial post in the thread which dismissed other posts as bad ideas.

If you think sentences like: "I can’t think of a single side character that needed more screen time.", "For what?", "Nor should they be," "What about this makes the show better or tells the story 90% of us actually care about more effectively?" aren't dismissive but are actually invitations for further discussion, well, sorry, I'm not buying that shit you're shoveling. (And if you can't see it; "tells the story 90% of us actually care about" is the bitchy part of that response.)
And I've never seen a discussion start with "Each his own i guess." That's what you say at the end of a discussion.

And LOL at your hypocrisy at the end; telling me not to respond but not being able to not have the last word to the point that you're saying you'd post a boilerplate response rather than heed your own advice.

For a guy who can't stand what this board has become you sure don't mind contributing mightily to the mess. In fact, you're oblivious to your current contribution to said mess.

Sounds an awful lot like Trump to me.

>Like Donald, the more you call someone a liar, the more you
>expose your own bullshit.

No, see, I exposed *your* bullshit by posting everything I wrote in response to your laughable and inarguably incorrect assertions.

>I reread my response and stand by what I wrote. Did I cover
>everything? No. But I think you're deluding yourself that your
>responses weren't dismissive, especially given your initial
>post in the thread which dismissed other posts as bad ideas.

...you didn't cover much of anything. I already broke down what I wrote and won't rehash it for your lying, disingenuous ass.

>If you think sentences like: "I can’t think of a single side
>character that needed more screen time." "For what?", "Nor
>should they be," "What about this makes the show better or
>tells the story 90% of us actually care about more
>effectively?" aren't dismissive but are actually invitations
>for further discussion, well, sorry, I'm not buying that shit
>you're shoveling.

SMH. This is proof positive that the issue here is that you simply didn't like being challenged. That's all this is about. Those were perfectly fair and respectful statements and questions. I didn't agree, said as much, and asked questions about your stance.
I guess I forgot to suck your dick and massage your ego in the process, but then again I'm not accustomed to such fragile ass egos either. You listed a direct question and your response is "sorry, not buying it!".

Instead of answering a clear question about your idea you threw a tantrum over it. Talk about Trump!

>And if you can't see it; "tells the story
>90% of us actually care about" is the bitchy part of that
>response.

lol WHAT? You've got to be kidding. Holy shit, talk about mountains of molehills. You're insanely sensitive, talk about "Trump" with this skinned bullshit. The only thing bitchy about this is your bitchy response.

>And I've never seen a discussion start with "Each his own i
>guess." That's what you say at the end of a discussion.

again... what. the. fuck. Each his own is about as fair as fair gets, you must REALLY need to be coddled. Goddamn. You're being unreasonable to absurd levels. Again: only thing bitchy in here is you.

>And LOL at your hypocrisy at the end; telling me not to
>respond but not being able to not have the last word to the
>point that you're saying you'd post a boilerplate response
>rather than heed your own advice.

LOL@hypocrisy. I was just letting you know we were past the point of no return and where we were headed from there. That's transparency, not hypocrisy. Remember- you're the guy who supposedly dislikes what this board has become but doesn't seem to realize he's a contributor.

Talk about a fucking hypocrite! That's just about the definition.

So,again, for a guy who supposedly doesn't like what this board has become you've been a rather exemplary catalyst for just that sort of mess.

Great job, hypocrite!

that's Marvel though, think of all the stories they have centralized there

it's just surprising at this point we don't have more cross-overs or cameos from all the other characters

When there isn't more interconnectivity. The Arrow especially. There are so many times where I'm like, "Dude, call The Flash." In Luke Cage, you'd have thought Claire might have called on Daredevil for help.

I just think it would have been refreshing to have a different surroundings. I didn't find Harlem that much different from Hell's Kitchen in the previous shows and I don't think you necessarily need them all in the same city in the TV shows/films. But if it sets up everyone being there for Defenders then I guess you keep them in NY. Although, not sure where Spidey will be at that time that he can't swing over from Queens.

this and the shorter seasons,
3 to 4 episodes.

you don't always need 13.

and get the fuck out of
NYC.

every city/state should have
a soundstage and diversify
the scenery. it can bring
more depth to the storyline.

i could see missions and events happening in other locations from time to time, but NYC kinda IS Marvel.

Avengers tower is there
Luke Cage
Daredevil
Jessica Jones
Iron Fist
Dr. Strange
Spider-man
Captain America is from Brooklyn

everyone of the TV/Netflix series have been there and most of the films have at least been there. that's never gonna change.

2) Embrace the truth of the character's powers. Luke Cage is that dude who can whip you and all your people's ass and OH YOU GOT A GUN? What you gonna do with that? .... let him be that person instead of making him into Tony Atlas meets Nelson Mandela.

3) Next Season, Luke GOTTA have coffee with Claire AND the teenager's Mother from the shop.

>let him be
>that person instead of making him into Tony Atlas meets Nelson
>Mandela.

That would be taking a away a key element that makes Luke Cage who he is. You do this and it's a different person.

What character changes do you suggest to fill the massive void left by stripping him of his social consciousness? A guy who just goes out there and kicks ass can work, sure, but what character elements do you replace that with and what story do you tell that doesn't reduce him to a generic strong and physically invulnerable archetype?

Because that "Mandela" bit is central to his character.

That is the distinction that they failed to make. They have him like...One minute he is the dude that is like, "Fuck it, I'm about to roll out" and the next minute he is giving you a 10 minute soliloquy on doing your homework and eating your vegetables.

I don't think he's full blown Mandela in the show.

This is his origin story, his entry into the hero game. He's running from a past crime with a big ass target on his back and no way to clear his name.

Between all that, a natural proclivity for trying to do the right thing and a desire to pay low I'd say his demeanor is reasonable.

Personally I'd rather watch him grow into a badass than just be one outright.

And I don't think they have that many problems. I actually thought the last three or four eps of Luke Cage were great with him on the run and actually having to contend with real danger.

The real danger for Marvel however is over-expansion. Everyone doesn't need their own show. They should chill and introduce new characters into existing shows and let the masses decide if it's worth expanding.
______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

I really don't think Frank Castle can carry a whole series on his own. Looking forward to an 8-episode season of The Defenders, though.

I have enjoyed all the shows thoroughly to be honest...other than the color scheme of Luke Cage, I liked all of it..

I can't keep up. lol Nah, I just don't have time tho for real. I will stick with their film output. AoS was not that good to keep me interested. Daredevil was pretty good but I still lost interest halfway thru the 1st season. I haven't started JJ or LC yet.

Too many other quality shows and movies that I just don't have time to watch these. Altho, I do watch Flash and Supergirl, not sure how much longer on the latter but will give this season a try, so Im being slightly hypocritical. Those are lighter however and I can watch with my 10 year old son whereas I can't watch the adult Netflix Marvel stuff with him obviously so there is that.

I apparently quit Flash and Supergirl around same time I made this post. I didn't even get thru 2nd season of Supergirl, that shit got bad pretty fast. After the 3rd speedster villain in Flash I bowed out.

at least I hope it does. interestingly the plan is for Defenders to only be 8 episodes and that seems like it totally could warrant 13 episodes.

I think I'm just ready for all these movies and shows to REALLY be one big interwoven universe. I know they say it's a huge logistical nightmare, but it's got to happen. there's got to be some kind of eventual payoff for all of this world building they've been working on.

having said all that, I still think it's cool the way it is. they just have to get to the point where life in the MCU is just like it is in the comics where these guys interact regularly.

I remember watching Iron Man 3 and not understanding why Rogers and Banner weren't helping out, or watching Winter Soldier and not understanding how Stark wasn't in that movie.

I guess with how Civil War went, Ragnarok, the upcoming SpiderMan movie (which features some cameos including Stark), films going forward will have to include at least one other character for the most part as it just makes the most sense.

http://www.mtv.com/news/2940684/luke-cage-and-the-13-episode-slump/

The real villain in the Marvel universe might be Netflix’s apparent 13-episode mandate

ira madison iii
2h ago

In his June 1972 debut issue, Luke Cage, Hero for Hire, we get Luke's origin story. We learn about how Cottonmouth framed him for drug dealing, got the love of his life Reva killed, and sent him to prison. The series would eventually become Luke Cage, Power Man, but in Hero for Hire's 16-episode run, he manages to do battle with Diamondback, Mace, Black Mariah, Dr. Doom, Mr. Death, Big Ben, and a host of other villains. Of course, this was back when individual issues were still viable in comics, much like a television procedural. Soapier series like The Amazing Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and X-Men would weave in romance and threads that lasted for multiple issues, but it wasn't until recently that comics became so heavily serialized.



The light serialization that existed in comics before now has been replaced with long-running arcs in major titles to promote crossover events like Marvel's Civil War or just to keep fans coming back for more. Like in television, it's much easier to get someone to come back next time if you slap a "to be continued ..." at the end. Which can be great for a cable drama like Game of Thrones that's 10 episodes long, but it's becoming increasingly worrisome for Netflix dramas that seem to mandate 13-episode seasons.

You read comic books not only because you love the heroes who populate them, but also because you enjoy their rogues galleries, the villains they fight. Luke managed to fight all those aforementioned baddies within 16 episodes of his original series, but on his Netflix series, he's only allowed to tackle Cottonmouth, Black Mariah, and Diamondback. And he's not alone. Daredevil has a wealth of characters that populate the universe in the pages of his comics, but you'd never know it based on how many episodes Wilson "Kingpin" Fisk has been in.

Light serialization in comics used to encourage a plethora of storylines; it allowed your favorite villains to return multiple times. An approach similar to The X-Files or Buffy the Vampire Slayer — which featured monsters of the week mixed in with mythology episodes — could work wonders for the Marvel Netflix series, but instead, we're often saddled with one villain who wears out his welcome. Killgrave was an excellent bad guy on Jessica Jones, but by the time the final episode of the season rolls around, you're ready for him to kick rocks.

The death of Cottonmouth midway through Luke Cage is a welcome surprise. It allows Black Mariah and Diamondback to rise to prominence, but even still, there is far too much of Diamondback threatening people for no reason and Black Mariah holding endless press conferences. The series ultimately doesn’t feel populated with enough threats for Luke Cage, and both Jessica Jones and Daredevil have also suffered from the 13-episode Marvel slump. If there are so many superheroes popping up in New York City these days, why are there so few supervillains for them to fight?

The ironic thing about the heavily serialized Netflix series is that each hero comes with his or her own procedural engine. Daredevil's alter-ego is Matt Murdock, a defense attorney, but he tackles almost no cases throughout the two seasons of his series. Jessica is a private investigator, and we open the series with her solving a case, whereas an entire episode devoted to a case could have illuminated her character further and kept us from rehashing Killgrave scenes. Luke is the hero of Harlem, and Cottonmouth tries to get to him by targeting Harlem's citizens. What could have been accomplished in two or three episodes — in which Luke helps out different people in the city — is doled out as a montage that lasts no more than 15 minutes.

Marvel's Netflix series are often complex character studies, but it would be refreshing to see those studies occur in smaller stories that show the diversity of the Marvel universe. When you watch a Marvel film, the villains are dispatched in under two hours, but on Netflix, it takes 13 full episodes to handle men who have none of the superpowers that our villains have. With the superhero team-up series The Defenders set to debut next year, one has to wonder, if you gather all of the greatest superheroes in Marvel's Netflix universe and pit them against one villain, will it take them 13 episodes to best him or her?

I’m not sure what to glean from that last paragraph outside of that.

I think the bit about showing Luke’s day-to-day heorics spread out over the course of a few minutes was a valid critique, but it lost me at the comparison between the way they handle the movie and TV villains. It’s not a realistic comparison given the vast differences of each format as things need to be paced very differently.

You have 2, 2 ½ hours to complete an arc in a movie and even if they trim the number of episodes for the shows it’s still not a reasonable comparison. The show is long form, character driven storytelling that requires a different sort of pacing. I don’t understand the desire to dispatch villains quicker in the show.

One advantage of the shows is that we ultimately get better fleshed out villains than the ones we get in the films. Defeating foes quicker in the shows means having to cycle through a rogues gallery to keep things moving and we get less time to spend fleshing out the villians.

the most frustrating parts of Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage (of what I've seen) are how stupid the characters can be. either going against type or being ignorant to their situations, *only* so the writers can set up plot devices. it gets bad.

everyone has hit on the biggest problem, which is length. 13 hours is fine if there was better writing. but there's a lot of fluff contained. Luke Cage example: Misty is looking for Chico, they roll up to a basketball game, and she challenges them to a game of horse for information. wow, I wonder what happens over the next five minutes? it was backstory on her being ingrained in Harlem and a former star, but done in the most trite and boring way possible.

Holy shit do we need Heroes for Hire badly.

I liked Daredevil and Luke Cage the most, so any excuse to see them together works for me. Finn Jones and Mike Coulter in a scene together for too long? I'onnoman...

Have DD, JJ, Defenders and Heroes for Hire.

I was saying now that we're getting The Defenders, would you still want to see Heroes for Hire?

...but the easy solution in my mind is do what British TV often does...decide what main story you want to tell, and how BEST to MOST EFFECTIVELY tell that story, and tell it THAT way REGARDLESS of how many episodes it ends up being...if a season ends up being only 6 or 8 episodes one year based on the story being told, so be it, as long as it remains engaging.
i never liked the the UP FRONT 'we will have XX episodes this season' decisions...automatically potentially forces a story to either be unnaturally stretched or unnaturally chopped instead of having the ability to focus on telling a given story in the most effective way, regardless of length...

all that said, i've enjoyed em all for the most part so far. haven't seen iron fist yet, catching that this weekend...

______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

In reality, it would be a budgetary and scheduling nightmare.

in these shows until Defenders Season 2.

I told y'all niggas Jeph Loeb was the wrong person to run this shit.

Minimal crossover with the movies and each other is fuckin stupid. 13 hours of a majority black show with no mention of Wakanda (That I picked up on) and a small tie-in with Foggy. That shit is weak, no matter how good a show is.

Go 8 episodes.
Almost every show feels stretched out at 13 eps and suffer because of it. It would be much tighter and impactful

More tie-ins with the Marvel Universe.
I understand they want to start off by building out these self-contained worlds. But at least some more references.

13 eps is just the right amount for comic-book based shows. the worlds are expansive enough with a shitload of characters that it should be perfectly suited to 13+ episode seasons.
so to me it's not the episode count.
it's the writing.

i personally enjoyed the shit out of all the shows cos i binged watched all of em back to back all the way up to Defenders (which i also loved). so whilst i think the writing could be better, i'm already pretty happy with it as is. it's clear there are some pacing issues, but compressing the seasons to 8 episodes won't really help that. the showrunners just need to up their game a little.

obviously a huge GLARING issue is the ongoing lack of connectivity with the MCU, which i think contributes to the criticisms. apparently the writers of Infinity War almost brought in Luke Cage: http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/avengers-infinity-war-considered-using-luke-cage-and-netflix-heroes.

V.

Ultimately I think Disney/Marvel is on a hot streak with the movies and they don't want to fuck that up by being too closely linked with shows that are nowhere near as popular. I mean they even keep a comfortable distance from Agents of Shield, and that show is firmly grounded in the same universe.

But more than that, yeah, the events in Infinity War would have rocked the Netflix shows to the point where they all would have been just about the Infinity War aftermath. While I think that would have been fun, and far more interesting than a few vague references to "The Incident" I could see how that would be frustrating for writers that want to tell their own stories or bring their own vision to the table.

Still, damn. A Luke Cage or Daredevil cameo in Infinity War would have been great. Even something minor, like Luke is beating information out of Turk and Turk suddenly disintegrates. Or Daredevil is beating up a gang of dudes in a hallway and they all up and turn to dust. Then their own shows depict the fallout, where everyone in New York is trying to adjust to the idea that half the population just disappeared out of nowhere. Although I'm sure Avengers 4 will make that even more complicated with either time travel, alternate timelines or some magical shit to bring everybody back, which would be even harder to explain in the later seasons of the Netflix shows.

Hopefully Daredevil gets a movie and Punisher is resurrected on Hulu. Otherwise bye.

Good luck Jeph Loeb

I enjoyed all of them except Iron Fist and the last half of Luke Cage season 1.

And yeah I'll miss those Daredevil hallway fight scenes.

But really if they completely rebooted this shows or just used the characters elsewhere with new actors, I wouldn't be that upset.

Except for The Punisher. Hollywood has been failing at giving us a good Punisher for decades now, from Dolph Lundren to Ray Stevenson.

Jon Bernthal finally got it right, I mean really does the character justice..and then after just 2 seasons it's take a walk son.

I really doubt that they'll be able to bottle that lightning twice.

I agree out of all the shows that one the best.

which was just a hot fucking mess. Ugh.

Glad these shits are done. I won't miss any of them.

MIND MGMT could be a legit 13 episode, 2 season series.

Same with Matt Kindt's Dept H- although I think that would be better as an 8 episode, 1 season series.