The 100 and Marvel: Agents of Shield
Dec. 12th, 2014 11:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatJust watched Marvel Agents of Shield and The 100 back to back tonight, which did not bode well for Agents of Shield. The 100 is by far the better acted, written, produced, and directed of the two efforts, not to mention the more innovative. The 100 feels a bit like a combination of various sci-fi tropes told in a new way, and it actually has something to say, I'm not real sure Agents of Shield has much of anything to say and what it does say...I'd rather not think about too deeply.
That's not to say that Shield isn't fun, it is. Just don't bring your brain to the party. Also while suspenseful in places, it's become rather predictable in the later half of the season. I do however like the exploration of Bobby Morse and Nick Hunter's relationship, as well as the odd-ball pairing of a brain-washed Agent 33 who wears a damaged version of Agent Mai's face and the psychologically warped Grant Ward. I probably shouldn't have been rooting for Kyle McLachlan over Coulson, or for that matter, Trip over Skye, even though I knew they'd never kill off Coulson or Skye (please, there'd be no show - they are the obvious leads). But there you go. Right now, Adriana P. (Bobby Morse) and Nick Blood (Hunter) are the best things in it. And the only two characters that don't feel like retreads from other ME series.
Like I said, it's fun, just don't think too hard about it. Watch it for what it is meant to be - fluff.
The 100 on the other hand, I find rather gripping and compelling, it also plays with my head. The series is exploring some interesting themes and clearly has something to say. The characters are insanely complex, and there really are no clear good guys or bad guys - every time you think you got someone pegged, suddenly there's a switch up. What it does, and I've seldom seen this done on tv series, is show how people are capable of doing horrible and wonderful things depending on the situation and their motivations. That there really are no good guys and bad guys in life - just people. Also how people justify or rationalize those horrible or wonderful things. It also comments on what we are capable of when pushed against a wall or into a corner - what atrocities humans will commit in the name of survival. It's a rather grey world, and the story does at times delve into the horror trope of torture and cannibalism. It reminds me a little of the Walking Dead - but far easier to watch, and I think better written or more complex in its characterizations. (I've watched both.) Also, unlike The Walking Dead, The 100 does an interesting job of flipping gender tropes, and subverting various sci-fi tropes - one that it did something interesting with was the zombie or "Reaver" trope - nice twist there, which I hadn't guessed. It's oddly less comic bookish, and less predictable. I know, you'd think it would be the opposite?
The set up is a post-apocalyptic world. Earth several years after bombs have been dropped. Three groups have survived.
1. The Grounders: they are the descendants of the civilian population who somehow beat the odds and survived on the ground - in bunkers, and have foraged a life for themselves. Over time they found a way to handle the radiation. They do not have technology or modern medicine, and are tribal in character, also rather violent and primitive in some respects, with war paint. Exiling those who are mutated or don't fit their code, killing those who raid their territory. Yet quite honorable and noble. Not to mention loyal. Their leaders are women. The healers are men.
2. The Skye People: are the descendants of the scientists or rather the astronauts who had been living on a group of space stations when the bombs hit. They merged their stations together, along with their fuel sources, and set up a system of government and survival tactics. Some of which are rather inhumane and drastic - such as culling the population, in order to ration resources. And they space people who commit petty crimes. All in the name of survival. The heroine's father was spaced and the heroine put in prison for aiding him - when he discovered that the ARC was not able to sustain everyone much longer and what the administration was doing to keep people alive. When they realize that the ARC is slowly degrading and soon will no longer be able to provide life support - they send 100 juvenile delinquents/prisoners, along with the heroine (Clark) to the Earth - to see if it is survivable - as test subjects. This group due to its proximity to the sun's ultra-voilet rays over a long period of time has evolved to metabolize radiation. The kids who are sent - it should be noted are criminals, some murderers. And before they run into the grounders, they are fighting amongst themselves - a bit like William Golding's The Lord of the Flies, while those left on the ARC are playing a game of power politics and survival - prior to making the decision to come to the surface (the first season focuses on the Skye people's struggle to survive both on the ground and in the ARC, along with the kids interactions with the Grounders, while the second season expands on the universe and broadens the scope. The second season in some respects is much better than the first.).
3. The third group - the Mountain Men or Mount Weather, is the military encampment - and the nations leaders along with the military and the wealthy - who hid away in a concrete bunker when the bombs hit. Their descendants survived but cannot be outside, since they never evolved to metabolize radiation. They appear to have a utopian society, with plenty to eat, and groundbreaking scientific techniques, along with technology. To survive and hopefully be able to venture out to the surface again, they capture the Grounders and use their blood to metabolize raditation and stay alive. But it's not working as well as they'd like. So they capture the remaining 47 kids of the initial 100 sent to the ground from the ARC. (People do die in this series, quite a few actually - it goes for realism.) They initially treat the kids very well - but with the intent of using them eventually to save themselves. Well, actually, it's more complicated than that - not all of them want to use the kids. The leader, who initially appears to be a creepy bad guy, in reality is conflicted and keeps telling his son not to do it. His son goes behind his back. There's a disagreement. Also their rational is complex. What they are doing to the grounders and plan on doing to the kids in order to survive is violence through science and they truly believe necessary to save themselves and obtain what their heart desires most - access to the outside world.
Each group does horrible things to survive. And the series constantly asks the question - is this justifiable? As opposed to the Walking Dead, where people are just nasty to each other, here - it's a series of Machiavellian style questions. What sacrifices are you willing to make to save yourself? To save others? To save humanity?
Will you sacrifice your children? Your ability to see the sunlight? Your soul?
And the people who make the nasty decisions...aren't always who'd you'd expect. The guy who tried to broker peace and hated violence in S1? Ends up killing an entire village of grounder women and children - in a grief-stricken rage, desperate to avenge the friends he believes they took. The man who was going to sentence an entire group of people to die by suffocation in order to save hundreds, turns around and tries to sacrifice himself to broker a peace. Characters I despised one week - I find myself sympathizing with the next. Reminding me that no one is all one thing, that everyone can be saved, and we all are capable of good and evil...and but for the grace of god go I. Few series really delve into the murky gray lines between good and evil to this extent. There are no moustach-twirling evil Nazis here, like on Shield. No comic book villains.
On Mount Weather - it appears at first that there are, but the show delves deeper - showing the desperation of the two people conducting their nasty experiments. They are attempting to save their people - 308 of them. And have in order to do that, adopted a horrific machiavellian approach. The writer's ask - are their actions any worse than the Grounders who threaten to kill everyone from the Skye in retailation for those they lost? Or the people from the SKye - and their actions? And how is each a reflection of how they got here - of the people who fought wars, and dropped bombs on each other - incapable of seeing the fact that they had more to gain if they could find a way of working together?
It's a great anti-war series or rather a series that questions our tendency to resolve problems through violence and warfare - and the inherent consequences to ourselves, our world, and our own survival as a result - and it reminds me a great deal of BattleStar Galatica and to a degree LOST, except without all the Judeo/Christian and Greek/Roman religious imagery/mythology which grated on my nerves. (In some respects, I like it better than the other two series, in others not as much. The writing is not quite as crisp and sharp as it was in LOST and BSG, nor is the direction.) Television doesn't do religious mythology all that well in my opinion (which is part of my problem with Shield, Constantine and Sleepy Hollow, actually). Also it seems to have a lot of the writers and cast members from those series in various supporting roles.
It may well be the best cult sci-fi series that I've seen in a while or rather since BSG, Caprica, and Lost, outside of maybe Doctor Who (which I have a love/hate relationship with). It's underground, and not many people seem to be aware of it - because it's on the CW and appears on the surface to be marketed to the teen demo. But the themes and situations are actually more adult than most of the tv shows I've seen within this genre.
If you haven't checked it out? Do. And thank me later, or not as the case may be.
Mileage does vary on these sorts of things.
That's not to say that Shield isn't fun, it is. Just don't bring your brain to the party. Also while suspenseful in places, it's become rather predictable in the later half of the season. I do however like the exploration of Bobby Morse and Nick Hunter's relationship, as well as the odd-ball pairing of a brain-washed Agent 33 who wears a damaged version of Agent Mai's face and the psychologically warped Grant Ward. I probably shouldn't have been rooting for Kyle McLachlan over Coulson, or for that matter, Trip over Skye, even though I knew they'd never kill off Coulson or Skye (please, there'd be no show - they are the obvious leads). But there you go. Right now, Adriana P. (Bobby Morse) and Nick Blood (Hunter) are the best things in it. And the only two characters that don't feel like retreads from other ME series.
Like I said, it's fun, just don't think too hard about it. Watch it for what it is meant to be - fluff.
The 100 on the other hand, I find rather gripping and compelling, it also plays with my head. The series is exploring some interesting themes and clearly has something to say. The characters are insanely complex, and there really are no clear good guys or bad guys - every time you think you got someone pegged, suddenly there's a switch up. What it does, and I've seldom seen this done on tv series, is show how people are capable of doing horrible and wonderful things depending on the situation and their motivations. That there really are no good guys and bad guys in life - just people. Also how people justify or rationalize those horrible or wonderful things. It also comments on what we are capable of when pushed against a wall or into a corner - what atrocities humans will commit in the name of survival. It's a rather grey world, and the story does at times delve into the horror trope of torture and cannibalism. It reminds me a little of the Walking Dead - but far easier to watch, and I think better written or more complex in its characterizations. (I've watched both.) Also, unlike The Walking Dead, The 100 does an interesting job of flipping gender tropes, and subverting various sci-fi tropes - one that it did something interesting with was the zombie or "Reaver" trope - nice twist there, which I hadn't guessed. It's oddly less comic bookish, and less predictable. I know, you'd think it would be the opposite?
The set up is a post-apocalyptic world. Earth several years after bombs have been dropped. Three groups have survived.
1. The Grounders: they are the descendants of the civilian population who somehow beat the odds and survived on the ground - in bunkers, and have foraged a life for themselves. Over time they found a way to handle the radiation. They do not have technology or modern medicine, and are tribal in character, also rather violent and primitive in some respects, with war paint. Exiling those who are mutated or don't fit their code, killing those who raid their territory. Yet quite honorable and noble. Not to mention loyal. Their leaders are women. The healers are men.
2. The Skye People: are the descendants of the scientists or rather the astronauts who had been living on a group of space stations when the bombs hit. They merged their stations together, along with their fuel sources, and set up a system of government and survival tactics. Some of which are rather inhumane and drastic - such as culling the population, in order to ration resources. And they space people who commit petty crimes. All in the name of survival. The heroine's father was spaced and the heroine put in prison for aiding him - when he discovered that the ARC was not able to sustain everyone much longer and what the administration was doing to keep people alive. When they realize that the ARC is slowly degrading and soon will no longer be able to provide life support - they send 100 juvenile delinquents/prisoners, along with the heroine (Clark) to the Earth - to see if it is survivable - as test subjects. This group due to its proximity to the sun's ultra-voilet rays over a long period of time has evolved to metabolize radiation. The kids who are sent - it should be noted are criminals, some murderers. And before they run into the grounders, they are fighting amongst themselves - a bit like William Golding's The Lord of the Flies, while those left on the ARC are playing a game of power politics and survival - prior to making the decision to come to the surface (the first season focuses on the Skye people's struggle to survive both on the ground and in the ARC, along with the kids interactions with the Grounders, while the second season expands on the universe and broadens the scope. The second season in some respects is much better than the first.).
3. The third group - the Mountain Men or Mount Weather, is the military encampment - and the nations leaders along with the military and the wealthy - who hid away in a concrete bunker when the bombs hit. Their descendants survived but cannot be outside, since they never evolved to metabolize radiation. They appear to have a utopian society, with plenty to eat, and groundbreaking scientific techniques, along with technology. To survive and hopefully be able to venture out to the surface again, they capture the Grounders and use their blood to metabolize raditation and stay alive. But it's not working as well as they'd like. So they capture the remaining 47 kids of the initial 100 sent to the ground from the ARC. (People do die in this series, quite a few actually - it goes for realism.) They initially treat the kids very well - but with the intent of using them eventually to save themselves. Well, actually, it's more complicated than that - not all of them want to use the kids. The leader, who initially appears to be a creepy bad guy, in reality is conflicted and keeps telling his son not to do it. His son goes behind his back. There's a disagreement. Also their rational is complex. What they are doing to the grounders and plan on doing to the kids in order to survive is violence through science and they truly believe necessary to save themselves and obtain what their heart desires most - access to the outside world.
Each group does horrible things to survive. And the series constantly asks the question - is this justifiable? As opposed to the Walking Dead, where people are just nasty to each other, here - it's a series of Machiavellian style questions. What sacrifices are you willing to make to save yourself? To save others? To save humanity?
Will you sacrifice your children? Your ability to see the sunlight? Your soul?
And the people who make the nasty decisions...aren't always who'd you'd expect. The guy who tried to broker peace and hated violence in S1? Ends up killing an entire village of grounder women and children - in a grief-stricken rage, desperate to avenge the friends he believes they took. The man who was going to sentence an entire group of people to die by suffocation in order to save hundreds, turns around and tries to sacrifice himself to broker a peace. Characters I despised one week - I find myself sympathizing with the next. Reminding me that no one is all one thing, that everyone can be saved, and we all are capable of good and evil...and but for the grace of god go I. Few series really delve into the murky gray lines between good and evil to this extent. There are no moustach-twirling evil Nazis here, like on Shield. No comic book villains.
On Mount Weather - it appears at first that there are, but the show delves deeper - showing the desperation of the two people conducting their nasty experiments. They are attempting to save their people - 308 of them. And have in order to do that, adopted a horrific machiavellian approach. The writer's ask - are their actions any worse than the Grounders who threaten to kill everyone from the Skye in retailation for those they lost? Or the people from the SKye - and their actions? And how is each a reflection of how they got here - of the people who fought wars, and dropped bombs on each other - incapable of seeing the fact that they had more to gain if they could find a way of working together?
It's a great anti-war series or rather a series that questions our tendency to resolve problems through violence and warfare - and the inherent consequences to ourselves, our world, and our own survival as a result - and it reminds me a great deal of BattleStar Galatica and to a degree LOST, except without all the Judeo/Christian and Greek/Roman religious imagery/mythology which grated on my nerves. (In some respects, I like it better than the other two series, in others not as much. The writing is not quite as crisp and sharp as it was in LOST and BSG, nor is the direction.) Television doesn't do religious mythology all that well in my opinion (which is part of my problem with Shield, Constantine and Sleepy Hollow, actually). Also it seems to have a lot of the writers and cast members from those series in various supporting roles.
It may well be the best cult sci-fi series that I've seen in a while or rather since BSG, Caprica, and Lost, outside of maybe Doctor Who (which I have a love/hate relationship with). It's underground, and not many people seem to be aware of it - because it's on the CW and appears on the surface to be marketed to the teen demo. But the themes and situations are actually more adult than most of the tv shows I've seen within this genre.
If you haven't checked it out? Do. And thank me later, or not as the case may be.
Mileage does vary on these sorts of things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-12-14 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-14 09:59 pm (UTC)Reminds me a little bit of Buffy in that respect - marketed as a shallow teen series, when in reality it's a rather deep and compelling adult one.
As a result, a lot of people who would actually enjoy it - have yet to discover it. Goes to show you - can't tell a television series by its marketing campaign.