Solving The Problem With SHIELD
What's in a name? That which we call a rose/by any other name would smell as sweet;
Well, I hate to burst Juliet's bubble, but... Aw, who am I kidding?!? I love bursting bubbles.
Anyways, my point is that a name does matter. Sure a rose would still smell as sweet if you called it a Chongaquinto, but branding matters too. There's a reason Apple is preferred over Microsoft by hipsters, and it ain't because Apple's product is better.
Why am I talking about literature and marketing in an entertainment blog though? It goes back to a discussion I had over dinner with a buddy of mine. He made the excellent point that Marvel's Agents of SHIELD doesn't have enough Joss Whedon in it. I'd like to modify that slightly by saying Agents of SHIELD isn't similar enough to the movies that spawned it.
The show has stabilized from the train wreck that was its first couple of weeks. Sure, it had nowhere to go save up, but some shows don't ever climb out of the abyss. So credit where credit is due. Yet, Agents of SHIELD would be better if it wasn't burdened by the Marvel name. Agents of SHIELD would be an all right, though not fantastic, hour of entertainment each week if I could just divorce it in my mind from Joss Whedon's excellent work in the movies. The benefit of the initial buzz and one cameo from Samuel L. Jackson early in the season doesn't make up for the lower quality storylines and worse characters in the TV series.
The TV series simply isn't up to the movies' standard, and that's its biggest problem. So that, my dear Juliet, is what's in a name.