Mile High said:
I actually tuned into Arrow last night. Now, I had absolutely no idea what was going on, and the cast seemed to be roughly the size of the Bulgarian Army, but I actually did think that SHIELD could have picked up a few hints from the show.
There are lots of "How to fix SHIELD" stories being written, but here are mine:
1. The show needs an antagonist. I get that they're trying to amp up the mystery, but it's leaving the show without an interesting villain. I didn't particularly like Heroes at the time, but in retrospect, SHIELD could use a Sylar, or better yet, a HYDRA with a charismatic villain to serve as the antagonist. Arrow does not seem to lack in an antagonist. By my viewing, it appeared to have somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen of them, which may be overkill. Still, having someone around to "mwah ha ha" a bit made the show more fun.
2. SHIELD is portrayed far too non-ambiguously in the show. Characters may play lip service to them having too much power, but nobody important appears to question them with any consistency. Which is why I think it was a mistake to just immediately have Skye join the team in the pilot. Even if they want to keep the bad guy a secret, it might have been interesting to establish Skye (and Rising Tide) as an antagonist to the team for at least half the first season. It's almost as if Joss is trying to run away from how disturbing he made the organization in Dollhouse, but the right tone for a SHEILD show is somewhere between NCIS and Dollhouse. Not NCIS itself.
3. Fitz and Simmons being two characters who serve the traditional Q role was a funny one-off joke for the pilot. It's a horrible conceit for the show going forward. Neither stands out as a fully formed character with his or her own goals and motivations. I'm leery of calling for Joss going to his famous character death well so soon, but I'd kill one of them off (probably the guy). Or have one of them turned. Or decide that he or she isn't cut out for field work. Something.
4. This relates to number 2, but Coulson is written as such a generic "good guy." And it makes him a really forgettable lead for the show. His motivations are so open and blandly positive that he has no edge at all. I'd rather know WHAT Coulson is right up (Life Model Decoy or whatever) and not know exactly what he's up to, rather than the other way around.
5. I'd cut back on the attempts to make the show so "international." Because when you're trying to convince me that they're in Paris, and Stockholm, and Peru, and Belarus and whatever, it becomes all the more obvious that they're mostly on a kind of cheap plane set. I think they believe that they're making the show look bigger, but I think it makes it look smaller.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this show get The Walking Dead treatment for season 2. It opened strong enough to show strong ratings potential, but it's clear to me (and the viewer erosion seems to bear this out) that Jed and Maurissa aren't ready to run a show. I had expected Jeffrey Bell, who has A LOT more experience to be the showrunner, but it seems that he isn't (I thought he wrote the best episode to date, which was the one where the former agent was being controlled). I still have to wonder if there are other Whedon and/or genre vets available to at least consult on the show. Considering how clunky some of the comedy has been, the show could use some Jane Espenson.