New Character Descriptions for Joss Whedon’s S.H.I.E.L.D.-based Series

by     Posted 1 year, 323 days ago

joss-whedon-shield-tv-show-slice

Joss Whedon is developing (as in writing and directing) a live-action pilot for ABC that will focus on S.H.I.E.L.D., the peacekeeping group known well to viewers of the Avengers and its many tie-in movies, as well as (of course) the Marvel comics.  The team for the covert organization that is the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division is lead by Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson in the films), but Whedon has a whole new cast of characters for the potential television series, which he has teased in the past.  Hit the jump for details.

the-avengers-joss-whedon-samuel-l-jackson-imageAccording to TV Line the new characters are as follows:

  • Skye – This late-20s woman sounds like a dream: fun, smart, caring and confident – with an ability to get the upper hand by using her wit and charm. (Or “the one all the dudes are going to want to sleep with”)
  • Agent Grant Ward –  Quite the physical specimen and “cool under fire,” he sometimes botches interpersonal relations. He’s a quiet one with a bit of a temper, but he’s the kind of guy that grows on you. (Or “the one all the chicks are going to want to sleep with”)
  • Agent Althea Rice –  Also known as “The Calvary,” this hard-core soldier has crazy skills when it comes to weapons and being a pilot. But her experiences have left her very quiet and a little damaged. (So, Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, minus the quiet part)
  • Agent Leo Fitz and Agent Jemma Simmons – These two came through training together and still choose to spend most of their time in each other’s company. Their sibling-like relationship is reinforced by their shared nerd tendencies – she deals with biology and chemistry, he’s a whiz at the technical side of weaponry. (Sheldon and Amy from The Big Bang Theory)

Or, in other words, the cast of Firefly.

Whedon is a maybe to direct the pilot, but he is apparently attached to definitely write the series along with his brother Jed Whedon and Jed’s wife Maurissa Tancharoen (Dollhouse).

the-avengers-2-sequel joss-whedon




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • KR

    Classic Whedon. 5 characters. 3 are specifically female. And all three sound like strong, well rounded characters. Fantastic.

  • Lance

    Exactly when did SHIELD become an international agency? I remember when it was “Strategic Homeland… blah blah blah Division.”

    • Chikamatsu’s 10 Puppets

      Technically it started out at a US division in the comics, but Fury does what Fury wants, and decided SHIELD’s jurisdiction extends everywhere.

      • Wilfredo Martinez

        Actually, SHIELD started as an international agency; it was reinvented as a US spy agency in more recent times. (Curiously, DC comics’ equivalent, Checkmate, did it the other way around- starting as a US Agency and then working for the United Nations.)

    • grittymcgritterson

      In the Marvel Universe, define- “home-land”.

      • Lance

        Where is the homeland in the Marvel Universe? Please, what true Marvel fan doesn’t know the answer to that one?

        It’s Manhattan.

  • Masshuu il Thulcandra

    Hope it works out. I think they will have to have at least some ‘specials guests’ appear every so often to see how things are going. Cobie Smulders as Nick Fury’s Second in Command Maria Hill definitely, SLJ at least a cameo in the first and last episodes if it is picked up as a series.

    • Shaun

      I wonder if Dum Dum Dugan will brought into the present day, and if McDonough would be willing to show up now and then. My guess is “No” to both.

  • Barry Woodward

    I’d like to see Natalie Morales (Wendy Watson from “The Middleman”) and Ellen Wong (Knives Chau from “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World”) in the cast.

  • LEM

    Since HIMYM is ending maybe Colbie Smulders can jump into the show too.

  • DREDD

    One thing I hated in Avengers was Hawkeye, well, his Bow skills anyway. I know its a far fetched world, but I just cant figure how he can shoot an arrow over his shoulder without looking, whilst falling in mid air off a building and still hit his moving target dead on.

    Now, if he wore the mask like in the comics, one could assume there was a built in targeting visual built into the visor/lenses. But rewatching the film, his bow and arrow antics stick out like Batman & Robins nipples.

    Still, a shield series could be interesting, I didn’t know ant Hawkeye background details before/after Avengers so seeing him and others explained on the tv screen may help.

    • Pocketses

      …really? Is that really what you’re going to take issue with? Of ALL the things in this film that you could have an issue with? Within the universe set up, it’s completely believable.

      • DREDD

        Yes, i take issue with that. (there are other things in the movie that i didn’t like though) but just because a film has fantastical fantasy elements, it should still contain some logic.

        For example, Superman. Yes its fantasy and he can lift cars planes and fly etc.. but all those elements are explainable to some degree.
        But, when he blows an oil-slick back into a tanker and then welds the hole sealed without the ship exploding, that i take issue with. among many other silly things. But as its a comedy i take that for what it is. but in general, no matter how fantastical the film is, no excuse for sillyness unless its looney toons. especially as i mentioned above, the arrow scenes could have been explained the way i mentioned, thus also giving back the character his iconic mask in the process.

      • ShallowLikeUs

        I too had issue with Hawkeye. I’m okay with suspending my belief of reality. However, there are still basic laws of physics that should be adhered to. (And Marvel, In the past HAD very much so embraced that [The death of Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of Newton's Laws of Motion, is an example.]) For someone who was supposed to be practicing archery skills to prepare for the movie? Renner dropped the ball. Almost EVERY shot he fired from that bow, would not have been able to be accurate because of the physics involved. I can accept, almost, taking shots where you can’t see the target, and getting A LUCKY shot. But There is no way, with the way he handles his bow and with his form, that certain shots were anymore than LUCK. (This from an actual archer. And while not professional level, self taught even, I have learned the limits to the device, and learned what it takes to have even a modicum of accuracy.) That’s really the only issue that caused me any dissonance in the movie.

        Regardless, this news, is not unwelcome. It has a lot of potential. And I think, done properly, could be something that is very worth EVERYONE’S time.

    • Anonymous

      I thought he was keeping an eye on their movement patterns, so he would have been able to anticipate precisely where one of the Chitauri craft would be? That or it just looks badass :D

    • Thundersaurusrex

      you are just a sad fan boy that they left his costume out. The arrows don’t hafta be explained… number one he shows off how he connects the different heads. number two the scene you described are two different scenes…the building doesnt explode as he fires a shot at an enemy…that’s when he shoots the grapple to get inside the building when it explodes dumbass. thirdly it is explained taht he understands patterns in the enemy and thats why is able to shoot the guy without looking cause he sees him banking around the building….it clearly shows his timing as well specially with the Loki Shot that Loki shot also shows his smarts since its set up as if he knew that Loki was gunna catch it. everything is explained well so shut up and go home.

      • Snakebitey

        I’m just excited for maybe having two Hawkeye shows at the same time on tv on ABC and CW

  • EVan

    Who wants to bet me that there will be no less than 2 of Whedon’s “stable” of actors attached to this?

  • DREDD

    Yes, i take issue with that. (there are other things in the movie that i didn\’t like though) but just because a film has fantastical fantasy elements, it should still contain some logic.

    For example, Superman. Yes its fantasy and he can lift cars planes and fly etc.. but all those elements are explainable to some degree.
    But, when he blows an oil-slick back into a tanker and then welds the hole sealed without the ship exploding, that i take issue with. among many other silly things. But as its a comedy i take that for what it is. but in general, no matter how fantastical the film is, no excuse for sillyness unless its looney toons. especially as i mentioned above, the arrow scenes could have been explained the way i mentioned, thus also giving back the character his iconic mask in the process.

  • Pingback: S.H.I.E.L.D. Character Details Revealed : Team Ugli

  • V

    The characters sound cool but why go for ALL NEW characters when there were already bad ass, extremely similar personalities in the comics just waiting to be explored in live action? Carol Danvers, Abigail Brand, Jimmy Woo, Jessica Jones(and/or Drew), and Bobbi Morse, to name a few.

  • V

    The characters sound cool and all but why go for ALL NEW characters when there were already bad ass, extremely similar personalities in the comics just waiting to be explored in live action? Carol Danvers, Abigail Brand, Jimmy Woo, Jessica Jones(and/or Drew), and Bobbi Morse, to name a few.

  • ShallowLikeUs

    I too had issue with Hawkeye. I’m okay with suspending my belief of reality. However, there are still basic laws of physics that should be adhered to. (And Marvel has embraced that in the past. [The death of Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of Newton\'s Laws of Motion, is an example.]) For someone who was supposed to be practicing archery skills to prepare for the movie? Renner dropped the ball. Almost EVERY shot he fired from that bow, would not have been able to be accurate because of the physics involved. I can accept, not being able to see the target because of some innate ability for spacial relations. But There is no way, with the way he handles his bow and with his form, that certain shots were anymore than LUCK. (This from an actual archer. And while not professional level, self taught even, I have learned the limits to the device, and learned what it takes to have even a modicum of accuracy.) That’s really the only issue that caused me any dissonance in the movie. My issue is more so with the poor form and impossibility of being able to be accurate while shooting in such a way. Especially since he is not “super powered” per se, but just a savant with the bow, and with a sense of spatial reasoning. Maybe with a compound bow, but not with a recurve. (End geeky realism argument. [BTW I Absolutely Loved The Avengers in general.])

    Regardless, this news, is not unwelcome. It has a lot of potential. And I think, done properly, could be something that is very worth EVERYONE’S time.

  • Pingback: 寇森探員轉戰小螢幕 《神盾局》影集當主角 | Autocatch自動抓文

  • Pingback: S.H.I.E.L.D. Character Details Revealed | Team Ugli

Click Here