Spoilers Agatha All Along discussion

[ShinHakkaider]

Hmmm...I guess I must be built a little different than some (maybe alot of people) in this thread. I dont follow or watch franchises or things that I'm not a fan of. So for instance I dont know much about Grey's Anatomy or Sex in the City so as a result I'm not really gonna watch any spin-offs or even if I do I'm going to assume that there's a history behind some of the characters and situations that I dont know and just go with it.

So it's funny to me that this show which is an direct spin-off/sequel to WANDAVISION (and ideally you probably SHOULD watch WANDAVISION first before coming to AGATHA ALL ALONG) is getting crap from people who wish that "the police procedural should have went longer" or "it was short because the writers couldn't write an actual mystery" (or what ever crap was said) when the mystery/and or procedural was never the point. AT. ALL. Its a stylistic continuation of how Wanda's magic affected people in that town and specifically how it affected Agatha who was kind of an antagonist to Wanda in that first show.

We know that the MCU is usually inspired by the comic source material and not slavishly adherent to it. In the comics, Agatha is MUCH older and was Franklin Richards babysitter and at one point Wanda Maximoff's magic instructor and currently as of many years ago (during Bendis'/Finch's Avengers Disassembled run) QUITE DEAD. Very few people actually STAY dead in the comics but...

Here's she's playing a different role. Either we're following THAT story or we're not. I have my issues with the show but it has very little to do with casting or the quality of the writing. For the most part I'm enjoying it but I dont think the mystery of who the Teen is is going to pay off significantly because if youre paying attention I'm pretty sure we KNOW who that kid is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So it's funny to me that this show which is an direct spin-off/sequel to WANDAVISION (and ideally you probably SHOULD watch WANDAVISION first before coming to AGATHA ALL ALONG) is getting crap from people who wish that "the police procedural should have went longer" or "it was short because the writers couldn't write an actual mystery" (or what ever crap was said) when the mystery/and or procedural was never the point. AT. ALL. Its a stylistic continuation of how Wanda's magic affected people in that town and specifically how it affected Agatha who was kind of an antagonist to Wanda in that first show.

I know it's "not the point", but I would rather it was doing pastiches or mysteries because I happen to prefer that kind of thing. But I'm not calling the show "crap", it's just not really my thing. It's entertaining enough to pass the time, but it's Only Murders that keeps me subscribing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know it's "not the point", but I would rather it was doing pastiches or mysteries because I happen to prefer that kind of thing. But I'm not calling the show "crap", it's just not really my thing. It's entertaining enough to pass the time, but it's Only Murders that keeps me subscribing.

Its a legitimate feeling to have, but there's still a bit of a "why isn't this steak chicken?" tone to the whole thing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Its a legitimate feeling to have, but there's still a bit of a "why isn't this steak chicken?" tone to the whole thing.

Seems fair enough. I like chicken, and this series is a sequel to a series that was mostly chicken.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Seems fair enough. I like chicken, and this series is a sequel to a series that was mostly chicken.

Except I'd say its not a sequel; its an offshoot, and those are often quite different beasts.

 

[trappedslider]

Music is magic

 

[Kaodi]

Solid episode. I guess the episodes are shorter than I thought they would be as a rule, but this one ended on a more satisfying note at least. I look forward to finding out about so-and-so's "thing" next week hopefully.

 

[Zaukrie]

Solid episode. I guess the episodes are shorter than I thought they would be as a rule, but this one ended on a more satisfying note at least. I look forward to finding out about so-and-so's "thing" next week hopefully.

Good episode.

 

[Staffan]

I do have one complaint, and that's one that applies to a lot of modern TV: they suck at lighting when it's supposed to be dark.

This is a shot from when the witches were about to summon a new Green Witch:

You can't see a damn thing in this shot. Some vague facial blobs, Agatha's blouse, and something providing some vague illumination in the background. It might have worked in a theatre where the real-world environment is dark, but not on a TV or computer screen.

This, on the other hand, is a shot from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, about 20 years ago:

The lighting clearly communicates that this is a dark place, but at the same time the individual things there are lit up for the convenience of the audience. We see the tombstones, and we see the faces of both Buffy and the vampire she's about to slay. Is it realistic? Maybe, maybe not. When we're in a dark environment, our eyes usually adjust to take in more light so we can see some things at least (and the cells in our eyes that sense blue light are also better at sensing low levels of light, which means we experience a dark environment as blue-tinged much like the screenshot above). This doesn't happen when watching TV (or a computer screen) in a semi-lit room, because there's enough ambient light not to get our pupils dilated.

 

[billd91]

Its a legitimate feeling to have, but there's still a bit of a "why isn't this steak chicken?" tone to the whole thing.

Now you know why people invented chicken-fried steak, so that steak can be as chickeny as possible.