The Avengers Movie and SHIELD

[dewline]

Okay...we're seeing more than a little bit about SHIELD on the web of late.

Wired and Gizmodo have reported that the US Defence Department's PR people backed away from technical advising on the Avengers movie specifically because of SHIELD, and their uncertainty over SHIELD's place in the scheme of things.

lawmultiverse provided a little commentary of their own on the subject, and it wasn't their first attempt to understand how SHIELD could fit into legal pictures either.

Today, rfmcdpei made his own mention of a blog entry from Andrew Barton where the issue of creators needing to understand exactly what their fictional creations are supposed to be and be capable of, even if that understanding doesn't get all the way to the paying audience in full detail.

Here's what Andrew said exactly:

You know what, though? The military is right. According to the Defense Department, their main problem is that they couldn't figure out where the US military stood in relation to S.H.I.E.L.D., which Wikipedia describes as an "espionage and secret military law-enforcement agency," which really narrows it down - and, hell, I imagine it's easy as hell to maintain secrecy over something like a giant flying aircraft carrier. S.H.I.E.L.D. has, from what I understand, been the subject of fan debates over just what it is for a good chunk of the last fifty years.

Answering questions like this is important. They define what you can and cannot do in a story, and as such reduce the unmanageability of everything being possible into more restricted channels that can guide the flow of a narrative. Something that is shadowy, nebulous, and ill-defined even to the people writing it does not lend itself well to the best writing. Creators need to know how their creations work, even if that information never filters down to the audience.

I've had my own understanding of what SHIELD is supposed to be - mainly informed by the stories of Bob Harras and Dan G. Chichester published in the Nick Fury vs. SHIELD mini-series and the later relaunch of Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD in the 1990's when SHIELD was reinvented for the first time, and somewhat further filled out by Jonathan Hickman's work on Secret Warriors and SHIELD in recent years. Among other sources.

It's my hope as a fan that we can get back to that framework: SHIELD as a planetary defence/intelligence service. The ultimate Blue Berets and as flexible as need be to handle the work in the back alleys as on the battlefield.

Your distance-travelled will vary, of course...

Comments

[mdg1.livejournal.com]

There are two questions that crop up whenever SHIELD is used in a comic.

1) Who do they answer to?
2) What is their remit?

As Mr. Barton reports, the US/UN question is an open one, despite attempts to clarify. I agree with Andrew that it makes more sense to make them US-based, simply because so many of their core members are American by birth or immigration.

The other question is more insidious. SHIELD started out as an espionage organization, full stop. James Bond with flying cars. But fairly soon (certainly by the Steranko era) it became more of a paramilitary organization, with missions based not on infiltration and intelligence gathering, but the capture/destruction of hostile forces, often led by Herr Strucker.

The movies can't even keep it straight. Agent Coulson never wore a uniform, but Hill & Romanova do.

It's probably no surprise that the Hama GI Joe series actually started out as a SHIELD spinoff ("Fury Force"). The two have a lot in common, these days.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

The answer to the first evolved with time and the sensibilities of the authors, and it's one that I personally approve of. It speaks to personal ideals in the same way that Star Trek's various incarnations do.

As to the second question:

The military - paramilitary? - angle was there from day one. The first Helicarrier we knew about showed up in SHIELD's first appearance in print.

The unspoken, clear division between the "street suits" like Coulson and the military ops side represented by Hill and Romanova has similarly always been there. They were never not supposed to have one foot planted firmly in each of those fields.

If Stan Lee or any of his colleagues of those days remembers otherwise, I'd be interested to hear or read them telling the tale.

[mdg1.livejournal.com]

The helicarrier was there, but it was simply a mobile HQ, not a warship.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

One does not rig something like a Helicarrier up and not expect it to not get into a fight sooner or later. The way Kirby first drew it, the blasted thing looked like it was not only hosting a Carrier Air Wing, but B-52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52)'s as well.

[shanejayell.livejournal.com]

And I think there WERE fighters flying patrol around it too.

From what I remember SHIELD started out as a pure US group. There was a British version called STRIKE that was seperate, for instance.

[mdg1.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

I prefer (Rucka/Trautmann-era) Checkmate anyway.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Well, Greg's writing Punisher for Marvel these days, in addition to his own stuff via other routes. We might both get a bit of what we respectively want down the line if we're lucky.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Individual nations were running their own versions on whatever scale they could afford. The UK - as you note - and Canada - via DND's "Department H", Alpha Flight's backers - being among them.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

So, kind of like UNIT?

(As opposed to Torchwood?)

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Ideally, yes, more akin to UNIT than Torchwood (pre-Harkness Takeover, anyway).