think it was a joke.Huh? Like, every Marvel character ever could destroy a village of chinamen.
You don't actually see who killed the dog, it's scoped through the perspective of the sniper rifle that ward had - which Garret never took off him when he "left for the car" so I don't think it's really clear who shot him. I think the way the scene was shot the director WANTED you to think Ward had a soft side, seemingly not killing the dog / inspiring hope that he will let fitz/simmons live. Then it's revealed he only shot the bullet to send the dog scavenging for a deer to then take him out from a distance with the sniper rifle - and then the audience realizes Ward actually has the killer instinct, then ejects them out of the airplane. I think he killed the dog and intended to kill fitz/simmons (obviously they live though). It was just the director toying with the audience's emotion.He did intend to save them. It was right at the same time as the flashback where he couldn't kill the dog. He even said, when Fitz told him that he knew he cared about them, "I do. It's a weakness." He ejected them so that Garrett or someone else wouldn't come in and just shoot them, and he figured they could survive floating in that container.
Am I watching the same show as the rest of you?
Literally the most famous book on screenwriting is partially based on this fact.He doesnt kill the dog. Jesus christ, nobody ever kills dogs on tv or modern movies.
It's fucking clear Garrett shot the dog, Jesus Christ.You don't actually see who killed the dog, it's scoped through the perspective of the sniper rifle that ward had - which Garret never took off him when he "left for the car" so I don't think it's really clear who shot him. I think the way the scene was shot the director WANTED you to think Ward had a soft side, seemingly not killing the dog / inspiring hope that he will let fitz/simmons live. Then it's revealed he only shot the bullet to send the dog scavenging for a deer to then take him out from a distance with the sniper rifle - and then the audience realizes Ward actually has the killer instinct, then ejects them out of the airplane. I think he killed the dog and intended to kill fitz/simmons (obviously they live though). It was just the director toying with the audience's emotion.
Wrong.That shitty movie is the only thing Bill Paxton should ever be remembered for. Ugh, so bad.
Kind of hard when Agent Carter takes place in the 1940s/1950s. It is hard to pull off, but it may work if done right.I wonder if they will be smart and use Agent Carter in the same timeslot as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and just tag-team between the two like they originally planned with the second Once Upon a Time?
Uh, dog isn't dead. Grief-striken Ward shooting in the air instead of the dog. The logical conclusion is that he does a 180 and whips out his sniper rifle to do the dog? Yea right. Garrett had a rifle of his own in the car to see if Ward went through with it. Obviously noted that he didn't. Sets up a parallel for the audience to realize that his "weakness" comes to light again as he cannot kill his friends and instead jettisons them off the plane full of bad guys wanting them dead. Not ideal, but the only way in a tight spot to save them.You don't actually see who killed the dog, it's scoped through the perspective of the sniper rifle that ward had - which Garret never took off him when he "left for the car" so I don't think it's really clear who shot him. I think the way the scene was shot the director WANTED you to think Ward had a soft side, seemingly not killing the dog / inspiring hope that he will let fitz/simmons live. Then it's revealed he only shot the bullet to send the dog scavenging for a deer to then take him out from a distance with the sniper rifle - and then the audience realizes Ward actually has the killer instinct, then ejects them out of the airplane. I think he killed the dog and intended to kill fitz/simmons (obviously they live though). It was just the director toying with the audience's emotion.