Marvel Cinematic Universe Part II

[GenericUsername]

That's fair, but with this specific one, I feel like the general shift in opinion was from one end to another



I recognize that, but does she really have any worthy villains? Scarlet Witch herself doesn't even have a rogues gallery. I think a show with Agatha can work but not if it's just her

I already mentioned them. Salem Seven. Who are also in Wanda's Rogue's gallery. And for Wanda there is Chthon. They could have other villains she's faced turn up as well like Lore.

There is source material there. And what isn't there should be easy for writers. Since they do like to take some lore but then also put their own on top of it.

[GenericUsername]

I get the feeling that Scratchy IS Ebony, just with a different name. Kinda like what they did with Chewie being named Goose in the Captain Marvel movie for some reason. If the deleted scene is anything to go by, Scratchy is a shapeshifter, so he could take on the form of a cat at some point to be more comics accurate.

Scratchy could be her son Nicolas Scratch that she polyformed with magic. Because he originally was a villain of her's.

[GenericUsername]

I still kinda want to see actual Ebony in some form.

Me too. A tiny black cat that turns into a panther would be amazing to see.

[inisideguy]

For everyone saying that Agatha doesn't have a setting or her own, or a rogues gallery of her own, or many stories to adapt.....

We said basically the same things about Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. Why do IP's like that when we had so many other Avengers, and Nova, and whoever else who had deeper source material and were more well known among fans? But Marvel made it work (and a decade later I'm still waiting for Nova! ).

I agree that an Agatha show seems.....odd, to say the least, and the wisdom behind it looks questionable. But a lot of Marvel's choices have been called questionable. Even casting Downey was deemed a bad move at one point. So while I agree that Agatha getting a show is....left field.....let's see what they plan on doing with it.

I think people who read comics have a hard time separating them for the tv shows and movies. Whatever Agatha is in the comics really isn't relevant to the MCU. They can do whatever they want with her, and if people like the character then within the MCU they can have fun with her.

[Frontier]

For everyone saying that Agatha doesn't have a setting or her own, or a rogues gallery of her own, or many stories to adapt.....

We said basically the same things about Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. Why do IP's like that when we had so many other Avengers, and Nova, and whoever else who had deeper source material and were more well known among fans? But Marvel made it work (and a decade later I'm still waiting for Nova! ).

I agree that an Agatha show seems.....odd, to say the least, and the wisdom behind it looks questionable. But a lot of Marvel's choices have been called questionable. Even casting Downey was deemed a bad move at one point. So while I agree that Agatha getting a show is....left field.....let's see what they plan on doing with it.

I think people undervalue the material they had to draw from for Ant-Man and GoTG in my opinion (especially the GoTG).

Like even if Gunn didn't follow the DnA blueprint exactly...there was plenty there.

[CosmiComic]

For everyone saying that Agatha doesn't have a setting or her own, or a rogues gallery of her own, or many stories to adapt.....

We said basically the same things about Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. Why do IP's like that when we had so many other Avengers, and Nova, and whoever else who had deeper source material and were more well known among fans? But Marvel made it work (and a decade later I'm still waiting for Nova! ).

I agree that an Agatha show seems.....odd, to say the least, and the wisdom behind it looks questionable. But a lot of Marvel's choices have been called questionable. Even casting Downey was deemed a bad move at one point. So while I agree that Agatha getting a show is....left field.....let's see what they plan on doing with it.

But it's not really the same. Ant-Man and Guardians have a lot of their own lore. Agatha is more of a side character. I agree we should wait and see, but there's a different between not being well known and not having a lot of story

[Ascended]

I think people undervalue the material they had to draw from for Ant-Man and GoTG in my opinion (especially the GoTG).

Like even if Gunn didn't follow the DnA blueprint exactly...there was plenty there.

But it's not really the same. Ant-Man and Guardians have a lot of their own lore. Agatha is more of a side character. I agree we should wait and see, but there's a different between not being well known and not having a lot of story

There is a difference....but it's largely splitting hairs. Did Ant-Man ever have a solo ongoing before the MCU? Maybe a couple miniseries I think? All, or at least most, of his material was wrapped up in Avengers stuff as far as I know. He didn't have solo material to adapt so much as he had subplots in team books. Not all that different from a supporting character, when you boil it all down and look at the stuff they can call their own.

If Marvel can build a franchise around Ant-Man, who mostly had subplot style narratives in other titles, then doing the same for Agatha doesn't seem like much of a stretch. She's been around forever, she's got story elements attached to her, and despite being a supporting cast player I don't think she's all that much worse off than Ant-Man was. Hell, Ant-Man was known for two things; making Ultron and hitting his wife. They gave Ultron to Stark and Banner and still made Ant-Man work.

And there's plenty of other characters and elements Fiege can pull in to round things out for Agatha. Maybe they'll introduce Man-Thing, or finally get Mephisto on screen, or use those Lovecraftian style elder gods. There is a *lot* of magic in the MU that could be used for Agatha.

There *is* a difference, you guys are right. I just don't think it's a big difference.

[Sutekh]

I think people who read comics have a hard time separating them for the tv shows and movies. Whatever Agatha is in the comics really isn't relevant to the MCU. They can do whatever they want with her, and if people like the character then within the MCU they can have fun with her.

This is true. They more or less invented an entire new backstory for Shang-Chi (including a hidden extradimensional community with a dragon protector, more or less cribbed from Iron Fist), and that worked out okay.

Similarly, Thor: Ragnarok played fast and loose with all sorts of elements from comic-book Thor, like Hela being his sister and Asgard being destroyed, and that was popular enough.

It's not 'Agatha doesn't have enough elements they can draw on' (like the entire city of New Salem!), but 'what are they going to create with this character?'

[Frontier]

There is a difference....but it's largely splitting hairs. Did Ant-Man ever have a solo ongoing before the MCU? Maybe a couple miniseries I think? All, or at least most, of his material was wrapped up in Avengers stuff as far as I know. He didn't have solo material to adapt so much as he had subplots in team books. Not all that different from a supporting character, when you boil it all down and look at the stuff they can call their own.

Well, Tales to Astonish used to be an Ant-Man and Wasp book, I believe.

[MindofShadow]

I mean "Ant-Man" mined from not just Scott, but Hank and Janet as well. I don't know much about all that lore, but woudln't surprise me if they stole from Eric's mythos as well.

I don't even think Agatha was even a good MCU villain though. She had a catchy song and a funny laugh *shrug*

[Oberon]

I sorta remember that/possibility.

I always had my own head canon that New Salem and S's 7 were not neccesarily just demonic related.

Something about those other forms screams Deviant, or Inhuman.

Deviants, Lemurian, possibly Atlantean, have magic access. Agatha supposedly goes back to Atlantis

('m not fond of that backstory, but this would put her in Eternals/demigod territory.

Are the Salem's Seven and similar part of a strain of magic using Inhuman/Deviant type genetics.

Lost colony like so many Inhuman ones? hmmmmm?

[Castle]

Eternals Assemble




Disney is really building this film on the backs of Avengers. lol

[Sutekh]

Me too. A tiny black cat that turns into a panther would be amazing to see.

I like the notion that Ebony might secretly have been one of the 'demon cat-people' (source of Tigra's transformation) all along, just assuming the role of Agatha's familiar (and occasionally a black panther!) while she uses him as a fulcrum to leverage otherdimensional power (since he *is* an extradimensional creature) and help him hide out from his own people, who consider him a traitor or 'sell-out' for abandoning his people and working with human mystics like this.

Before Agatha, he was someone else's familiar. He's been around. But he doesn't like to talk about his time with Cynthia von Doom, or that time Margali Szardos tried to forcibly recruit him.

[Frontier]

I mean "Ant-Man" mined from not just Scott, but Hank and Janet as well. I don't know much about all that lore, but woudln't surprise me if they stole from Eric's mythos as well.

I don't even think Agatha was even a good MCU villain though. She had a catchy song and a funny laugh *shrug*

She wasn't even really a villain. She had nothing to do with Westview and just wanted Wanda's powers, although she wasn't "good."

She was better written than Hayward at least.

[GenericUsername]

But it's not really the same. Ant-Man and Guardians have a lot of their own lore. Agatha is more of a side character. I agree we should wait and see, but there's a different between not being well known and not having a lot of story

There isn't a single character that came pre-packaged with their own lore before writers gave them some. Agatha might be a side character but she also had her own lore. And they can build on that. That's what having writers is for. Otherwise they could just skip that step and churn out the comics word for word.