Wanda Maximoff: Scarlet Witch Appreciation 2020

[Albert1981]

You also forgot Percy Jackson

Aww ****. I forgot about Percy Jackson too. My bad. In my lame-ass defense, I mentioned those earlier fantasy works because they were published decades ago, and since I'm a little bit older, I'm not as familiar with the newer stuff. But, I'm pleased to learn magic is still pretty popular in fiction these days. With the MCU doing stuff like Strange, Blade, Moon Knight, Loki (and possibly Ghost Rider, Captain Britain, and Doctor Doom), perhaps fantasy themes will get more prominence in the future. We'll have to see. Again, thanks for the reminder. And damn you for making me look ignorant.

[baxer]

Aww ****. I forgot about Percy Jackson too. My bad. In my lame-ass defense, I mentioned those earlier fantasy works because they were published decades ago, and since I'm a little bit older, I'm not as familiar with the newer stuff. But, I'm pleased to learn magic is still pretty popular in fiction these days. With the MCU doing stuff like Strange, Blade, Moon Knight, Loki (and possibly Ghost Rider, Captain Britain, and Doctor Doom), perhaps fantasy themes will get more prominence in the future. We'll have to see. Again, thanks for the reminder. And damn you for making me look ignorant.

well the movies flopped, so it is normal to forget. others series that are smaller but have magic are vampire diaries(with multiple spin offs) and Magicians.

yep, magic still is popular.

[Frontier]

What character though the only Wanda I know pre Remender is House of M too A VS X and that one was just an emotionally unstable dumpster fire or a victim neither was appealing.

For Wanda, characterization wise my go-to is usually Roger Stern and Kurt Busiek.

[Albert1981]

well the movies flopped, so it is normal to forget. others series that are smaller but have magic are vampire diaries(with multiple spin offs) and Magicians.

yep, magic still is popular.

Yeah, I think it is. I mean, it's always been. I think Shakespeare's MacBeth had some. The Wizard of Oz did. They even did sitcoms like Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie and Sabrina the Teenage Witch based on magic. My personal favorite representation of magic is from Dahl's The Witches (which I just found out TODAY that they made a movie of earlier this year). I hear it wasn't as good as the first one. Because Wanda's superhero name is Scarlet Witch, I think it totally makes sense she belong in the mystical world (but I wouldn't her to be in it ALL the time). I vaguely remember seeing Vampire Diaries on television and even less vaguely recall Magicians. But I recollect that the Vampire Diaries were more like a soap opera than anything else.

[MaximoffTrash]

I hate to say this I only find Wanda even the slightest bit interesting when she's interacting with mutants these days. All her magic ****, is so uninteresting to me part of the reason I feel her solo flopped is because it focused on all the wrong ****. Remender Wanda was such an unapologetic bitch and I loved it say what you will but that Wanda was no victim and was able to stand on her own I kind of fucks with it. Wanda vs Mutants is the only way I see her getting back some relevance in the comics I hope to hell they go that route that's better than being an invisible teacher at Strange's knockoff school for gifted youngsters.

Being wrapped in mutant **** is what got her in this awkward situation in the first place.
Sorry, but I think most fans in this thread doesn't really hold much opinion about mutants, we simply don't care.

[MaximoffTrash]

I have ALWAYS thought that magic is a subject that is REALLY hard to explain when it comes to storytelling. I think that's why science fiction just is so dominant in popular culture and that fantasy is often not as prominent (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Chronicles of Narnia being some notable exceptions). For example, I just recently watched a fascinating and engaging documentary on physics titled Einstein and Hawking: Unlocking the Universe. Brilliants minds without a doubt. But what I noticed is that two of the people featured in the program included Sean Carroll and Kip Thorne. I later found out that Sean Carroll was a scientific consultant on Avengers: Endgame. And I also discovered that Kip Thorne advised Christopher Nolan for the movie Tenet. Science fiction stories can be ludicrous, but they still can be grounded in REAL science. That makes them more authentic in my view. Magic and fantasy are tricky. Like, will the producers of Doctor Strange 2 hire Penn & Teller and David Blaine to advise them on the magical aspects of that movie? That wouldn't work. So Wanda, Brother Voodoo, Doctor Strange, Clea, and Wong sometimes are hard to understand because of the fantasy nature of their characters. However, I dislike Wanda's mutant stories because they are really boring and melodramatic.

There are plenty of writers who use hard magic systems like Brandon Sanderson.
Also in superhero genre, there is no essential difference between tech, magic, genetic mutation, they are all up to the author's imagination.
Reed Richards as the science guy is no more believable than your average magic user really.

[Albert1981]

There are plenty of writers who use hard magic systems like Brandon Sanderson.
Also in superhero genre, there is no essential difference between tech, magic, genetic mutation, they are all up to the author's imagination.
Reed Richards as the science guy is no more believable than your average magic user really.

Thanks for this information. I had no idea that fantasy writers had magical "rules" they have to adhere to. Fascinating. I had believed this statement in regards to Marvel magic:

"Magic is the world where "not everything makes sense. Not everything has to." It doesn't answer to physical laws, repeatable trials, rules of evidence, and technological measurement. It's mystical, religious, transcendent. Ideas trump physical laws; there are no explanations. In magic, there are an infinite number of universes, meaning no matter how much we learn, there's always still an infinite amount we don't. Magical matters aren't truly solvable; they're too subjective and slippery."

In that first Thor movie, Marvel Studios was CLEARLY downplaying magic:

Jane Foster/Arthur C. Clarke: "Well, magic's just science we don't understand yet."

Thor: "Your ancestors called it magic and you call it science. Well, I come from a place where they are one and the same thing."

Now, after Doctor Strange, Marvel Studios is definitely EMPHASIZING it.

[GenericUsername]

I hate to say this I only find Wanda even the slightest bit interesting when she's interacting with mutants these days. All her magic ****, is so uninteresting to me part of the reason I feel her solo flopped is because it focused on all the wrong ****. Remender Wanda was such an unapologetic bitch and I loved it say what you will but that Wanda was no victim and was able to stand on her own I kind of fucks with it. Wanda vs Mutants is the only way I see her getting back some relevance in the comics I hope to hell they go that route that's better than being an invisible teacher at Strange's knockoff school for gifted youngsters.

Her solo "flopped" because they didn't really promote it and changed artists with each issue. Any books where there isn't creative consistency have not done well.

The mutant stuff is likely your bias, because most of Wanda's stories don't have anything to do with mutants.

Also I agree with baxer that 15 issues is not a flop. Especially in the modern day.

[GenericUsername]

What character though the only Wanda I know pre Remender is House of M too A VS X and that one was just an emotionally unstable dumpster fire or a victim neither was appealing.

People are referring to the character that existed pre-AD/HoM. I like to think it's a situation of the invasion of the body snatchers. Because the character is night and day.

[Wiccan]

Wanda being an unapologetic bitch that doesn't care about mutant genocide is terrible. Heinberg wrote her as well as one could when having to address Disassembled/HOM, then Remender pretty much shitted all over it cause he's someone who thinks "mutant" could be considered a bad word that people shouldn't identify as and Magneto is as bad as nazis if he kills one.

Empyre was terrible because it portrayed her as naive, needing to be put in her place by Strange and not actually helping in the end, but still being remorseful and wanting to fix things in itself is not the problem.

[Mike_Murdock]

I hate to say this I only find Wanda even the slightest bit interesting when she's interacting with mutants these days. All her magic ****, is so uninteresting to me part of the reason I feel her solo flopped is because it focused on all the wrong ****. Remender Wanda was such an unapologetic bitch and I loved it say what you will but that Wanda was no victim and was able to stand on her own I kind of fucks with it. Wanda vs Mutants is the only way I see her getting back some relevance in the comics I hope to hell they go that route that's better than being an invisible teacher at Strange's knockoff school for gifted youngsters.

Honestly, Wanda rarely interacted with mutants throughout her history even when compared to Pietro. Pietro was an X-Factor member for years. Wanda was just part of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants for a handful of issues. Her No More Mutants thing was ostensibly an X-Men story, but it spread from the pages of Avengers and was written by the Avengers writer and featured Avengers characters. Also, neither House of M nor its aftermath were stories where she had any characterization or agency. The closest Wanda ever felt like an X-character to me was when she was part of the Avengers unity squad so that should say something.

Didn't her solo last 15 issues? I know the comics market is fairly screwy, but that's generally a success these days.

[leokearon]

Honestly, Wanda rarely interacted with mutants throughout her history even when compared to Pietro. Pietro was an X-Factor member for years. Wanda was just part of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants for a handful of issues. Her No More Mutants thing was ostensibly an X-Men story, but it spread from the pages of Avengers and was written by the Avengers writer and featured Avengers characters. Also, neither House of M nor its aftermath were stories where she had any characterization or agency. The closest Wanda ever felt like an X-character to me was when she was part of the Avengers unity squad so that should say something.

Didn't her solo last 15 issues? I know the comics market is fairly screwy, but that's generally a success these days.

These days an ongoing comic that can last more than 5-6 issues is probably a success

[Journey]

A lot of y'all seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say I know back in the days of old Wanda was mostly known as an Avenger had some stories that I'll probably never read cause anything that looks like it could have been in a newspaper article I don't care to pick up.

Her most known stories to a modern reader like myself starts at House of M to present day invisible teacher. IMO I only find her interesting when she's actually against mutants it gave her something, even in Empyre where she was a whipping girl it was still something and I like that I think it could be a fun route to go going forward. But that's just my opinion at least she would be on panel *shrugs*

[gurkle]

A lot of y'all seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say I know back in the days of old Wanda was mostly known as an Avenger had some stories that I'll probably never read cause anything that looks like it could have been in a newspaper article I don't care to pick up.

Her most known stories to a modern reader like myself starts at House of M to present day invisible teacher. IMO I only find her interesting when she's actually against mutants it gave her something, even in Empyre where she was a whipping girl it was still something and I like that I think it could be a fun route to go going forward. But that's just my opinion at least she would be on panel *shrugs*

I mean, this is an appreciation thread for the character so naturally most of the regulars are going to be people who know her from pre-House of M stories, because, as you say, she's gotten very little to do since House of M.

I don't think they'd make her more interesting by leaning into the anti-mutant stuff, because apart from everything it's not in-character for her - she was never remotely ashamed of being a mutant before House of M, so making her wipe out mutants makes about as much sense as having Wolverine wipe out mutants. It's not something the character would do, so her fans just discount it as bad writing.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a character you consider dull do something that you would find interesting. But the character's fans are never going to agree with that. Her fans just want to see her restored to the Avengers where she belongs, re-establish relationships with all the characters who haven't spoken to her on-panel in years, etc. There's nothing wrong with the character that more panel time wouldn't fix.

[Albert1981]

You know with Alfred Molina and Jaime Foxx coming back for Spider-Man 3, I think it is only a matter of time Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield will show up there too. I'm not a fan of this multiverse ****. I know it's not a popular opinion, but I think it diminishes the impacts of the earlier Sony pictures. And trust me, I HATED the previous Sony Spider-Man flicks. Just as much as I LOATH the recent DCEU versions of Superman and Batman. I read how Benjamin Freed reacted to the news on social media (in regards to Doc Ock's purported return) and I TOTALLY agree with his sentiments:

"Alfred Molina’s tragic portrayal of Doc Ock is one of the biggest reasons why Raimi’s SPIDER-MAN 2 remains better than 90 percent of MCU movies. Bringing Molina back for a nostalgia play cheapens his original role and reveals a bit of creative bankruptcy on Feige’s part."

"If you’re genuinely excited about Marvel/Sony running a cheap nostalgia play because it's less difficult than coming up with a new adaptation of classic IP, you probably also thought Rise of Skywalker was worth it for the cameos."

"Anyway, you can all venmo me when SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE MULTIVERSE WITH ALL THE SPIDER-FRIENDS THAT 40-YEAR-OLD MEN REMEMBER FROM 2004 premieres in 2023 on whatever Sony’s streaming service is called."

But the reason I'm bringing this up in a Wanda thread is to ask do you really think Quicksilver will be coming back for WandaVision? We're like a month away from the first episode, and we haven't heard ANYTHING about ATJ being on set. And yet, we hear all sorts of information about people showing up in Hawkeye and Spider-Man 3 RIGHT after shooting starts. My opinion on Pietro is this. I feel it was a shame that Disney killed him off, and the way it was done was extremely lame. BUT I do understand WHY they had to do it. I really like Quicksilver but I have to say that I actually enjoy Wanda on her own in the MCU. I hope that view is not criticized too much. I think his death helped her character development a lot in spite of the fact she never mentioned him again. That being said, I think it would add a lot to WandaVision if Pietro shows up, but I don't think they're gonna either have Vision and/or Quicksilver stick around after it concludes. So, what I'm asking is do you think at this late stage in the game, ATJ is gonna make an appearance in WandaVision?