Wanda Maximoff: Scarlet Witch Appreciation 2020

[Albert1981]

That's not how it works sadly. A character only gets their own series if either the higher ups want one or someone wants to do one. That's is what happened with Wanda, the only reason see got an ongoing in 2015 was because Robertson wanted to write it, the year before, no-one wanted to write a Wanda book. Also despite both Wand aand Vision being very popular with MCU (and now more comic) fans, they are hardly used in any of the major books because again, the creators involved don't want to write them. Jane Foster becoming Thor had nothing to do with Portman's portrayal (whcih was largely hated by fans), it was because Jason Aaron loves Jane.

Man, that really sucks ass. So Vision is only getting a television series with Wanda now basically because a Marvel writer liked the character and wrote a good story about him? Not because the Marvel editorial staff wanted one after the Age of Ultron?! And Hawkeye is getting a Disney+ show with Kate Bishop only because another Matt Fraction liked that character and wrote a good story about him? Again the Marvel creative bosses didn't MANDATE a series about Hawkeye after the 2012 Avengers movie?! This is crazy! We only got Captain America: Winter Soldier because Ed Brubaker wanted to write about Cap and Bucky? And we only got Thor: Ragnarok because Greg Zak wanted to write about the Hulk in Planet Hulk? I had long believed that this was a coordinated effort by the Marvel creatives to get these writers and artists to do something with these Avengers because of their film popularity.

Doesn't Marvel want to capitalize on the red-hot popularity of these characters before they leave the movies? Oh, I agree with you about Portman (who I think is a fine actress, but sometimes struggles to build up chemistry with her co-stars on film). What I meant to say is that if Jane hadn't become Thor, Portman would have remained outside of the MCU for good in my opinion. She's really fortunate that she has got a story to work with. But I did get the feeling she was nervous about how the Marvel crowd received her. Her career has definitely stalled a bit, so I'm hoping Love and Thunder can revive it. She seems like a nice person.

[Albert1981]

Keep in mind that Harry Potter is all about magic.

They can create support characters. They definitely did for Vision and the Scarlet Witch. As they have for her Disney+ show as well.

I hope the MCU does not get convoluted either.

True. Wanda can emulate the Harry Potter movies, and I think that would work. But I have the feeling her stories would be a little bit more mature and less child-friendly. Kind of like a female version of Dr. Strange. It would be better if they were aiming for a younger audience. If she had fun characters supporting her that could definitely work. I agree with Disney+ having co-leads in many of their series'. She-Hulk and Hulk. Falcon and Winter Soldier. Hawkeye and Kate Bishop. Wanda and Vision. It's hard to have one character "lift" a show.

Unfortunately, I think convolution is inevitable. As the MCU puts out more movies and television series, it just gets harder to keep things consistent and focused. It's a far better situation than the Marvel comic books which must number into the thousands of issues after over eighty years of publication, but things could get dicey in the next decade. Don't get me wrong, I definitely support tight continuity for the MCU. Because they have less material to work with, MCU creators have less excuses not to stay within continuity. I totally understand why people are upset about Wanda's and Pietro's origins, but I think for the MCU to retcon them after only four movie appearances for Wanda and five years in real-time, would just be cheapening the deaths of their parents, you know? It was such a HUGE part of their MOVIE origins. I clearly remember Quicksilver saying how terrified he and Wanda were after Stark Industries' rockets took their parents out. And the only reason they would do it is because of the Magneto connection (And I'm saying this as a huge Mags fan. Mags is one of my all-time favorite villains/anti-heroes with an incredibly fascinating and tragic backstory). Retcon their comic origins again if they want, but let's keep the movies separate. I just don't think it's right that because things have changed in the present (Disney buying Fox), we just discard the RECENT past like it never happened. Feige and Whedon knew what they were doing in the Age of Ultron, and their decisions should have creative consequences. I know people here like certain characters and storylines in their comic books, but I think those same people should like LOGIC and CONTINUITY in the movies too. To bring back Quicksilver would definitely cheapen his sacrifice in Age of Ultron. Same thing with Vision coming back after his sacrifice in Infinity War. My opinion is probably not popular on these threads, however, because you guys are all used to retcons and revivals from deaths in the comic books!

The greatest danger of convolution for the MCU in my view is with Spider-Man. Sony is creating their own Spidey universe right now. They're bringing in characters like Morbius and have already brought in Venom. Morbius is closely tied with the MCU's Spider-Man. I saw in a trailer that Morbius was talking with the Vulture, a joint MCU-Sony villain. So if Sony creates a Sinister Six film with Venom, Morbius, the Vulture et al, would they be allowed to mention what happened to Spider-Man in the Avengers movies? If Sony's Marvel Universe is tied to the MCU, would I have to watch Sony films to understand what the heck is going on with Spider-Man in the MCU (I don't really watch a lot of Spider-Man related stuff which makes me in the minority here AGAIN)? If the Sinister Six movie happens, Mysterio would have to be brought back and he was also a joint MCU-Sony villain. I read an interesting article which posed the question does Venom exist in the same universe with the Guardians of the Galaxy and did he get affected by the Snap? This piece also explained if Sony made a new Sinister Six movie, would it due to legal reasons, not be allowed to mention Iron Man in it (even though he is such a critical component in the current Sony Spider-Man's story)? And if Tom Holland's Spider-Man shows up in new MCU offerings, he probably won't be able to talk about Venom and Morbius either! The column also stated that it would be tough for directors of the Sinister Six movie to explain why Parker just couldn't get the Hulk to help him battle the Sinister Six. So the efforts Feige and his team have made to build up a connected universe for their characters in the MCU could literally be blown up by Sony's Spider-Man universe (and that's a universe they have absolutely zero creative control over). I don't believe Holland's Spider-Man can even MENTION his interaction with Wanda in Endgame in a future Sony movie.

One way to avoid convolution is to phase out characters from one phase to another so to speak. Heroes and villains from earlier movies can leave the MCU (through deaths and/or retirements) and be replaced with entirely new characters after massive crossover events. That way you don't have to watch forty movies and shows to understand what the heck is going on. The clocks can be reset and started again. But it does get risky if new characters are not as well-received as the older ones. But as actors and actresses age, I don't think the MCU has a choice. As I stated previously, I AM a little bit concerned that Marvel is relying too heavily on Captain Marvel and Dr. Strange to replace Iron Man and Captain America. I loved those two dudes! Larson and Cumberbatch are great, but I think you would agree with me that Downey and Evans were just incredible in their roles.

[GenericUsername]

True. Wanda can emulate the Harry Potter movies, and I think that would work. But I have the feeling her stories would be a little bit more mature and less child-friendly. Kind of like a female version of Dr. Strange. It would be better if they were aiming for a younger audience. If she had fun characters supporting her that could definitely work. I agree with Disney+ having co-leads in many of their series'. She-Hulk and Hulk. Falcon and Winter Soldier. Hawkeye and Kate Bishop. Wanda and Vision. It's hard to have one character "lift" a show.

Unfortunately, I think convolution is inevitable. As the MCU puts out more movies and television series, it just gets harder to keep things consistent and focused. It's a far better situation than the Marvel comic books which must number into the thousands of issues after over eighty years of publication, but things could get dicey in the next decade. Don't get me wrong, I definitely support tight continuity for the MCU. Because they have less material to work with, MCU creators have less excuses not to stay within continuity. I totally understand why people are upset about Wanda's and Pietro's origins, but I think for the MCU to retcon them after only four movie appearances for Wanda and five years in real-time, it would just be cheapening the deaths of their parents, you know? It was such a HUGE part of their MOVIE origins. I clearly remember Quicksilver saying how terrified he and Wanda were after Stark's rockets took their parents out. And the only reason they would do it is because of the Magneto connection (And I'm saying this as a huge Mags fan. Mags is one of my all-time favorite villains/anti-heroes with an incredibly fascinating and tragic backstory). Retcon their comic origins again if they want, but let's keep the movies separate. I just don't think it's right that because things have changed in the present (Disney buying Fox), we just discard the RECENT past like it never happened. Feige and Whedon knew what they were doing in the Age of Ultron, and their decisions should have creative consequences. I know people here like certain characters and storylines in their comic books, but I think those same people should like LOGIC and CONTINUITY in the movies too. To bring back Quicksilver would definitely cheapen his sacrifice in Age of Ultron. Same thing with Vision coming back after his sacrifice in Infinity War. My opinion is probably not popular on these threads, however, because you guys are all used to retcons and revivals from deaths in the comic books!

The greatest danger of convolution for the MCU in my view is with Spider-Man. Sony is creating their own Spidey universe right now. They're bringing in characters like Morbius and have already brought in Venom. Morbius is closely tied with the MCU's Spider-Man. I saw in a trailer that Morbius was talking with the Vulture, a joint MCU-Sony villain. So if Sony creates a Sinister Six film with Venom, Morbius, the Vulture et al, would they be allowed to mention what happened to Spider-Man in the Avengers movies? If Sony's Marvel Universe is tied to the MCU, would I have to watch Sony films to understand what the heck is going on with Spider-Man in the MCU (I don't really watch a lot of Spider-Man related stuff which makes me in the minority here AGAIN)? If the Sinister Six movie happens, Mysterio would have to be brought back and he was also a joint MCU-Sony villain. I read an interesting article which posed the question does Venom exist in the same universe with the Guardians of the Galaxy and did he get affected by the Snap? This piece also explained if Sony made a new Sinister Six movie, would it due to legal reasons, not be allowed to mention Iron Man in it (even though he is such a critical component in the current Sony Spider-Man's story)? And if Tom Holland's Spider-Man shows up in new MCU offerings, he probably won't be able to talk about Venom and Morbius either! The column also stated that it would be tough for directors of the Sinister Six movie to explain why Parker just couldn't get the Hulk to help him battle the Sinister Six. So the efforts Feige and his team have made to build up a connected universe for their characters in the MCU could literally be blown up by Sony's Spider-Man universe (and that's a universe they have absolutely zero creative control over). I don't believe Holland's Spider-Man can even MENTION his interaction with Wanda in Endgame in a future Sony movie.

One way to avoid convolution is to phase out characters from one phase to another so to speak. Heroes and villains from earlier movies can leave the MCU (through deaths and/or retirements) and be replaced with entirely new characters after massive crossover events. That way you don't have to watch forty movies and shows to understand what the heck is going on. The clocks can be reset and started again. But it does get risky if new characters are not as well-received as the older ones. But as actors and actresses age, I don't think the MCU has a choice. As I stated previously, I AM a little bit concerned that Marvel is relying too heavily on Captain Marvel and Dr. Strange to replace Iron Man and Captain America. I loved those two dudes! Larson and Cumberbatch are great, but I think you would agree with me that Downey and Evans were just incredible in their roles.

I don't think Wanda will be in the universe long enough to become as convoluted as her comics counterpart. And with her and Agatha, I think they could easily make her family friendly if they wanted to go that route. But I'd also say that Harry Potter wasn't just for kids, and the latter parts of the story were more for adults. Because even I had a hard time with the last Harry Potter film. By that time, those kids had been through so much that it became hard to watch. And I'm far older. It's just that magic can work.

Marvel hasn't really tried to make it work in comics. They treated it like an off to the side venture. Same with Wanda. Stuff they want to actually work, they put in more effort to make it work. And most importantly, promote it.

[GenericUsername]

Man, that really sucks ass. So Vision is only getting a television series with Wanda now basically because a Marvel writer liked the character and wrote a good story about him? Not because the Marvel editorial staff wanted one after the Age of Ultron?! And Hawkeye is getting a Disney+ show with Kate Bishop only because another Matt Fraction liked that character and wrote a good story about him? Again the Marvel creative bosses didn't MANDATE a series about Hawkeye after the 2012 Avengers movie?! This is crazy! We only got Captain America: Winter Soldier because Ed Brubaker wanted to write about Cap and Bucky? And we only got Thor: Ragnarok because Greg Zak wanted to write about the Hulk in Planet Hulk? I had long believed that this was a coordinated effort by the Marvel creatives to get these writers and artists to do something with these Avengers because of their film popularity.

Doesn't Marvel want to capitalize on the red-hot popularity of these characters before they leave the movies? Oh, I agree with you about Portman (who I think is a fine actress, but sometimes struggles to build up chemistry with her co-stars on film). What I meant to say is that if Jane hadn't become Thor, Portman would have remained outside of the MCU for good in my opinion. She's really fortunate that she has got a story to work with. But I did get the feeling she was nervous about how the Marvel crowd received her. Her career has definitely stalled a bit, so I'm hoping Love and Thunder can revive it. She seems like a nice person.

Marvel are the ones that decided to have Cap turned evil while he was being promoted heavily in the films and celebrating his 80th anniversary. So I don't think they have the capitalize on popularity thing down to a science. The most they did was change the main Avengers team to look more like the movie version. And there can also be a downside to that sort of thing in that way. That they watered down the books too much at that point to reflect the movies and people started to hate it. But there are better ways they can promote their characters.

[Albert1981]

Marvel are the ones that decided to have Cap turned evil while he was being promoted heavily in the films and celebrating his 80th anniversary. So I don't think they have the capitalize on popularity thing down to a science. The most they did was change the main Avengers team to look more like the movie version. And there can also be a downside to that sort of thing in that way. That they watered down the books too much at that point to reflect the movies and people started to hate it. But there are better ways they can promote their characters.

Yeah, it seems like synergy can misfire sometimes. I heard about Cap turning evil. I guess Marvel and DC have basically turned each and every one of their heroes into villains at some point by now. Was Cap being "mind-controlled" in this case like Wanda had been previously? I vaguely remember the writers of Endgame alluded to this story by making Rogers say Hail Hydra as a knock on that particular story. I don't know if that's true though.

[Albert1981]

I don't think Wanda will be in the universe long enough to become as convoluted as her comics counterpart. And with her and Agatha, I think they could easily make her family friendly if they wanted to go that route. But I'd also say that Harry Potter wasn't just for kids, and the latter parts of the story were more for adults. Because even I had a hard time with the last Harry Potter film. By that time, those kids had been through so much that it became hard to watch. And I'm far older. It's just that magic can work.

Marvel hasn't really tried to make it work in comics. They treated it like an off to the side venture. Same with Wanda. Stuff they want to actually work, they put in more effort to make it work. And most importantly, promote it.

The Harry Potter and LOTR sagas were almost flawlessly done in my opinion. I agree with you it was so fun and entertaining to see those kids grow up through the movies. And I concur with you that at the end, the Harry Potter movies did become more grown-up (in a really organic way). I liked how the Harry Potter films finished on a satisfying note and did not overstay their welcome. I also enjoyed the fact that the movies emphasized themes like friendship and kindness just as much as good vs evil at the end. I actually believe that Kathryn Hahn (Agatha) will be really funny in this series. I mean that's what she's known for. So that could be an interesting relationship that could be pursued further. I think we both agree that gritty and edgy doesn't work in the MCU. I think it's so cool they're taking these classic Marvel characters and making them humorous. It's such a creative decision. I even stated before that I hope that Man-Thing shows up in Dr. Strange 2 and he's an absolute joke in it. Wanda could even tease him about his hygiene or something. I'm REALLY surprised at how many comic book fans in these threads have totally embraced the funny stuff in the MCU. I believed you folks would HATE to have these characters changed on the big and small screens in that way. Dark and brooding heroes with Daddy issues is just as tired a trope as women going insane with power in my opinion. I'm pleased people here agree with that sentiment. I actually want Wanda to STAY funny after Wandavision.

I absolutely think magic could work with Wanda. I guess I felt that Marvel was going the "adult" route because Feige and his team have emphasized that the magic involving Wanda and Dr. Strange will be somewhat "scary" and that there will be a horror element to it. That's why I said Wanda's magical journey seemed a little bit mature. I don't know if Marvel will pursue that route in the comics now that Feige is in charge of things there too. We know that there's a lot of darkness in the relationship between Wanda and Vision, but I really don't think they need to overdue it in Wandavision. If Vision "dies" again at the end of the series, it'll be dark enough in my view. But I hope it'll be kind of like the LOTR and Harry Potter movies. I'm hoping that Vision and Wanda will support each other through whatever happens in Wandavision, unlike in the comics. That'd be nice.

[GenericUsername]

The Harry Potter and LOTR sagas were almost flawlessly done in my opinion. I agree with you it was so fun and entertaining to see those kids grow up through the movies. And I concur with you that at the end, the Harry Potter movies did become more grown-up (in a really organic way). I liked how the Harry Potter films finished on a satisfying note and did not overstay their welcome. I also enjoyed the fact that the movies emphasized themes like friendship and kindness just as much as good vs evil at the end. I absolutely think magic could work with Wanda. I guess I felt that Marvel was going the "adult" route because Feige and his team have emphasized that the magic involving Wanda and Dr. Strange will be somewhat "scary" and that there will be a horror element to it. That's why I said Wanda's magical journey seemed a little bit mature. I don't know if Marvel will pursue that route in the comics now that Feige is in charge of things there too. We know that there's a lot of darkness in the relationship between Wanda and Vision, but I really don't think they need to overdue it in Wandavision. If Vision "dies" again at the end of the series, it'll be dark enough in my view. But I hope it'll be kind of like the LOTR and Harry Potter movies. I'm hoping that Vision and Wanda will support each other through whatever happens in Wandavision, unlike in the comics. That'd be nice.

In the horror quotes he did say that it wouldn't be in the way that horror films are typically. His quote last December was this:

“The way, when I was a kid in the 80s, Spielberg did an amazing job,” he continued. “I mean, there are horrifying sequences in Raiders that I as a little kid would [covers his eyes] when their faces melted. Or Temple of Doom, of course, or Gremlins, or Poltergeist. These are the movies that invented the PG-13 rating, by the way.”

“It’s fun to be scared in that way, and not a horrific, torturous way,’ Feige said, “but a way that is legitimately scary, because Scott Derrickson is quite good at that, but scary in the service of an exhilarating emotion.”

Now Poltergeist was really freaking scary to me, but I doubt it'd be like that. I think it'll fit in well with Disney type movies tbh.

[GenericUsername]

Yeah, it seems like synergy can misfire sometimes. I heard about Cap turning evil. I guess Marvel and DC have basically turned each and every one of their heroes into villains at some point by now. Was Cap being "mind-controlled" in this case like Wanda had been previously? I vaguely remember the writers of Endgame alluded to this story by making Rogers say Hail Hydra as a knock on that particular story. I don't know if that's true though.

It was just not him. But a doppleganger. I think it was a vague reference in Endgame.

[Albert1981]

It was just not him. But a doppleganger. I think it was a vague reference in Endgame.

Oh cool. Thanks for the explanation!

[Albert1981]

In the horror quotes he did say that it wouldn't be in the way that horror films are typically. His quote last December was this:

“The way, when I was a kid in the 80s, Spielberg did an amazing job,” he continued. “I mean, there are horrifying sequences in Raiders that I as a little kid would [covers his eyes] when their faces melted. Or Temple of Doom, of course, or Gremlins, or Poltergeist. These are the movies that invented the PG-13 rating, by the way.”

“It’s fun to be scared in that way, and not a horrific, torturous way,’ Feige said, “but a way that is legitimately scary, because Scott Derrickson is quite good at that, but scary in the service of an exhilarating emotion.”

Now Poltergeist was really freaking scary to me, but I doubt it'd be like that. I think it'll fit in well with Disney type movies tbh.

Some of those movies Feige mentioned seemed pretty scary to me when I watched them when I was younger. They aren't slasher flicks, though. I agree Disney will try to keep things family-friendly for their audiences, and I agree with that decision. I know Sam Raimi does a lot of horror/comedy, so he probably fits for the Strange stuff that Marvel is promoting. And I also agree that Wanda won't be in the MCU long enough before Magneto and the mutants establish themselves. I think Lizzie has a good five years left in the MCU, but Wandavision and Dr. Strange 2 will probably be the highlights of her time in the movies, though I'm hoping for more because I'm greedy. I think Feige wants to make sure that the cast of characters in the MCU doesn't get so bloated and audience members start losing track of whose who. And it will cost Disney a lot of money to have so many actors and actresses on their payroll even though I think Marvel is cheap as hell.

I read something really funny today. There have been serious and persistent rumors that acclaimed actor Giancarlo Esposito will be entering the MCU as Magneto in the next few years. And somebody commented that having him as Wanda's father would be a stretch beyond anything Reed Richards could pull off! LOL! That would certainly be Feige's most controversial casting choice in my view. Even more than Downey. So I'm not sure if it will happen. But I've learned not to question his judgement over the years. I love Mags' origin story (if it could be realistically maintained, I would totally support it), but I would like to see a younger version of the character than the older dudes that have portrayed him. A ninety-five year old Magneto would just be weird! I like the idea of him being part of a Jewish family that was persecuted by Communists in the Eastern Bloc during the last years of the Cold War in order to keep him more youthful.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Some of those movies Feige mentioned seemed pretty scary to me when I watched them when I was younger. They aren't slasher flicks, though. I agree Disney will try to keep things family-friendly for their audiences, and I agree with that decision. I know Sam Raimi does a lot of horror/comedy, so he probably fits for the Strange stuff that Marvel is promoting. And I also agree that Wanda won't be in the MCU long enough before Magneto and the mutants establish themselves. I think Lizzie has a good five years left in the MCU, but Wandavision and Dr. Strange 2 will probably be the highlights of her time in the movies, though I'm hoping for more because I'm greedy. I think Feige wants to make sure that the cast of characters in the MCU doesn't get so bloated and audience members start losing track of whose who. And it will cost Disney a lot of money to have so many actors and actresses on their payroll even though I think Marvel is cheap as hell.

Scarlet Witch is good to go as long as they don't kill her off, they can keep the character without Olsen. The MCU is ok with recasting.

I read something really funny today. There have been serious and persistent rumors that acclaimed actor Giancarlo Esposito will be entering the MCU as Magneto in the next few years. And somebody commented that having him as Wanda's father would be a stretch beyond anything Reed Richards could pull off! LOL! That would certainly be Feige's most controversial casting choice in my view. Even more than Downey. So I'm not sure if it will happen. But I've learned not to question his judgement over the years. I love Mags' origin story (if it could be realistically maintained, I would totally support it), but I would like to see a younger version of the character than the older dudes that have portrayed him. A ninety-five year old Magneto would just be weird! I like the idea of him being part of a Jewish family that was persecuted by Communists in the Eastern Bloc during the last years of the Cold War in order to keep him more youthful.

It wouldn't be completely out of the question, Wentworth Miller has a Black father and a white mother.

[leokearon]

Man, that really sucks ass. So Vision is only getting a television series with Wanda now basically because a Marvel writer liked the character and wrote a good story about him? Not because the Marvel editorial staff wanted one after the Age of Ultron?! And Hawkeye is getting a Disney+ show with Kate Bishop only because another Matt Fraction liked that character and wrote a good story about him? Again the Marvel creative bosses didn't MANDATE a series about Hawkeye after the 2012 Avengers movie?! This is crazy! We only got Captain America: Winter Soldier because Ed Brubaker wanted to write about Cap and Bucky? And we only got Thor: Ragnarok because Greg Zak wanted to write about the Hulk in Planet Hulk? I had long believed that this was a coordinated effort by the Marvel creatives to get these writers and artists to do something with these Avengers because of their film popularity.

Doesn't Marvel want to capitalize on the red-hot popularity of these characters before they leave the movies? Oh, I agree with you about Portman (who I think is a fine actress, but sometimes struggles to build up chemistry with her co-stars on film). What I meant to say is that if Jane hadn't become Thor, Portman would have remained outside of the MCU for good in my opinion. She's really fortunate that she has got a story to work with. But I did get the feeling she was nervous about how the Marvel crowd received her. Her career has definitely stalled a bit, so I'm hoping Love and Thunder can revive it. She seems like a nice person.

That's right. Also you have to remember that comics are planned months in advance, so there is no way of knowing if a character is going to be popular or not in a movie while you are planning a comic. Also basing stuff on movies and TV only gives a small sales boost to comics, For example if there is an Iron Man movie, the comic sales will increase for roughly three months and then go back to what they were before the movie came out.

[Albert1981]

Scarlet Witch is good to go as long as they don't kill her off, they can keep the character without Olsen. The MCU is ok with recasting.



It wouldn't be completely out of the question, Wentworth Miller has a Black father and a white mother.

Good and salient points. I just feel that recasting for the MCU was easier a decade ago when characters like War Machine and the Incredible Hulk were not really established. Replacing VETERANS of the MCU is way trickier. Case in point: Jeremy Renner (a fine actor in my view) had some very unsavory stories come to light about his relationship with his ex-wife and daughter (I'm not sure if they're true or not). Some fans were unhappy with what they heard. But Disney/Marvel has thus far REFRAINED from recasting the role of Hawkeye. I think it's because it'll be hard for audiences to accept a new actor playing him.

As for Olsen being the daughter of Esposito? I'm sure it's possible if Marvel comes up with a reasonable explanation, but I'm kind of skeptical it will happen. Giancarlo might not even get the job. I'm just saying that Feige looks like a dude who wants to modernize the MCU as reasonably possible and make it as realistic as it can be (even though it's populated by weird superheroes and even stranger villains). I used to be a purist of wanting Mags to be a Holocaust survivor, but I'm definitely now open to accepting alternative proposals if it makes the MCU more coherent.

[Albert1981]

That's right. Also you have to remember that comics are planned months in advance, so there is no way of knowing if a character is going to be popular or not in a movie while you are planning a comic. Also basing stuff on movies and TV only gives a small sales boost to comics, For example if there is an Iron Man movie, the comic sales will increase for roughly three months and then go back to what they were before the movie came out.

So basically movie and television writers are doing a better job than the print guys when it comes to writing many of these characters. No wonder the MCU is so popular and the comics division hasn't been doing so hot. I guess I like the MCU better than the comics because by and large, they've treated the characters and stories well. And unlike in the comics, the MCU is not interested in shock value R rated ****. I have no desire to see Drax's private parts or Vision say "****".

[Albert1981]

I don't think Wanda will be in the universe long enough to become as convoluted as her comics counterpart. And with her and Agatha, I think they could easily make her family friendly if they wanted to go that route. But I'd also say that Harry Potter wasn't just for kids, and the latter parts of the story were more for adults. Because even I had a hard time with the last Harry Potter film. By that time, those kids had been through so much that it became hard to watch. And I'm far older. It's just that magic can work.

Marvel hasn't really tried to make it work in comics. They treated it like an off to the side venture. Same with Wanda. Stuff they want to actually work, they put in more effort to make it work. And most importantly, promote it.

And that's the beauty of the movies, GenericUsername. You watched the kids literally grow up and go through so many wonderful and not so wonderful experiences as they progressed through the films. It's unfortunate comic book characters can't go through the same things because in that medium (comics) Status Quo is God. And if Status Quo competes with Happily Ever After, then Status Quo usually wins. Let's just say Wanda aged over time. A lot of the bad stuff in the comics she experienced wouldn't have happened to her. I used to be the biggest Spider-Man fan in the world twenty years ago, but then I grew weary of the obsessive desire for Marvel to keep him young at all costs. And now we're back to teenage and young adult angst and stuff. But I think if Tom Holland's Spider-Man ages, gets married and has kids, retires and then dies along his journey through the MCU, it would be more realistic for a lot of fans. Because that's how life is.