The MCU Should've Used Goliath & Wasp instead of Black Widow & Hakwkeye

[newparisian]

Nat wasn't well written until Winter Soldier, and then poorly written in AoU before getting back on track in Civil War.

And it's weird that you say this, because in this and other threads I've seen you say you don't like spy stuff, when arguably TWS and CW are where Nat was pretty heavily spy-ish.

[CosmiComic]

And it's weird that you say this, because in this and other threads I've seen you say you don't like spy stuff, when arguably TWS and CW are where Nat was pretty heavily spy-ish.

Well, that doesn't mean I don't think she was well done in of herself. I think it was her best showing before now because she actually got some focus and wasn't treated like just a side character.

I like spy stuff in general, but within the MCU it's a bit underwhelming to me because Marvel seems to think spy = no powers.

[CosmiComic]

Well Vision had a critically acclaimed mini by King, Pietro (for better or worse) had minis like Son of M, Wanda had the maxi by Robinson. So that's not nothing. More than what Janet's gotten.

Yeah, they did have those. But they don't seem to be as prominent in the main Avengers book. But it's true that's more than what Janet's gotten in terms of solos.

Nat was poorly written in Avengers 1? She single-handedly beats her captors during her intro, then gets the confession out of Loki, then she inserts the staff thing on the rooftop. In a team movie, that's not a bad showing. She was great in TWS, yes, I think because there were fewer focus characters and the movie was mostly a two-hander with her and Steve.

She was just kinda there. All of her characterization was just backstory we'd just heard in that movie. Beating up the bad guys was cool but it's not much in terms of characterization

Wasn't Hope the co-star of AM1 and then the title co-star in AM2? Wanda was crucial in AoU and was the inciting incident in CW. So again, in team movies, that's not nothing.

Hope was treated like a side character and kept out of actually being a superhero by her dad in AM1 despite being a grown woman. AM2 gave her more but Scott still got more focus. As for Wanda, she had some development in AoU and CW, but it wasn't near the levels of other heroes like Iron Man, Thor or Captain America.

In your opinion, was Nat not written well because of her flirtation with Banner in AoU and that's just not a pairing you needed to see? Otherwise, what did she do in AoU that made her badly written?

It was partially due to the poorly done romance making her look like she hated her life. And she and Banner had no chemistry. It wasn't at all a pairing I liked. Plus, she was the only Avenger to get captured by the villain

Are you wanting the Avengers movies to pass the Bechdel test or something?

It would be a start. Some meaningful character interaction between superheroines would be welcome.

Well, if you deem these things important you shouldn't oppose the BW movie as it has easily some of the best female relationships so far in the MCU.

Also Nat was written very well in The Avengers.

I don't oppose the Black Widow movie. It's just not something I highly anticipated.

And I think she was ok but not great in Avengers.

[newparisian]

I like spy stuff in general, but within the MCU it's a bit underwhelming to me because Marvel seems to think spy = no powers.

Technically, most of the GotG crew don't have powers either and that's not a spy franchise.

Well Marvel is a superhero universe, right? Characters have colorful powers and costumes. So for non-powered individuals to be prominently included in that world, they can't just all be Darcy from Thor; they'd have to be somewhat enmeshed, like SHIELD, which begets spy characters like Fury, Coulson, Hill, and so forth. So logically it follows that the non-powered people would be spy characters. (though Falcon isn't a spy character; he just hangs with them)

[newparisian]

She was just kinda there. All of her characterization was just backstory we'd just heard in that movie. Beating up the bad guys was cool but it's not much in terms of characterization.

The red in the ledger thing was pretty strong characterization that informs her comics and MCU character to this day.

Hope was treated like a side character and kept out of actually being a superhero by her dad in AM1 despite being a grown woman. AM2 gave her more but Scott still got more focus. As for Wanda, she had some development in AoU and CW, but it wasn't near the levels of other heroes like Iron Man, Thor or Captain America.

In a teamup movie where there's larger than life personalities (like Cap, Tony, Thor), how much more runtime could they have realistically devoted to Wanda or Vision? And if you found them lacking there, well hey, Marvel's fixing it now with all these TV shows. So it's win-win for everyone.

It was partially due to the poorly done romance making her look like she hated her life. And she and Banner had no chemistry. It wasn't at all a pairing I liked. Plus, she was the only Avenger to get captured by the villain.

To me, it didn't sound like she hated her life; more that she regretted not being able to have kids and how that choice was taken away from her.

It would be a start. Some meaningful character interaction between superheroines would be welcome.

It'd be fun to see, sure. But I don't think it's important. Other than Gamora and Nebula, Jane and Darcy, I don't recall any other female friendships in the MCU. I don't think the movies suffered for this, though. The upcoming Cap Marvel 2 should fix this, I'm sure.

[CosmiComic]

Technically, most of the GotG crew don't have powers either and that's not a spy franchise.

Well Marvel is a superhero universe, right? Characters have colorful powers and costumes. So for non-powered individuals to be prominently included in that world, they can't just all be Darcy from Thor; they'd have to be somewhat enmeshed, like SHIELD, which begets spy characters like Fury, Coulson, Hill, and so forth. So logically it follows that the non-powered people would be spy characters. (though Falcon isn't a spy character; he just hangs with them)

Most of the GotG have powers or gagdets, don't they?

And while I like seeing non-powered people in the mix and even non-powered heroes, can't a spy have actual powers?

[CosmiComic]

The red in the ledger thing was pretty strong characterization that informs her comics and MCU character to this day.

Yeah, but it's still just in the background. Not even in flashbacks. We didn't see her from the ground up like we did a lot of other MCU heroes. I think Marvel should've shown more of that from the beginning.

In a teamup movie where there's larger than life personalities (like Cap, Tony, Thor), how much more runtime could they have realistically devoted to Wanda or Vision? And if you found them lacking there, well hey, Marvel's fixing it now with all these TV shows. So it's win-win for everyone.

Those guys already had their own movies to flesh them out. So team ups can devote time to characters who don't have their own franchises, like Scarlet Witch, Vision and Quicksilver (had he survived).

And if Hope is the co-lead, she should get equal focus.

To me, it didn't sound like she hated her life; more that she regretted not being able to have kids and how that choice was taken away from her.

I understand her regretting that her choice was taken away. I was talking about her acting like she and Bruce should run away from everything. At least, that's what I recall.

It'd be fun to see, sure. But I don't think it's important. Other than Gamora and Nebula, Jane and Darcy, I don't recall any other female friendships in the MCU. I don't think the movies suffered for this, though. The upcoming Cap Marvel 2 should fix this, I'm sure.

I think it is important. They did in the comics, so they can do in the movies too. CM2 will have that so that's something to look forward to

[Dunkelzahn]

You would absolutely need their own movie.

Widow and Hawkeye work because there is nothing to really explain. They are really good SHIELD agents. The end.


If Edgar didn't take 100 years to get Ant-Man going, he would have been in hte first movie in some way.

Whedon wanted to get Wasp into the first Avengers but it didn't get very far. But he had the actress already chosen^^.
The main reason was as you said that explaining her would not really work in a movie like that.

[Dunkelzahn]

What are some interesting stories that depict the bolded? Or just stories in general where she drove the plot?

I remember Bendis used Janet in the Microverse arc and then Hickman, Waid (he used Nadia), or Aaron haven't touched her at all. Why would you say that in the last 20 years Janet hasn't been utilized much? At least with Hank they merged him with Ultron for a bit. I guess it just goes back to my original question's intent, which is asking what does she bring to the table. In the MCU, they made her a scientist and Hank's equal, which I don't believe was ever in her comics backstory.

So other than just preference for one (Janet) and resentment for others (Nat/Clint), what is driving this? Because this is not the first "XYZ should've been in the MCU Avengers" thread I've seen, though I forget how the previous ones panned out.

So educate me here. Not just asking you only; just any Janet fan in general. Even without Clint/Nat in the picture, if you were a Marvel exec 13 years ago, why would you have put Janet on the MCU roster? How does the first Avengers movie go differently or more interestingly with Janet on the team?

Her being the leader in the 80s for one. Under Siege is just one example of how far she had come.
For the record I am a fan of all three and if one or the other gets movie time is not that different for me. I started reading comics in the 80s and the three were my favorites.
And I would not have put her on the avengers movie just because it would not work with explaining who she is.
For that they would have needed to let her show up in a movie before.

[CosmiComic]

What bugs me (pardon the pun) is, when it comes to "either/or", it's always Hank & Jan or Clint & Nat. Why can't it be Jan & Nat?

Whedon wanted to get Wasp into the first Avengers but it didn't get very far. But he had the actress already chosen^^.
The main reason was as you said that explaining her would not really work in a movie like that.

Who was the actress?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I guess it's hard to see Janet and Nat as partners outside of the Avengers. Their stories or the genres they play in don't overlap. That's why I suggested Mockingbird a few pages. Her presence is easier to handwave away as another SHIELD agent etc.

In hindsight I like Secret Warriors take on Goliath and Wasp. It just wouldn't work with the Phase 1 we got. Maybe a rewritten Phase 2?

[CosmiComic]

I guess it's hard to see Janet and Nat as partners outside of the Avengers. Their stories or the genres they play in don't overlap. That's why I suggested Mockingbird a few pages. Her presence is easier to handwave away as another SHIELD agent etc.

In hindsight I like Secret Warriors take on Goliath and Wasp. It just wouldn't work with the Phase 1 we got. Maybe a rewritten Phase 2?

I just meant in the Avengers at the same time. If a Norse deity can overlap with either of the 2, then they could work together in some capacity

[Dunkelzahn]

What bugs me (pardon the pun) is, when it comes to "either/or", it's always Hank & Jan or Clint & Nat. Why can't it be Jan & Nat?



Who was the actress?

Summer Glau^^.

[CosmiComic]

Summer Glau^^.

Ok. Not super familiar with her.

[MyriVerse]

You would absolutely need their own movie.

Which we sort of got.

Widow and Hawkeye work because there is nothing to really explain. They are really good SHIELD agents. The end.

That's just a nice way of saying they shouldn't have been there at all.