"CHAOS Magic Woman!" Scarlet Witch/Wanda Maximoff Appreciation 2022

[GenericUsername]

I don't think it's sexist. I just think that "our" Strange will be treated differently than the Stranges from the other universes. And I'm pretty sure he will not go on a murder/torture spree because he read a few pages from an "evil book." Wanda and Agatha were not so lucky. Besides, I know it's not a huge deal in the big scheme of things but how did Strange know how to perform a necromancy spell so quickly with the Darkhold? Didn't Agatha say necromancy spells were out of the question (in regards to Pietro) because his body was full of holes and on another continent? But Zombie Strange was in another dimension and his body was full of holes! But the necromancy spell worked fine in Strange 2!

What makes the Strange versus Wanda thing sexist is not the possession, it's how it's framed. Both have been possessed several times in comics and now have been possessed in movies. Or at the very least manipulated. Only Wanda's is framed around everything being about her being maternal. That's the sexist part. Everything about Wanda is boiled down to being baby crazy. And movies pretty much made it worse that she wasn't even trying to get back her own sons. Strange gets his framed around trying to save the world, and failing.

[Galerion]

I don't think it's sexist. I just think that "our" Strange will be treated differently than the Stranges from the other universes. And I'm pretty sure he will not go on a murder/torture spree because he read a few pages from an "evil book." Wanda and Agatha were not so lucky. Besides, I know it's not a huge deal in the big scheme of things but how did Strange know how to perform a necromancy spell so quickly with the Darkhold? Didn't Agatha say necromancy spells were out of the question (in regards to Pietro) because his body was full of holes and on another continent? But Zombie Strange was in another dimension and his body was full of holes! But the necromancy spell worked fine in Strange 2!

You are getting confused here. Necromancy has nothing to with Dreamwalking which is taking over the body of another universes counterpart of yours.

[Thirteen]

Yeah I hate that part. Her hero name being used as some dark prophecy is just weird to me. It's created this confusion among some that Wanda and the Scarlet Witch are not the same person.

The general treatment of the "hero name" in the MCU is partially to blame for that. Beyond Captain America and Iron Man, and Hulk how many of the Avengers really use their codenames/superhero names officially?
Wanda was just "Wanda" until WandaVision came up with a reason for the name Scarlet Witch to exist...its a title.

[GenericUsername]

The general treatment of the "hero name" in the MCU is partially to blame for that. Beyond Captain America and Iron Man, and Hulk how many of the Avengers really use their codenames/superhero names officially?
Wanda was just "Wanda" until WandaVision came up with a reason for the name Scarlet Witch to exist...its a title.

Yeah it felt like they were too apprehensive in certain cases to embrace superhero identities. And they have something against helms for some reason. Even ones that still show the actor's face. So I don't even think it's an acting thing.

[Galerion]

It's good you have the wherewithal to reply with such a level head. It's frustrating sometimes but in the end I guess everyone here cares about the character. It'd just be nice to express something personally liked or a viewpoint without feeling like you're being told 'You're WRONG and your viewpoints are wrong ". You however handle it better than me. Anyhow I guess being disliked/persona non grata gives me no worries when posting.

Hey I like you

[Albert1981]

You are getting confused here. Necromancy has nothing to with Dreamwalking which is taking over the body of another universes counterpart of yours.

Ah, thank you. So necromancy is straight-up resurrecting dead people, but dreamwalking is just taking over the corpses of the deceased without reviving them, right? I have read several articles who have said that what Strange did with the Darkhold WAS necromancy, so I think the distinction can be lost on a lot of people.

[Galerion]

The general treatment of the "hero name" in the MCU is partially to blame for that. Beyond Captain America and Iron Man, and Hulk how many of the Avengers really use their codenames/superhero names officially?
Wanda was just "Wanda" until WandaVision came up with a reason for the name Scarlet Witch to exist...its a title.

You make a valid point here but honestly I don't dislike it. Many of these people actually know each other so it makes sense they refer to themselves with their real names. I always found it odd out when somebody calls someone by the their superhero name despite being very familiar with that person. What's the reason for it? There is not much if any in-universe reason to do that.

It makes more sense that people who don't have a personal relationship with the hero in question to use them. Still there must be some gravitas and significance to the name. Captain America for example has that. It's not just a name. It's a symbol and has values attached it. It's larger than life. Hawkeye as a name has none of those things going for it. Don't take this as me shitting on it. I like MCU Clint a lot but with his story and character it makes sense that his superhero name hasn't found much use because there is not much reason why he or anyone else would even start using it.

With all this being said I like how they handled it in Wandas case. Wandas powers were always shrouded in mystery. To us as the audience and also to her as the character. She just thought stuff and it happened. Using the Scarlet Witch name before the big Chaos Magic reveal wouldn't have had the same effect. The way it was set up also means there is significance to the name. It's obviously not as universal as Captain America yet since you need to be well-versed in magic lore to recognize it but the people that are will probably not treat it lightly.

[Galerion]

Ah, thank you. So necromancy is straight-up resurrecting dead people, but dreamwalking is just taking over the corpses of the deceased without reviving them, right? I have read several articles who have said that what Strange did with the Darkhold WAS necromancy, so I think the distinction can be lost on a lot of people.

I mean you could call it technically necromancy. That is if you define necromancy as simply bringing a dead body back to life but often there is a bit more attached to it. Either you become a puppet master who controls brainless meat puppets who do whatever you command them to or you actually really bring someone back with the personality they had in life. Either way you are not them as in you don't have to actually stop yourself and instead control them like a RC car. You can do stuff and they can do stuff at the same time.

Dreamwalking is simply taking control of another you. Being alive or dead is really irrelevant to it and it requires active concentration to maintain. As soon as concentration is lost the spell is interrupted.

[Albert1981]

What makes the Strange versus Wanda thing sexist is not the possession, it's how it's framed. Both have been possessed several times in comics and now have been possessed in movies. Or at the very least manipulated. Only Wanda's is framed around everything being about her being maternal. That's the sexist part. Everything about Wanda is boiled down to being baby crazy. And movies pretty much made it worse that she wasn't even trying to get back her own sons. Strange gets his framed around trying to save the world, and failing.

Yeah, I can appreciate that distinction. My issue is that I'm not even sure Wanda "loved" those boys. She acted like a crazy stalker who was more interesting in "possessing" the twins as opposed to wanting to raise them. I think there are some similarities to the psychological thriller Fatal Attraction. Glenn Close didn't think Alex Forrest was a "villain" either. But the creators of the film made her into a "psychopath" against her wishes. Instead of being obsessed over babies, Forrest was obsessed with a dude she had a brief fling with. But that movie was VERY entertaining and fun. Close is a great actress. One of my brother's favorites. So maybe this is Disney's "version" of that film.

I think a lot of people liked WandaVision because it didn't FEEL like a superhero property for overwhelming majority of the series. Like in eight out of the nine episodes, hardly any comic book silliness took place at all. At the time of its release, I admit to being a bit impatient about this radical change in direction for Marvel Studios, but in retrospect I think it was really brave for Feige and his team to maintain WandaVision's sitcom premise for so long (knowing that they might lose a substantial number of viewers more interested in traditional superhero fare, while gaining a whole bunch of new fans because of the themes of the series). I also think a lot of WOMEN who are not into comic book movies and shows got interested in WandaVision because it was a mystery, drama and ROMANCE in particular. I feel it's a shame that Marvel Studios sort of threw that originality away to make a cheesy horror film. Folks have criticized Waldron's and Raimi's portrayal of women in the MoM, but I don't think Loki (which Waldron worked on) or Xena: Warrior Princess (which Raimi worked on) were particularly problematic in that aspect.

As I mentioned on the Strange thread, I think putting Waldron (who has never written for a film before, not just a major MCU tentpole) and Raimi (who hasn't directed a movie in a decade) so late into the project was ASKING for trouble. That's just too much pressure on them. I think they should have delayed it. I don't think anybody would be talking about "Marvel fatigue" if Disney just released WandaVision, Shang-Chi and NWH last year. They were pretty well-liked. As a HUGE fan of the MCU, I do feel that the MoM sort of hurt the franchise. I think anticipation for future MCU projects has definitely gone down in my opinion. It certainly has for me. And it's not just because of Wanda's portrayal. I don't think the MoM did a good job of setting up interest for the Young Avengers. America Chavez pretty much came out of nowhere and all of sudden audiences had to care about her, and the origins of Billy and Tommy are still a mystery. Clea was inserted very awkwardly in Strange 2. And the rules of the MCU's multiverse(s) keep changing with every new Marvel project. Strange moving on from Christine felt weird to me because the Christine he interacted most with in the MoM wasn't even HIS Christine! And the cameos were totally wasted in my opinion. They were just basically "celebrity" redshirts. Gimmicky. And as others have mentioned elsewhere, magic only works SOMETIMES in the MoM while it doesn't at other times.

I actually think it's possible that the next Mission Impossible movie (which will be released next year) might perform better than any MCU thing in 2023 (it's got momentum from TGM). It seems pretty likely that the world will be undergoing a major recession next year (something the MCU has not had to deal with in its fourteen year existence) and that might drive down ticket sales. That's why I'm okay with more delays. The next Mission Impossible movies are being released respectively in 2023 and 2024. And the next Avatar films are being released respectively in 2022, 2024, 2026 and 2028. They are spread out pretty nicely in my opinion. I don't understand why Disney wants to release the MoM and Thor 4 so close together. And streaming Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk before, during and after releasing those two movies makes no sense to me. It's too much! What I do find fascinating is that it seems the people who read comic books and watch the MCU seem to be liking the MCU more because it IS getting more comic book-y. I have noticed, on the other hand, casual fans who are not really into science fiction, fantasy, or comic books are losing a bit of interest in the MCU. That's purely based on anecdotal evidence on my part though.

[Albert1981]

I mean you could call it technically necromancy. That is if you define necromancy as simply bringing a dead body back to life but often there is a bit more attached to it. Either you become a puppet master who controls brainless meat puppets who do whatever you command them to or you actually really bring someone back with the personality they had in life. Either way you are not them as in you don't have to actually stop yourself and instead control them like a RC car. You can do stuff and they can do stuff at the same time.

Dreamwalking is simply taking control of another you. Being alive or dead is really irrelevant to it and it requires active concentration to maintain. As soon as concentration is lost the spell is interrupted.

Yeah, I agree with your definition about necromancy. Dreamwalking is similar, but not really the same. I think the MoM DID introduce some pretty interesting concepts, but I felt there was just TOO much going on in order for me to digest it properly. It felt like a convoluted comic book crossover and that's why I wasn't really a big fan of the film. I thought the first Strange film was way more streamlined and much more entertaining as a result. I do think the whole dreams are "alternate realities" thing is kind of weird though. I consider that idea to be a really odd "retcon".

[GenericUsername]

Yeah, I can appreciate that distinction. My issue is that I'm not even sure Wanda "loved" those boys. She acted like a crazy stalker who was more interesting in "possessing" the twins as opposed to wanting to raise them. I think there are some similarities to the psychological thriller Fatal Attraction. Glenn Close didn't think Alex Forrest was a "villain" either. But the creators of the film made her into a "psychopath" against her wishes. Instead of being obsessed over babies, Forrest was obsessed with a dude she had a brief fling with. But that movie was VERY entertaining and fun. Close is a great actress. One of my brother's favorites. So maybe this is Disney's "version" of that film.

I think a lot of people liked WandaVision because it didn't FEEL like a superhero property for overwhelming majority of the series. Like in eight out of the nine episodes, hardly any comic book silliness took place at all. At the time of its release, I admit to being a bit impatient about this radical change in direction for Marvel Studios, but in retrospect I think it was really brave for Feige and his team to maintain WandaVision's sitcom premise for so long (knowing that they might lose a substantial number of viewers more interested in traditional superhero fare, while gaining a whole bunch of new fans because of the themes of the series). I also think a lot of WOMEN who are not into comic book movies and shows got interested in WandaVision because it was a mystery, drama and ROMANCE in particular. I feel it's a shame that Marvel Studios sort of threw that originality away to make a cheesy horror film. Folks have criticized Waldron's and Raimi's portrayal of women in the MoM, but I don't think Loki (which Waldron worked on) or Xena: Warrior Princess (which Raimi worked on) were particularly problematic in that aspect.

As I mentioned on the Strange thread, I think putting Waldron (who has never written for a film before, not just a major MCU tentpole) and Raimi (who hasn't directed a movie in a decade) so late into the project was ASKING for trouble. That's just too much pressure on them. I think they should have delayed it. I don't think anybody would be talking about "Marvel fatigue" if Disney just released WandaVision, Shang-Chi and NWH last year. They were pretty well-liked. As a HUGE fan of the MCU, I do feel that the MoM sort of hurt the franchise. I think anticipation for future MCU projects has definitely gone down in my opinion. It certainly has for me. And it's not just because of Wanda's portrayal. I don't think the MoM did a good job of setting up interest for the Young Avengers. America Chavez pretty much came out of nowhere and all of sudden audiences had to care about her, and the origins of Billy and Tommy are still a mystery. Clea was inserted very awkwardly in Strange 2. And the rules of the MCU's multiverse(s) keep changing with every new Marvel project. Strange moving on from Christine felt weird to me because the Christine he interacted most with in the MoM wasn't even HIS Christine! And the cameos were totally wasted in my opinion. They were just basically "celebrity" redshirts. Gimmicky. And as others have mentioned elsewhere, magic only works SOMETIMES in the MoM while it doesn't at other times.

I actually think it's possible that the next Mission Impossible movie (which will be released next year) might perform better than any MCU thing in 2023 (it's got momentum from TGM). It seems pretty likely that the world will be undergoing a major recession next year (something the MCU has not had to deal with in its fourteen year existence) and that might drive down ticket sales. That's why I'm okay with more delays. The next Mission Impossible movies are being released respectively in 2023 and 2024. And the next Avatar films are being released respectively in 2022, 2024, 2026 and 2028. They are spread out pretty nicely in my opinion. I don't understand why Disney wants to release the MoM and Thor 4 so close together. And streaming Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk before, during and after releasing those two movies makes no sense to me. It's too much! What I do find fascinating is that it seems the people who read comic books and watch the MCU seem to be liking the MCU more because it IS getting more comic book-y. I have noticed, on the other hand, casual fans who are not really into science fiction, fantasy, or comic books are losing a bit of interest in the MCU. That's purely based on anecdotal evidence on my part though.

ITMoM was destined to have problems just because of when it was made. All the stops in production and reshoots really did it no favors. I don't think any character was done any justice, but like I said, I enjoyed the costumes and the acting at least. It won't be something I watch ever again. I don't think it really is something that pushes the story forward much. I think it was just a vehicle for Raimi to get back into directing. And had his hallmark all over it more than Strange's or anyone else.

I liked WandaVision because it made references to Wanda's history and humanized her. I wasn't really for the whole keeping a whole town hostage thing, but in the end people were at least not killed. It's just a shame that the ending of all that where she realized what she did was wasted on possession and a mass murderer arc. But hopefully they got AD/HoM references out of their system so they can finally move on from that. I also liked Wanda's magical girl transformation. I just don't like the Scarlet Witch being some separate, dark entity instead of just her hero name. I love the costume though.

I don't know about Mission Impossible performing better. Even when Marvel movies aren't as great as their others, they still do better than other movies. They release movies close together because they are making up for the lost year during the pandemic, and because of money. I'm fine with the D+ shows. Most of them have been pretty great. Granted they have their fair share of flaws but so does every movie and show. It probably is too much, but I'm enjoying most of it. And at least Thor doesn't have any of the multiverse stuff in it. That's the thing I find to be messy.

[MaximoffTrash]

There's also the whole "You are the Scarlet Witch...there's an entire chapter dedicated to you in the Darkhold" prophecy/destiny to fulfill.

The point of a prophecy narrative is hardly about it literally happening in the most straight forward manner.

[gurkle]

I guess at least we got out of MoM without the prophecy having been fulfilled or even close to fulfilled (since they cut the scene where she forces Wong to take her to Wundagore by threatening to destroy the world), so if the WandaVision team had a better idea of what the prophecy meant they might get the chance.

Of course they've said that the prophecy was originally just going to be something Wanda fulfilled by destroying the Hex ("the world" she created), and you can tell that MoM was written without any such prophecy in mind, since it didn't figure into the plot and was just another bit of Wong Exposition. Still it seems inevitable that it will come up again when we get back to Agatha.

[MaximoffTrash]

My idea of subversion is that 838 getting destroyed by Chthon due to 838 Wanda being just strong enough to call upon his presence but not strong enough to resist him. Which will result in the wholesale destruction of 838 universe. Putting some emphasis on Wanda learnkng about herself is actually still necessary. Instead of the reading is bad angle. Also it gets rid of 838 universe which is part of the stench MoM left. Might as well use the legacy of MoM as the cheap plot device this time.
Also the whole thing wouldn't be framed as "whamen will destroy stuff if getting too much power", it would be more like "the fear of her self-actualizing brings the destruction."
Oh, they can add the parts where the Illuminati forced Wanda back into a domestic role or something to make the whole deal sweeter.
See, framing, the power of framing.

[MaximoffTrash]

I guess at least we got out of MoM without the prophecy having been fulfilled or even close to fulfilled (since they cut the scene where she forces Wong to take her to Wundagore by threatening to destroy the world), so if the WandaVision team had a better idea of what the prophecy meant they might get the chance.

Of course they've said that the prophecy was originally just going to be something Wanda fulfilled by destroying the Hex ("the world" she created), and you can tell that MoM was written without any such prophecy in mind, since it didn't figure into the plot and was just another bit of Wong Exposition. Still it seems inevitable that it will come up again when we get back to Agatha.

They came up with a rule the multiverse angle which is kinda generic lol.
But I guess they can salvage that with some theocracry angle that she will be the appointed ruler by the divine will of Chthon or something.