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

[Albert1981]

But this is where I just disagree. If you follow the MCU here is what we know from Wanda. Her parents were blown up in front of her when she was a child. She was manipulated by Hydra to work for them. Her brother was killed. She is then forced to blast a hole in her Husbands head ( which she talks about in the movie). Then she kidnaps a town puts them under mind control and creates children and brings her husband back to life in an illusion. She then basically kills them all again. And walks away from a town she mind controlled. She then goes into isolation and has the dark hold.



Anyone acting like this turn happened in a Vacuum is ignoring her history in the MCU.

Maybe a lot of people who went to see the movie might not have watched all the previous MCU instalments that had Wanda in them. Maybe they just enjoyed the first Strange movie and liked Stephen in Infinity War and Endgame (in which Wanda had a memorable two minutes of screen time) and wanted to see HIS story continued in the MoM. These folks last saw Wanda in the last Avengers movie and she was pretty heroic then. I think it's reasonable these people might be a little bit confused. That's my problem with this rapidly expanding MCU universe. MCU creators have to recap **** that happened maybe a DECADE ago. I think general audiences know about Vision getting crushed by Thanos, but the twin boys from WandaVision (?), maybe not. And the way they explain the more recent history of the MCU is through unfulfilling and often boring exposition dumps.

[inisideguy]

Maybe a lot of people who went to see the movie might not have watched all the previous MCU instalments that had Wanda in them. Maybe they just enjoyed the first Strange movie and liked Stephen in Infinity War and Endgame (in which Wanda had a memorable two minutes of screen time) and wanted to see HIS story continued in the MoM. These folks last saw Wanda in the last Avengers movie and she was pretty heroic then. I think it's reasonable these people might be a little bit confused. That's my problem with this rapidly expanding MCU universe. MCU creators have to recap **** that happened maybe a DECADE ago. And the way they do it is with unfulfilling and often boring exposition dumps.

Well Albert that I cannot help. Its like going to see Return of the Jedi without seeing the first two. You are not going to connect some things. Her story has been going on since 2015? These characters are not going to recap everything they have been through in 5 other movies and a tv show for the audience. I mean you can watch Return of the Jedi or Revenge of the Sith and enjoy them for what they are on their own but your not gonna get everything that is going on.

[gurkle]

Remember, we're complaining that we watched WandaVision and think this movie contradicts everything in the show.

i think this movie honestly makes more sense if you haven't seen WandaVision. Much like Avengers Disassembled and House of M, its references to Wanda's past are mostly wrong or misleading (eg that her kids weren't real, which contradicts the way WandaVision portrayed them as real), so they're really aimed at people who haven't seen the show.

But for all Wanda's mistakes and misdeeds in the show, it demonstrated that no matter how hard life had treated her, she would rather wipe her children from existence than hurt other people. The movie just portrayed her as someone who could easily snap, but they didn't make the case.

[Albert1981]

Well Albert that I cannot help. Its like going to see Return of the Jedi without seeing the first two. You are not going to connect some things. Her story has been going on since 2015? These characters are not going to recap everything they have been through in 5 other movies and a tv show for the audience. I mean you can watch Return of the Jedi or Revenge of the Sith and enjoy them for what they are on their own but your not gonna get everything that is going on.

But folks don't have to watch THAT many movies to see Return of the Jedi or the Return of the King. The original Star Wars and Lord of the Rings trilogies are trilogies. Both of them are stories which take place over three movies with several years in between them. VERY digestible to general audiences. To get Wanda's and Strange's biographies, folks have to watch AoU, Captain America 3, Doctor Strange, Thor 3, Infinity War, Endgame, NWH, and WandaVision. I appreciate Feige delaying the release of the MoM to let people "catch up", but I think you would admit things ARE getting a little bit overwhelming. Did the MoM use flashbacks to any extent? I find those paired together with exposition are a better way to inform audiences about what happened earlier. Or was there just exposition dumping? Because those can be REALLY underwhelming. I personally HATED the exposition dumps in WandaVision and Loki.

[Albert1981]

Remember, we're complaining that we watched WandaVision and think this movie contradicts everything in the show.

i think this movie honestly makes more sense if you haven't seen WandaVision. Much like Avengers Disassembled and House of M, its references to Wanda's past are mostly wrong or misleading (eg that her kids weren't real, which contradicts the way WandaVision portrayed them as real), so they're really aimed at people who haven't seen the show.

But for all Wanda's mistakes and misdeeds in the show, it demonstrated that no matter how hard life had treated her, she would rather wipe her children from existence than hurt other people. The movie just portrayed her as someone who could easily snap, but they didn't make the case.

But insideguy brings up a good point. If viewers don't know about all the **** Wanda's been through in the MCU, they might not understand why she's REALLY vulnerable to the Darkhold's manipulation or corruption or whatever. Audiences need context for this kind of thing. I do think it would have helped if the Darkhold was SHOWN to be messing with her mind. When I last saw the finale of WandaVision, her "kids" were calling out to her. Without spoiling anything, did the MoM SHOW audiences it was just the Darkhold messing with her? That would clear things up a bit.

[inisideguy]

But folks don't have to watch THAT many movies to see Return of the Jedi or the Return of the King. The original Star Wars and Lord of the Rings trilogies are trilogies. Both of them are stories which take place over three movies with several years in between them. VERY digestible to general audiences. To get Wanda's and Strange's biographies, folks have to watch AoU, Captain America 3, Doctor Strange, Thor 3, Infinity War, Endgame, NWH, and WandaVision. I appreciate Feige delaying the release of the MoM to let people "catch up", but I think you would admit things ARE getting a little bit overwhelming. Did the MoM use flashbacks to any extent? I find those paired together with exposition are a better way to inform audiences about what happened earlier. Or was there just exposition dumping? Because those can be REALLY underwhelming. I personally HATED the exposition dumps in WandaVision and Loki.

I just fundamentally disagree. This movie is gonna make 800 million without China. Other than No Way Home no movie has done better which good lord how many spider man movies you Got to watch to understand all of that? The formula is a success whether fans of a certain character in the comics want to complain or not. I wasn't and still aint a huge fan of how Spider-man was done in the MCU. But I have accepted it and understand they aint making these movies for me, who read spider-man back in the 1970s and the 80s. I can't argue with success. We can personally hate various things within these movies but to say what they are doing isn't working is ignoring reality.

[gurkle]

But insideguy brings up a good point. If viewers don't know about all the **** Wanda's been through in the MCU, they might not understand why she's really vulnerable to the Darkhold's manipulation or corruption or whatever. Audiences need context for this kind of thing.

I don't think it's that complicated the way the movie portrays it. Audiences probably have seen the Avengers movies and know Wanda had to kill the man she loved (which is the only time she refers to him except the overdubbed "Vis had his theories" line, which they probably added when someone pointed out how weird it was that she never mentions him). The movie tells us that Wanda created fake kids with magic, which is more believable if you haven't seen WandaVision and know it wasn't as simple as that.

Superhero movies are really like sitcoms, the characters are so simple and easy to understand that new viewers really don't need much information. Wanda is an Avenger and now she's a wicked witch obsessed with her fake kids. The less you know about the character the more believable it is, just like new readers find House of M easier to follow than readers who know that its references to Wanda's past are mostly wrong.

[Albert1981]

I just fundamentally disagree. This movie is gonna make 800 million without China. Other than No Way Home no movie has done better which good lord how many spider man movies you Got to watch to understand all of that? The formula is a success whether fans of a certain character in the comics want to complain or not. I wasn't and still aint a huge fan of how Spider-man was done in the MCU. But I have accepted it and understand they aint making these movies for me, who read spider-man back in the 1970s and the 80s. I can't argue with success. We can personally hate various things within these movies but to say what they are doing isn't working is ignoring reality.

But when the other Spider-Man movies came out, there weren't THAT many superhero movies being released as I recall. So I think LOTS of people watched them at the time. Now superhero fare is pretty much a regular fixture on movie and television screens. And I don't think it's fair to compare Strange and Wanda to Spider-Man. Spider-Man is probably the most famous superhero (maybe next to James Bond) of all-time. Lots of people will watch stuff with him in it, regardless of quality. So more people will know about Peter Parker for sure.

By the same token, I AGREE with you that the MoM did gangbusters at the box office. If you had asked me even FIVE years ago that a movie starring Strange and Wanda would gross 800 million, I would have told you to get outta here. So I'm not arguing that Strange 2 has been VERY successful for Disney. Hell, most of the 2nd movies of the MCU trilogies have not been great in my opinion, so they definitely upped their game here. But to ME the difference is that the word of mouth has been REALLY bad for this movie. The "better" MCU properties are usually not hated to the extent that the Eternals and the MoM are. NWH, WandaVision, Winter Soldier, Guardians 1, Iron Man 1, Thor 3, Black Panther, and Avengers 1,3,4 were WAY less polarizing. Not trying to sound like a dick here, but I think you get what I mean.

[CJStriker]

I don't think it's that complicated the way the movie portrays it. Audiences probably have seen the Avengers movies and know Wanda had to kill the man she loved (which is the only time she refers to him except the overdubbed "Vis had his theories" line, which they probably added when someone pointed out how weird it was that she never mentions him). The movie tells us that Wanda created fake kids with magic, which is more believable if you haven't seen WandaVision and know it wasn't as simple as that.

Superhero movies are really like sitcoms, the characters are so simple and easy to understand that new viewers really don't need much information. Wanda is an Avenger and now she's a wicked witch obsessed with her fake kids. The less you know about the character the more believable it is, just like new readers find House of M easier to follow than readers who know that its references to Wanda's past are mostly wrong.

BUT they also saw an Avenger only do those this because she was corrupt by an Evil Book and it was said to do the same to other Stange’s but with way worst results. General Public is well aware of possession stories from horror as well and while some may not fully see it this way I believe most will chalk it down to a corruption and possession story with the starts of her true self and comeback cause of the ending.

I think we get the n the weeds here and on social media allot, but general public is more to the point.

[Albert1981]

I don't think it's that complicated the way the movie portrays it. Audiences probably have seen the Avengers movies and know Wanda had to kill the man she loved (which is the only time she refers to him except the overdubbed "Vis had his theories" line, which they probably added when someone pointed out how weird it was that she never mentions him). The movie tells us that Wanda created fake kids with magic, which is more believable if you haven't seen WandaVision and know it wasn't as simple as that.

Superhero movies are really like sitcoms, the characters are so simple and easy to understand that new viewers really don't need much information. Wanda is an Avenger and now she's a wicked witch obsessed with her fake kids. The less you know about the character the more believable it is, just like new readers find House of M easier to follow than readers who know that its references to Wanda's past are mostly wrong.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my comment. But what I think insideguy means to say is that the greater trauma somebody has suffered, there is more material for the Darkhold to work on. And the corruption would be WAY worse. And folks have to understand that trauma to understand why Wanda, Stephen and Agatha reacted so differently to the Darkhold apparently. I could understand that argument to a certain degree.

Superhero movies ARE like sitcoms, but I think sitcoms are much easier to follow. You didn't REALLY need to know what when on before in order to enjoy what you were watching right now. If I missed an episode of Fresh Prince, I didn't feel I was "missing" something. But the MCU is different to me. Things are MUCH more clearer if you watch ALL the movies and shows than just a few of them. This is just MY opinion though.

[Galerion]

Looks like a Phoenix aura.

Wasn't there a comic that said that Chaos Magic is like the opposite of the Phoenix Force?

[GenericUsername]

Wasn't there a comic that said that Chaos Magic is like the opposite of the Phoenix Force?

AvX described it was the yin and yang of each other.

[Albert1981]

BUT they also saw an Avenger only do those this because she was corrupt by an Evil Book and it was said to do the same to other Stange’s but with way worst results. General Public is well aware of possession stories from horror as well and while some may not fully see it this way I believe most will chalk it down to a corruption and possession story with the starts of her true self and comeback cause of the ending.

I think we get the n the weeds here and on social media allot, but general public is more to the point.

If Wanda did bad **** in this movie, then I am almost CERTAIN Marvel Studios is gonna say the "evil book made her do it." Just like Clint, Bucky, Natasha and Loki were all "brainwashed" or "mind controlled" in the past as well. And people will move on. But then I'll have to watch ANOTHER "redemption arc" in the MCU, and it's so fucking BORING!

[inisideguy]

But when the other Spider-Man movies came out, there weren't THAT many superhero movies being released as I recall. So I think LOTS of people watched them at the time. Now superhero fare is pretty much a regular fixture on movie and television screens. And I don't think it's fair to compare Strange and Wanda to Spider-Man. Spider-Man is probably the most famous superhero (maybe next to James Bond) of all-time. Lots of people will watch stuff with him in it, regardless of quality. So more people will know about Peter Parker for sure.

By the same token, I AGREE with you that the MoM did gangbusters at the box office. If you had asked me even FIVE years ago that a movie starring Strange and Wanda would gross 800 million, I would have told you to get outta here. So I'm not arguing that Strange 2 has been VERY successful for Disney. Hell, most of the 2nd movies of the MCU trilogies have not been great in my opinion, so they definitely upped their game here. But to ME the difference is that the word of mouth has been REALLY bad for this movie. The "better" MCU properties are usually not hated to the extent that the Eternals and the MoM are. NWH, WandaVision, Winter Soldier, Guardians 1, Iron Man 1, Thor 3, Black Panther, and Avengers 1,3,4 were WAY less polarizing. Not trying to sound like a dick here, but I think you get what I mean.

Everyone has opinions. To me The Eternals which you state people hated was the best of the new movies. With MOM a close 2nd. But I like things like Eternals and the concepts. And thats ok no one is going to like everyone of these movies or even like everything about them. I was just throwing my two cents in about the debate around this one. If people don't like this Wanda thing thats fine. I will debate them. Don't think any minds will be changed but its fun to get different perspectives. I still don't like what they did with Mandarin to this day. However many people LOVED it. And that debate raged on for years. Looking back at everything? It all went ok.

[WallStreeter]

I do believe that they will turn things around. I do expect redemption.

At this point, it’s just Feige, or whatever director or screenwriter. Liz Olsen says she will reject a bad script s d she’s going to talk to Feige about the next steps, X-Men snd otherwise. There’s hope.