Page 339 of 456 FirstFirst ... 239289329335336337338339340341342343349389439 ... LastLast
Results 5,071 to 5,085 of 6836
  1. #5071
    Spectacular Member Ibara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gurkle View Post
    It was like they had a bunch of notes on how to make the story less problematic™ but they just ended up making things worse. Like they tried to avoid the trope of the powerful woman acting crazy by having her act like she was sane and in control... except that makes no sense because they also admit that Wanda would never do this, so they want to say both that she's a badass woman in control and a crazy person whose mind is gone.

    And I'm sure they got a note that they should avoid the trope of the woman who needs to be stopped by a man: i.e. Doctor Strange shouldn't take her down like he did in Avengers Disassembled. But what happens is the entire story becomes pointless because she stops being evil as soon as she meets her children and they don't like her.

    And it also just occurred to me that they ended up replicating the exact problem of Avengers Disassembled. Tom Brevoort has criticized the story (and he rarely criticizes his writers in public) because it's an Avengers story but the Avengers do nothing at the climax, Doctor Strange comes in and saves the day. And the MCU version of Avengers Disassembled is a Doctor Strange movie where Doctor Strange does nothing to stop Wanda, she just stops on her own.

    Anyway I hope they just treat it as "the Darkhold makes you evil and the Darkhold is gone and now she's not evil any more." Maybe the Agatha Harkness show can go into what the book does; it's obvious from WandaVision that they didn't think of the book as some all-corrupting force, but now it is, so they can run with that and try to make it make sense retroactively, just like they "fixed" a lot of Wanda's backstory.
    It was poor writing. Pure and simple, they didn't take the time or make the effort to iron out the kinks in the script. I said it before, but the solution was already in the movie, but they didn't see it. She dreams into the multiverse and sees that there are versions of her children in actual danger (not just happy family-time). However, the Darkhold is twisting her nightmares, pushing her to take action, draw on more power. She dreamwalks to other parallel worlds to try and save them, but fails over and over as her powers are limited, and she finds a solution in America Chavez.

    Strange in turn is confronted with his hubris, as the man who knows what to do, the man with the plan. His actions in Earth 616 led to countless deaths in the ensuing chaos following the snap. Additionally, the barrier between realities has thinned as a consequence of NWH (and Loki), causing Wanda to dream of the multiverse. We learn that Strange variants have destroyed other realities, like in the movie, and we explore what this shared multiversal thread that pushes Strange to be a hero is, is he just a good man or is he willing to do whatever it takes to protect the people he loves, to save Christine?

    This centers the conflict on both Wanda and Strange. How far are they willing to go to save the 'World' or the people they care about. The trauma that Wanda experiences becomes more intense and is grounded in something 'real' as she isn't trying to kidnap happy versions of her kids, but save them from the common threat within an infinite amount of universes, Dr. Strange. How is he any less a monster for the choices he's made. That could have been a compelling narrative for Stephen and positioned him and Wanda as tragic foils to the other. Sadly, with the films efforts to not tarnish Strange in any way, they actually settled on not giving him a story at all.

    Position the Illuminati as leaders of a corrupt Utopia. Aware of the ensuing threat of incursions and actively sacrificing other universes to preserve their own. But why bother with compelling narrative and effectual villains, why parallel the perspectives of your leads and villains in a manner that ties the story together in a cohesive manner. Just call them cameos and save the story for some other movie.

  2. #5072
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiccan View Post
    The thing is that they don't want her to be really posessed. It's supposed to be this weird grey area where she's corrupted by the Darkhold but is somehow also doing things herself... I think they knew one of the complaints of stories like that is the characters not having agency, so they want her to have more agency over what she's doing but also corrupted by the book at the same time so she can still be redeemed. It's just kinda messy and confusing imo.
    I prefer no agency over "agency to do whacky **** she shouldn't have done" honestly.
    Like sleeping through a bad event is better than enduring it.
    Last edited by MaximoffTrash; 07-06-2022 at 08:17 PM.

  3. #5073
    Extraordinary Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUsername View Post
    I don't think they were ever against using Captain America though, because they used it in his titles.
    Well yeah, the name is still recognizable, they just try to avoid saying it in movies lol.

    I think the Captain Rogers thing is just because that's how they do military designation. Title and last name.
    I guess, it's just that MCU has so many bad jokes where they mock the goofy names from super-heroes where it actually can make it look like they're ashamed of being comic adaptations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubbyboo View Post
    Yeah I actually deleted it... guess not thoroughly enough. The original pic i'd posted of Wanda was.... lol....way over the top cleavage wise. Ther were gargantuan but i didn't realize till I posted so I edited deleted and added a different one. I mean they were like massive balloons and gratuitous even for comics.
    Anime level then? .

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUsername View Post
    The most important is she doesn't act like she did in MoM without possession and never intended to hurt people in WandaVision. They just needed to somehow make AD/HoM references. Hopefully now they try to reference some of the other thousands of comics she's been in.
    As long as they don't pick Darker Than Scarlet lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by gurkle View Post
    It was like they had a bunch of notes on how to make the story less problematic™ but they just ended up making things worse. Like they tried to avoid the trope of the powerful woman acting crazy by having her act like she was sane and in control... except that makes no sense because they also admit that Wanda would never do this, so they want to say both that she's a badass woman in control and a crazy person whose mind is gone.

    And I'm sure they got a note that they should avoid the trope of the woman who needs to be stopped by a man: i.e. Doctor Strange shouldn't take her down like he did in Avengers Disassembled. But what happens is the entire story becomes pointless because she stops being evil as soon as she meets her children and they don't like her.

    And it also just occurred to me that they ended up replicating the exact problem of Avengers Disassembled. Tom Brevoort has criticized the story (and he rarely criticizes his writers in public) because it's an Avengers story but the Avengers do nothing at the climax, Doctor Strange comes in and saves the day. And the MCU version of Avengers Disassembled is a Doctor Strange movie where Doctor Strange does nothing to stop Wanda, she just stops on her own.
    Man, that's hilarious somehow lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCape View Post
    We all know that BND was a collective mid-life crisis from Marvel back then

  4. #5074
    Chaos bringer GenericUsername's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukmendes View Post
    Well yeah, the name is still recognizable, they just try to avoid saying it in movies lol.
    I guess, it's just that MCU has so many bad jokes where they mock the goofy names from super-heroes where it actually can make it look like they're ashamed of being comic adaptations.
    It does feel like sometimes they are embarrassed by comics somewhat.

    As long as they don't pick Darker Than Scarlet lol.
    It's pretty linked to the chain of stories they already told. She's already lost her kids and lost herself because of it.
    Love is for souls, not bodies.

  5. #5075
    The Joker was right! Gnostic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    Yeah. WandaVision was pretty much an adaptation of Darker Than Scarlet. Both are about Wanda having a mental breakdown due the loss of her loved ones and acts villainous.

  6. #5076
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Agent of Chaos View Post
    Yeah. WandaVision was pretty much an adaptation of Darker Than Scarlet. Both are about Wanda having a mental breakdown due the loss of her loved ones and acts villainous.
    How? It's more like HoM in concepts, Dark than Scarlet share similar premise but it's certainly less similar to WV.
    Surely, it's all mad due to baby issues but the fake reality is very much an HOM thing. Unless you want to count Busiek's run which they forget to credit.
    Last edited by MaximoffTrash; 07-07-2022 at 06:10 AM.

  7. #5077
    The Joker was right! Gnostic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximoffTrash View Post
    How? It's more like HoM in concepts, Dark than Scarlet share similar premise but it's certainly less similar to WV.
    Surely, it's all mad due to baby issues but the fake reality is very much an HOM thing. Unless you want to count Busiek's run which they forget to credit.
    Darker Than Scarlet actually focused on Wanda. HoM didn't.

  8. #5078
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibara View Post
    It was poor writing. Pure and simple, they didn't take the time or make the effort to iron out the kinks in the script. I said it before, but the solution was already in the movie, but they didn't see it. She dreams into the multiverse and sees that there are versions of her children in actual danger (not just happy family-time). However, the Darkhold is twisting her nightmares, pushing her to take action, draw on more power. She dreamwalks to other parallel worlds to try and save them, but fails over and over as her powers are limited, and she finds a solution in America Chavez.

    Strange in turn is confronted with his hubris, as the man who knows what to do, the man with the plan. His actions in Earth 616 led to countless deaths in the ensuing chaos following the snap. Additionally, the barrier between realities has thinned as a consequence of NWH (and Loki), causing Wanda to dream of the multiverse. We learn that Strange variants have destroyed other realities, like in the movie, and we explore what this shared multiversal thread that pushes Strange to be a hero is, is he just a good man or is he willing to do whatever it takes to protect the people he loves, to save Christine?

    This centers the conflict on both Wanda and Strange. How far are they willing to go to save the 'World' or the people they care about. The trauma that Wanda experiences becomes more intense and is grounded in something 'real' as she isn't trying to kidnap happy versions of her kids, but save them from the common threat within an infinite amount of universes, Dr. Strange. How is he any less a monster for the choices he's made. That could have been a compelling narrative for Stephen and positioned him and Wanda as tragic foils to the other. Sadly, with the films efforts to not tarnish Strange in any way, they actually settled on not giving him a story at all.

    Position the Illuminati as leaders of a corrupt Utopia. Aware of the ensuing threat of incursions and actively sacrificing other universes to preserve their own. But why bother with compelling narrative and effectual villains, why parallel the perspectives of your leads and villains in a manner that ties the story together in a cohesive manner. Just call them cameos and save the story for some other movie.
    I mean, it surely sounds like they don't bother to make Wanda actually reasonable, that's a low bar to fulfill and they still fail that.
    As for Stephen, I guess they cannot fanthom a compelling arc for him so they settle for different characters asking him if he is happy multiple times and call it a day.(And of course pull a star-crossed lover trope on Stephen/Christine in a desperate attempt to spice up this dry as hell relationship. It's fine in DS1 when it's only meant as past romance/old flame. Not so much in DS2.)

  9. #5079
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Agent of Chaos View Post
    Darker Than Scarlet actually focused on Wanda. HoM didn't.
    That's a pretty low bar to cross, and really focus on what?
    Kids gone, her daddy bad, so she is bad as well?
    Really, DTS is not exactly well to pair up against HoM in that regard.

    Also both DTS/HoM are post child loss, with DTS having it as a more direct impact.

    In the end it's mostly Englehart era fillings with a HoM crust. DTS elements are only there as shared problemetic tropes present in HOM/AD/DTS.

  10. #5080
    The King Fears NO ONE! Triniking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaximoffTrash View Post
    That's a pretty low bar to cross, and really focus on what?
    Kids gone, her daddy bad, so she is bad as well?
    Really, DTS is not exactly well to pair up against HoM in that regard.

    Also both DTS/HoM are post child loss, with DTS having it as a more direct impact.

    In the end it's mostly Englehart era fillings with a HoM crust. DTS elements are only there as shared problemetic tropes present in HOM/AD/DTS.
    A massive company-wide crossover isn't on par as a low-level more personal event. Wow.

    I have to agree with DTS being the better Wanda story. Wanda wasn't even Wanda in HoM.
    "Cable was right!"

  11. #5081
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Triniking1234 View Post
    A massive company-wide crossover isn't on par as a low-level more personal event. Wow.

    I have to agree with DTS being the better Wanda story. Wanda wasn't even Wanda in HoM.
    I am talking the writing and treatment of Wanda's character, also I am actually suggesting DTS is slightly better than HoM.
    My point is that "DTS is not much better", so it's a poor match up if the point is "hey, at least it's about her". Because that's the only noteworthy improvement for DTS.

    If HoM Wanda isn't Wanda, then DTS Wanda will also be a heavily stretched imagination of her, again, not that big of an upgrade.

    Or put it in another way, eating crap is not exactly an upgrade to starvation.

  12. #5082
    Chaos bringer GenericUsername's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    10,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Agent of Chaos View Post
    Darker Than Scarlet actually focused on Wanda. HoM didn't.
    It did, but unfortunately it was to dismantle everything about her. Which apparently Byrne hated. So it did her no favors.
    Love is for souls, not bodies.

  13. #5083
    Extraordinary Member Galerion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    By Angel Solórzano

    "This is me being reasonable"

  14. #5084
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galerion View Post
    By Angel Solórzano

    Love the shifting hair color.
    Almost made me like blonde Wanda lol, just a bit.

  15. #5085
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUsername View Post
    It did, but unfortunately it was to dismantle everything about her. Which apparently Byrne hated. So it did her no favors.
    Byrne was just obsessed with getting Wanda and Vision "back to their roots," even though his ideas about their roots were insane (like a lot of Byrne's ideas). After he turned Vision into an emotionless robot, he made a point of having T'Challa say that Vision was acting just like he did when he first joined the Avengers, which anyone who actually read those comics would know was wrong.

    And the same with making Wanda harder-edged and talking more formally and eventually trying to become Magneto's partner again -- it was Byrne's twisted idea of how Wanda acted in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, and I know that's not how she acted, and you know, but Byrne doesn't think like the rest of us.



    And yeah: making Simon refuse to lend his brain patterns to Vision, just so he could get Wanda for himself, was really bad writing too. Though at least he had Simon reverse course and offer to let Vision have his brain patterns after all (only for Vision to say that that wouldn't restore him to his original personality -- which makes sense, but they should have just said that at the beginning). Just like he never intended Wanda to stay evil. Unfortunately people who read Byrne's run decided that they liked Simon as an ******* and Wanda as a crazy person.
    Last edited by gurkle; 07-07-2022 at 10:36 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •