Wandavision

[Jewel Runner]

I hope you're right. I think you are. But my question is why doesn't Captain Marvel and/or Wonder Woman have to deal with this kind of drama?!

Because different characters do different things.

[GenericUsername]

Confinement is impossible with Wanda now. Hopefully she can redeem herself somehow in the future. Hopefully in Doctor Strange 2!

I think that is the whole purpose of the showrunners saying that her story is just beginning with this show and it's not an end.

[Albert1981]

Wonder Woman just did some pretty questionable things in 1984. There was a big thing about the lack of consent that random dude had that she had parade around as Steve.

That was a really strange creative decision made by Warner Brothers. And very gross.

[Albert1981]

Because different characters do different things.

I suppose you're right.

[GenericUsername]

That was a really strange creative decision made by Warner Brothers. And very gross.

It was but shows that writers will do that and not think about it too much. They didn't even have that guy realize what happened to him and have a problem with it.

[Albert1981]

It was but shows that writers will do that and not think about it too much. They didn't even have that guy realize what happened to him and have a problem with it.

It turned into an episode of Quantum Leap!

[Hypestyle]

As a mid-forties old guy who grew up with the comics, I see this differently than the person who was in middle or high school when the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies came out 20 years ago, or were in middle/high school when the MCU proper first debuted with the Iron Man film in 2008.

As a younger kid, I literally dreamed about movies/shows like this being made. In particular, veering toward near-exclusive Marvel fandom in my teen years, I became super-frustrated that, circa 1991, scarcely anything live action from Marvel had proved enduring except the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno Incredible Hulk TV show, which by that time had been canceled for nine years and yielded three reunion telefilms. Batman finally had a cool, more adult-friendly revival, and we Marvel fans wanted, well, something!

By the early 1990s no actual Marvel ‘superhero’ theatrical films had been produced: Howard the Duck, a decidedly non-superhero, ran afoul (afowl?) of the 1986 American audience when that film tanked critically and commercially. Enduring respect to the late Stan Lee, but as the frontman for pitching Marvel’s film production endeavors, the studios he was dealing with at the time proved to be it’s-gonna-happen-trust-me grifters like Golan/Globus or other production companies that had cool-sounding press releases but that’s it. It took 1998's Blade film to finally raise the stakes for Marvel based properties to be taken more seriously as IP for films.

With WandaVision, I’m very pleased with the overall results. I recognize that with budget issues at work, we weren’t going to get, say, a 22 episode series like with most contemporary, broadcast-network sitcoms. But for what they produced, it was worth checking out. I’d say it’s worth re-watching at least once.

I sometimes hate Twitter- they spoiled me to Agnes being the baddie. I’m not upset at her being a “clear” villain, though. I am aware of her comics origins as a (creepy-looking) “good witch”, but I’m not so entrenched in looking at obscure-supporting-character alignments that I couldn’t roll with it. The MCU actually needs more villains who don’t just die (or make infuriating switches like the Jason Statham character in the Fast & Furious films).

Some commenters are disappointed in the “and now they fight!” climax, but that’s actually what I wanted- eldritch bolts flying and all. (I also grudgingly remember an interview with Bryan Singer about the production of the first X-Men film, remarking that it would have looked like “the Witches of Eastwick” if he had allowed for flying combat between characters).

I didn’t feel great about another corrupt-leaning spy-agency bureaucrat in the SWORD guy; I felt that this ground had been tread well in Winter Soldier. But, again, at least he didn’t get killed. I suppose if they gave him a recognizable Marvel name that would have *******phed his villain status. (Henry Gyrich wasn’t available?)

Props for elevating Monica Rambeau finally. She’s never been in cartoons nor video games yet. She was the Captain Marvel of the 1980s and as a fan it hurt to see her marginalized in the comics from the 1990s forward. I guess she’ll show up next in Captain Marvel 2.

I hope that Wanda’s story is given respectful treatment in Doctor Strange 2, given that it will ostensibly focus on the good doctor. It will be intriguing to see how Sam Raimi meshes with Disney-Marvel productions, since he was working with Sony as a studio before; Marvel folks only had consulting status on the first five Spider-Man films. (good lord, even that's trippy to think about.. and now the 8th film is being made)

[GenericUsername]

As a mid-forties old guy who grew up with the comics, I see this differently than the person who was in middle or high school when the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies came out 20 years ago, or were in middle/high school when the MCU proper first debuted with the Iron Man film in 2008.

As a younger kid, I literally dreamed about movies/shows like this being made. In particular, veering toward near-exclusive Marvel fandom in my teen years, I became super-frustrated that, circa 1991, scarcely anything live action from Marvel had proved enduring except the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno Incredible Hulk TV show, which by that time had been canceled for nine years and yielded three reunion telefilms. Batman finally had a cool, more adult-friendly revival, and we Marvel fans wanted, well, something!

By the early 1990s no actual Marvel ‘superhero’ theatrical films had been produced: Howard the Duck, a decidedly non-superhero, ran afoul (afowl?) of the 1986 American audience when that film tanked critically and commercially. Enduring respect to the late Stan Lee, but as the frontman for pitching Marvel’s film production endeavors, the studios he was dealing with at the time proved to be it’s-gonna-happen-trust-me grifters like Golan/Globus or other production companies that had cool-sounding press releases but that’s it. It took 1998's Blade film to finally raise the stakes for Marvel based properties to be taken more seriously as IP for films.

With WandaVision, I’m very pleased with the overall results. I recognize that with budget issues at work, we weren’t going to get, say, a 22 episode series like with most contemporary, broadcast-network sitcoms. But for what they produced, it was worth checking out. I’d say it’s worth re-watching at least once.

I sometimes hate Twitter- they spoiled me to Agnes being the baddie. I’m not upset at her being a “clear” villain, though. I am aware of her comics origins as a (creepy-looking) “good witch”, but I’m not so entrenched in looking at obscure-supporting-character alignments that I couldn’t roll with it. The MCU actually needs more villains who don’t just die (or make infuriating switches like the Jason Statham character in the Fast & Furious films).

Some commenters are disappointed in the “and now they fight!” climax, but that’s actually what I wanted- eldritch bolts flying and all. (I also grudgingly remember an interview with Bryan Singer about the production of the first X-Men film, remarking that it would have looked like “the Witches of Eastwick” if he had allowed for flying combat between characters).

I didn’t feel great about another corrupt-leaning spy-agency bureaucrat in the SWORD guy; I felt that this ground had been tread well in Winter Soldier. But, again, at least he didn’t get killed. I suppose if they gave him a recognizable Marvel name that would have *******phed his villain status. (Henry Gyrich wasn’t available?)

Props for elevating Monica Rambeau finally. She’s never been in cartoons nor video games yet. She was the Captain Marvel of the 1980s and as a fan it hurt to see her marginalized in the comics from the 1990s forward. I guess she’ll show up next in Captain Marvel 2.

I hope that Wanda’s story is given respectful treatment in Doctor Strange 2, given that it will ostensibly focus on the good doctor. It will be intriguing to see how Sam Raimi meshes with Disney-Marvel productions, since he was working with Sony as a studio before; Marvel folks only had consulting status on the first five Spider-Man films.

Yes to all of this! I'm a bit younger, but not by much. All the same feelings. I am so happy to see these characters reach new heights with the shows and movies in the MCU.

And even though Agatha is a villain and I didn't want that, I love Kathryn Hahn's version. I hope they make her more complex later.

[Albert1981]

I think that is the whole purpose of the showrunners saying that her story is just beginning with this show and it's not an end.

I wouldn't say Wanda's a full-on villain, but she's definitely selfish, vindictive and cruel. But I suppose that's what attracted so many fans to her? As somebody once said about her:

"The Wanda in WandaVision is this character, and she'll continue to be. She'll adapt and change and grow. She'll regress and have setbacks. She'll have gains and losses. She'll be heroic and also cruel. Because this is Wanda Maximoff. This is who she's been. This is who she's always been. Even when I loved her in the comics."

I suppose you would agree with those sentiments?

[Ursalink]

If you ask me, this series has been basically an "extended MCU movie" about Wanda as the Scarlet Witch. I suppose the same will happen with the other ones incoming.

[GenericUsername]

I wouldn't say Wanda's a full-on villain, but she's definitely selfish, vindictive and cruel. But I suppose that's what attracted so many fans to her? As somebody once said about her:

"The Wanda in WandaVision is this character, and she'll continue to be. She'll adapt and change and grow. She'll regress and have setbacks. She'll have gains and losses. She'll be heroic and also cruel. Because this is Wanda Maximoff. This is who she's been. This is who she's always been. Even when I loved her in the comics."

I suppose you would agree with those sentiments?

Not vindictive. That has a different meaning than what she's doing, she wasn't seeking revenge. She definitely was stuck in her own head and feelings, which depression does cause. And she made a horrible mistake. It's important that she learns to deal with loss and how to move on with her life. And learn to control her powers.

I also don't think Wanda has ever been cruel in comics. She never set out to hurt anyone there either. She was possessed or manipulated in those cases. She's definitely a flawed character. And all interesting characters are.

[Dipter]

I wouldn't say Wanda's a full-on villain, but she's definitely selfish, vindictive and cruel. But I suppose that's what attracted so many fans to her?

All humans are inherently selfish in some way, it's part of our nature. It's not unrealistic to say that most people would resort to drastic measures to get their lost loved ones back. Not everybody would have the strength to let it all go like Wanda did.

[Albert1981]

Not vindictive. That has a different meaning than what she's doing, she wasn't seeking revenge. She definitely was stuck in her own head and feelings, which depression does cause. And she made a horrible mistake. It's important that she learns to deal with loss and how to move on with her life. And learn to control her powers.

I also don't think Wanda has ever been cruel in comics. She never set out to hurt anyone there either. She was possessed or manipulated in those cases. She's definitely a flawed character. And all interesting characters are.

Well somebody mentioned this elsewhere:

"I'm not remotely saying Wanda was in the right to trap Agatha in her illusion, but Agatha is also not an innocent victim like the rest of the townfolk. Agatha is a murderer. As Wanda put it, "unlike me, you did this on purpose." There was nothing sympathetic about Agatha, and this way Wanda can keep tabs on her. And, yes, it's cruel. And in-character for her since her very first appearance. Even with full knowledge, yes, Wanda uses her magic on Agatha... because she DOES know it'll be a humiliating, cruel fate and she's being intentionally vindictive towards the woman who kidnapped and tortured her children."

[GenericUsername]

Well somebody mentioned this elsewhere:

"I'm not remotely saying Wanda was in the right to trap Agatha in her illusion, but Agatha is also not an innocent victim like the rest of the townfolk. Agatha is a murderer. As Wanda put it, "unlike me, you did this on purpose." There was nothing sympathetic about Agatha, and this way Wanda can keep tabs on her. And, yes, it's cruel. And in-character for her since her very first appearance. Even with full knowledge, yes, Wanda uses her magic on Agatha... because she DOES know it'll be a humiliating, cruel fate and she's being intentionally vindictive towards the woman who kidnapped and tortured her children."

The Agatha thing was in self-defense and would not have happened if Agatha wasn't trying to suck her power dry and leave her dead like she did her coven. It wasn't vengeful.

[Albert1981]

All humans are inherently selfish in some way, it's part of our nature. It's not unrealistic to say that most people would resort to drastic measures to get their lost loved ones back. Not everybody would have the strength to let it all go like Wanda did.

You make a very good point!