Originally Posted by cherokeesam
Who said she has to be biological? She could be adopted. (Loki didn't look anything like his foster father..... /straightface
In any event, seeing Szostak as Justine Hammer manhandling/molesting Tony Stark in that scene makes a helluva lot more sense than seeing Janet Van Dyne doing that. Why would Janet do that? What, other than having short hair, even remotely
hints at Szostak being Janet?
Janet Van Dyne is a fashion designer who married a brilliant scientist who experimented with miniaturization and made both himself and his wife shrink down to become micro-heroes, and founding members of the biggest superhero group on the planet. How does Stephanie Szostak in a white lab coat throwing Tony Stark in a goofy vest against the wall of some darkened office (in preparation for a throwdown and/or some rough sex) possibly, *possibly*
suggest ANYTHING to do with Janet Freakin' Van Dyne....? Seriously. I want to know what the Jan Fans see there that I don't.
eh... that's assuming she's going to be 100% based on 616... and have zero ultimate influence. Janet is a human being... doesn't mean they don't get sexy at some point in there lives...
someone posed an interesting idea that Janet and Hank might actually be working for AIM before breaking away... it's possible... Doesn't make them a villain either really... not if they were lied to or manipulated. Point is we really don't know either way.
nothnig in that scene suggests it's Janet, and nothing in that scene really suggest she's not.
There's a rumor that she is.. that's all that most are basing it on (and wishful thinking)
she's not a founding member of the Avengers in this universe... and MU Hawkeye isn't much like 616 Hawkeye either..