Ok so you don't understand how conversations work.
That makes sense.
A conversation is when two or more people converse. That's what we have been doing, having a conversation so yeah...makes sense.
You kept bringing it up to try and say they were implying he was actually Fox Quicksilver.
I brought it up in my first response to you, and we kept talking about it because
you decided to harp on the subject.
You're proving my point, that you didn't watch or understand Wandavision at all.
I did watch & understand Wandavision. you don't know me, and you also don't know what you're talking about.
Bringing in Evan Peter's was both a red herring for the audience to think he was Quicksilver and a play on how sitcoms recast characters and have special guest appearances, much of the show was being meta about the nature of sitcoms, because Wanda's hex had turned Westview into a sitcom.
And was to show how deluded Wanda was becoming that she would believe a guy who looks nothing like Pietro did was him.
bringing in Evan Peters was a red herring only for the audience. the whole notion of recasting characters and Wanda being deluded could have worked with any Hollywood actor who fit the role, but it wouldn't have mattered in Wanda's eyes. the affect for her would have been the same, but it would have been different for the audience. and since Marvel
didn't do that and went with an actor who played Quicksilver in the past, it specifically was to trick the audience.
The show basically screams these things at the viewers and you're apparently unable to grasp them
the show wasn't "basically screaming" these things at the viewers. look, either
you didn't grasp certain things, or you are just so desperate to feel validated that you are having this discussion in an unfriendly manner to make me feel some way.
I'd have respect for someone who actually deserves it, not someone who's proven multiple times to be completely incapable of making an argument.
if your instinct is to purposefully be disrespectful to someone who disagrees with you, then like I said, this isn't the place for you.
This proves everything I've said so far.
Not one point being made or debated here just you repeating the same stupid thing again and again.
I've repeated myself because you've ignored what I said. also, you're not being very nice.
You haven't known what I've been talking about this entire time, and I've tried explaining it to you, you just lack comprehension.
you're being very mean. and you also didn't answer my question.
Like me say this in simple terms even you should be able to understand, even though I doubt you will.
...what? I'm just being honest with you here, I don't know what you mean.
If the characters, plot, themes and morals of the Marvels do not rely on Beasts cameo, then fundamentally the movie doesn't rely on Beast having a cameo, and you agreed that Beasts presence has no effect on those things, now you're saying it does.
I never said anything about the characters, plot, themes, or morals of the movie. what I said was, Beast's cameo was the most talked about aspect of the movie. do you agree? if not, then no, I never agreed with you on that.
Yes you did multiple times, you just did it in this same post, going from "The Marvels themes characters and story don't rely on Beast" to "It does and I've said that the entire time!"
I literally never said anything about Captain Marvel 2's story relying or not relying on Beast. I said the cameo was arguably, the most talked about aspect of the movie.
