Sequels The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - Part 1

[Hawkingbird]

I think you'd get a lot of annoyed fans if they didn't show the Maximoffs as mutants (including me). Personally, I would prefer not to see them at all if they don't show them as that.

 

[Dark Raven]

They can easily be shown as mutants. They just can't use that word.

In Heroes, the characters were all essentially mutants by any other name. They did fine without ever mentioning the word, and people understood it.

 

[Zarex]

I think you'd get a lot of annoyed fans if they didn't show the Maximoffs as mutants (including me). Personally, I would prefer not to see them at all if they don't show them as that.

They'll probably be introduced as Inhumans - mutates, not mutants. Given one Maximoff's long term links to the group and both of their weak ties to the X-Men, this is a fairly "clean" adjustment. And what better place to introduce the MCU version of the mutants than by having two members play major roles in the Avengers sequel?

 

[Chewy]

Really you can just say they were born 'different', with powers. The term mutant is a nice clean descripor but they don't actually need to use it to get the point across

 

[Mjölnir]

Yes, it shouldn't be much of a problem working around the name of what they are. I'm more uncertain about introducing to major characters in an Avengers movie as, while I loved the first one, I was left wanting a bit more from a couple of those characters.

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah I'm not fussed about the mutants thing. I would rather they are Avengers than X-men and it would be a terrible shame to loose both of them for something as pedantic as that.

 

[Mr. Dent]

so we are going to see quicksilver on the screen before the flash? that's...kind of hilarious.

can't wait to see what joss does with his powers.

ps. additions to the team without a own solo movie before hand? will this work?

Well: Hawkeye. And to some extent, Black Widow.
I personally think it'd be very difficult to just toss the Maximoffs into the mix without an hour or two of backstory, but I trust Joss as a writer.

I like my idea V

With this news of Maximoffs now, this is very interesting. If this guy really is Chthon, then he could have a connection to the twins and explain how they're involved in the plot a bit. In the comics, Wanda and Pietro are revealed to have been born during a fight The Other is involved in on Mt. Wundagore, his prison. The Other imbued Wanda with magical powers after her birth in order to one day possess her. This was told in Avengers #185-187 (mostly in #186-187).

Here's the key bits:

From #187:

I think you'd get a lot of annoyed fans if they didn't show the Maximoffs as mutants (including me). Personally, I would prefer not to see them at all if they don't show them as that.

I can understand some fans only associating them with being mutants, but in terms of their history with the Avengers, them being mutants really isn't necessary or even a big part of their characters. It's used as an explanation for the source of their powers and they're X-Men villains for like 4 issues...but that's it, aside from the story every so often involving other mutants with the Avengers and some recent stuff with Bendis obviously. Even them being Magneto's children was a retcon established 20 years after they were created. They can easily be introduced into Marvel movies without being mutants.

 

[Xeno]

Yeah I'm not fussed about the mutants thing. I would rather they are Avengers than X-men and it would be a terrible shame to loose both of them for something as pedantic as that.

I completely agree. After the founders and Captain America, Hawkeye, the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are the heroes who have been associated with The Avengers the longest. To be frank, their only long-term tie to the X-Men comes through their history with Magneto and his Brotherhood. The siblings escaped Magneto's control soon after their first appearance and reformed themselves by becoming heroes under Captain America's tutelage. Four decades of being an Avenger are more meaningful than a few issues as a villain in the X-Men, in my opinion.


It would be an awful blow for me, as a longtime fan of the Scarlet Witch, if she were to be claimed by Fox when her rightful home is with The Avengers and Marvel Studios. Wanda is a classic character and a powerful hero in her own right who deserves to be brought to the big screen by a creative team that respects her history and cares deeply about portraying her correctly. She won't get that at Fox. The twins' origin can be explained in any number of ways, from having The Other/Chthon's magic and the High Evolutionary's scientific experimentation affect them while in the womb to going with the story that Bob Frank/The Whizzer and Miss America were their parents and passed on weird powers to them.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I think you'd get a lot of annoyed fans if they didn't show the Maximoffs as mutants (including me). Personally, I would prefer not to see them at all if they don't show them as that.

I'm with Hawkingbird. I personally think there are far better choices for The Avengers at this point in time. Choosing Avengers that have potential for solo films (Ant-Man, Black Panther, Dr. Strange) seems like it would yield far more advantageous results at the box office.

As I've mentioned, less origin for each of these super-powered characters is not the direction I want the MCU to go. Black Widow and Hawkeye's origins should be the minimum acceptable introduction and neither of them are even "super-powered."

I won't go so far as to say the inclusion of QS and SW will ruin the film franchise or detract from the film itself, but there are just so many ways to screw this up. Taking risks is fine, but I'm not so attached to these two characters to desire this type of risk.

 

[Duran Man]

They'll probably be introduced as Inhumans - mutates, not mutants. Given one Maximoff's long term links to the group and both of their weak ties to the X-Men, this is a fairly "clean" adjustment. And what better place to introduce the MCU version of the mutants than by having two members play major roles in the Avengers sequel?

I like this idea of making them Inhumans.

 

[Mr. Dent]

ps. additions to the team without a own solo movie before hand? will this work?

Also this is probably something we're going to have to get used to. There are some classic Avengers who just don't need/deserve their own movies, like Spider-Woman.

I'm with Hawkingbird. I personally think there are far better choices for The Avengers at this point in time. Choosing Avengers that have potential for solo films (Ant-Man, Black Panther, Dr. Strange) seems like it would yield far more advantageous results at the box office.

As I've mentioned, less origin for each of these super-powered characters is not the direction I want the MCU to go. Black Widow and Hawkeye's origins should be the minimum acceptable introduction and neither of them are even "super-powered."

I won't go so far as to say the inclusion of QS and SW will ruin the film franchise or detract from the film itself, but there are just so many ways to screw this up. Taking risks is fine, but I'm not so attached to these two characters to desire this type of risk.

I'm so confused by what you're trying to say. You'd rather them not add any Avengers other than ones who have their own films because you feel like it will be a risk? That just doesn't make sense. It would be far less risky for them to just introduce the characters in the already established Avengers movie than giving them their own multi million dollar films.

Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver just don't need their own movies for origin stories, it can be told in the Avengers 2 easily, especially since they'll be reworking their origin for the MCU in the first place anyway.

My only contention is that Marvel NOT make them some kind of brother/sister SHIELD combo. That would be the worst. Not every hero who doesn't have a movie should be explained away by being a part of SHIELD.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'm so confused by what you're trying to say. You'd rather them not add any Avengers other than ones who have their own films because you feel like it will be a risk? That just doesn't make sense. It would be far less risky for them to just introduce the characters in the already established Avengers movie than giving them their own multi million dollar films.

Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver just don't need their own movies for origin stories, it can be told in the Avengers 2 easily, especially since they'll be reworking their origin for the MCU in the first place anyway.

My only contention is that Marvel NOT make them some kind of brother/sister SHIELD combo. That would be the worst. Not every hero who doesn't have a movie should be explained away by being a part of SHIELD.

I feel like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are a risk to the general audience, yes.

People enjoy Tony Stark because he's an everyman (Joss Whedon's words). Origin stories for Iron Man and Captain America are easy to suspend our disbelief for. And you know who's even easier to believe? Hawkeye and Black Widow. That's why they only needed 5-10 minutes each of screentime to introduce. They fit well as SHIELD agents. And I agree with you, Pietro/Wanda would not. Thor was given a backstory and origin that fits very well within the MCU. But needed 2 hours to explain. And that's how the GA got on board.

I disagree with you that the twins origins "can be told in the Avengers 2 easily." In fact I think they'd need about 30 minutes minimum to show what they can do, how they are able to do it and why they decided to join the Avengers, and I don't want them wasting time with extensive character origins in a film that should be past the origin stage.

I said that characters who have the potential for solo movies would be smart for box office numbers. And adding Pietro and Wanda leaves little room for Ant-Man/Wasp, any GotG or anyone else who may be receiving their solo film in Phase 3. Now, I don't personally care what kind of dollar signs these films make in the BO. But then again, maybe I should. The better they do, the more MCU films we see and the higher budgets they receive. The more inclined our favorite actors are to return for their roles after their contracts are up.

 

[Dark Raven]

I like this idea of making them Inhumans.

As long as they're not made into Deviants.

Well, that would be the Ultimate incest version of them lol.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I feel like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are a risk to the general audience, yes.

People enjoy Tony Stark because he's an everyman (Joss Whedon's words). Origin stories for Iron Man and Captain America are easy to suspend our disbelief for. And you know who's even easier to believe? Hawkeye and Black Widow. That's why they only needed 5-10 minutes each of screentime to introduce. They fit well as SHIELD agents. And I agree with you, Pietro/Wanda would not. Thor was given a backstory and origin that fits very well within the MCU. But needed 2 hours to explain. And that's how the GA got on board.

I disagree with you that the twins origins "can be told in the Avengers 2 easily." In fact I think they'd need about 30 minutes minimum to show what they can do, how they are able to do it and why they decided to join the Avengers, and I don't want them wasting time with extensive character origins in a film that should be past the origin stage.

I said that characters who have the potential for solo movies would be smart for box office numbers. And adding Pietro and Wanda leaves little room for Ant-Man/Wasp, any GotG or anyone else who may be receiving their solo film in Phase 3. Now, I don't personally care what kind of dollar signs these films make in the BO. But then again, maybe I should. The better they do, the more MCU films we see and the higher budgets they receive. The more inclined our favorite actors are to return for their roles after their contracts are up.

And the bolded is where your entire argument goes to hell. They don't have to be Avengers in this film or even be associated with them, they could very well be villains or anti-heroes that decide to join the Avengers/work with them at the end. Making them villains who join the good guys would not only be accurate to the comics but also allow for that explanation you're talking about. And saying that they'd be difficult to introduce in the film is like saying any supporting characters in any film are hard to introduce, quite honestly. You're looking at this from their history in the comics, not as characters in a movie.

As for adding heroes who are "getting" movies, I question the wisdom of putting Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, or Black Panther in Avengers 2 when their origins won't be told until their movies...which explicitly implies their origins would be ignored in A2 and they would already be a presence in the MCU. I'd say that is more difficult to pull off than introducing two characters whose origins CAN be told in the film itself without stepping on their future solo movies. A2 is going to break the box office, Doctor Strange or Ant-Man aren't going to do a lot more for it either way. As for the Guardians, we don't know how many of them will be in the Avengers, if at all, It was already a stretch to think they would all be in the Avengers in the first place, and this brother/sister act thing just strengthens that doubt. My bet is that Star-Lord, Rocket, and Groot will be the only ones to be in the Avengers, with a big maybe next to Rocket and Groot for me.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Goes to hell? Jeez. Anyway, I never thought fans would be clamoring to have characters with little to no origin introduced in a very ambiguous manner in a film franchise that has done a phenomenal job at introducing major superheroes thus far.

I think the reason this baffles me so, is that people complain so much about Black Widow's origin taking too much screentime in IM2 and Hawkeye not being done nearly enough justice in phase 1. Yet, now we are all fine with two Avengers with no buildup being introduced inaccurately (and likely hurriedly) when the movie would do just as well without them?

 

[Mr. Dent]

I didn't mean that to sound harsh lol.

I don't understand your hold up. They'd be like every new supporting characters introduced into a film, and they'd be able to get enough focus to explain their origins through being featured as villains/anti-heroes integral to the plot of the film.

The thing is you're thinking of them like Black Widow/Hawkeye when they would be in completely different situations if they're not SHIELD agents and are villains. Unlike those two, they would be integral to the plot and therefor naturally command the attention needed to explain their characters throughout the course of the movie. That's why I'm not concerned with it anyway.

 

[terry78]

It's pointless to cry about their moniker if we are actually going to see Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver use their powers in live action, something that will probably be more than a massive challenge for the fx team.

 

[Dark Raven]

Well, I don't know about Quicksilver being a massive challenge. Speed has been done a number of times before such as on Smallville with both the Flash and... er... the Blur.

 

[Norrin Parker]

Call me crazy but I would love to see Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in the Avengers, Mutant or not!

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I didn't mean that to sound harsh lol.

I don't understand your hold up. They'd be like every new supporting characters introduced into a film, and they'd be able to get enough focus to explain their origins through being featured as villains/anti-heroes integral to the plot of the film.

The thing is you're thinking of them like Black Widow/Hawkeye when they would be in completely different situations if they're not SHIELD agents and are villains. Unlike those two, they would be integral to the plot and therefor naturally command the attention needed to explain their characters throughout the course of the movie. That's why I'm not concerned with it anyway.

I suppose my "holdup" so to speak, is that I have yet to see how they fit. Assuming Joss does what we all hope he can do (keep the awesome of Avengers flowing into the sequel) then there won't be a problem.

But from what I've seen, the MCU has done well because of how much they explain and how successfully they explain it. Each film builds on one another in a way that makes it all seem plausible. Coincidentally this is likely why Nolan has been succeeding with his "DCCU."

Now, I am a big advocate of Dr. Strange's addition to the MCU, A. because I love the character and I think he'd look amazing on screen. and B. because the way his story is told in the comics makes magic seem reasonable and to put it simply, rare. He is not born with the ability to do magic. No one is. But thats just it, I want Marvel to give Strange hours and hours to explain why magic works and fits in the universe. And I want them to show that he is one of the very, very, very few who can, especially on Earth. And only because of how hard he trained and how strong his will is.

I think part of the reason I fell in love with the MCU is because mutants aren't allowed. Each hero is unique and their power is immeasurably astonishing because no other is like them. Their origins were intensively and meticulously integral to their characters. The addition of two characters born with their powers (who may or may not require any origin at all) is just... bleh to me.

 

[MarvelU]

I suppose my "holdup" so to speak, is that I have yet to see how they fit. Assuming Joss does what we all hope he can do (keep the awesome of Avengers flowing into the sequel) then there won't be a problem.

But from what I've seen, the MCU has done well because of how much they explain and how successfully they explain it. Each film builds on one another in a way that makes it all seem plausible. Coincidentally this is likely why Nolan has been succeeding with his "DCCU."

Now, I am a big advocate of Dr. Strange's addition to the MCU, A. because I love the character and I think he'd look amazing on screen. and B. because the way his story is told in the comics makes magic seem reasonable and to put it simply, rare. He is not born with the ability to do magic. No one is. But thats just it, I want Marvel to give Strange hours and hours to explain why magic works and fits in the universe. And I want them to show that he is one of the very, very, very few who can, especially on Earth. And only because of how hard he trained and how strong his will is.

I think part of the reason I fell in love with the MCU is because mutants aren't allowed. Each hero is unique and their power is immeasurably astonishing because no other is like them. Their origins were intensively and meticulously integral to their characters. The addition of two characters born with their powers (who may or may not require any origin at all) is just... bleh to me.

Even Stan Lee himself said he took the easy way out with the mutants. Which in a way kinda makes it easier for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to incorporate these two characters. They don't need a crazy long origin storyline since they are mutants and born with their powers. If Marvel and Fox work out a deal about the usage of the word "mutants" then it should be sort of self explanatory by saying they were born with their powers. Heck this might anger some Marvel Studios fans if they acknowledge that mutants do exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it will also make the two characters less of a hassle to introduce with only a limited amount of time. Although Whedon will find a good way to use them, mutants or not, so I don't worry.

 

[Mr. Dent]

They don't need to be mutants to explain their powers. Hell, we already have a canon explanation they could use, with the slot in the brain that was introduced in IM3.

 

[Iceman]

I don't think them being mutants really needs to be covered here or mentioned explicitly. They can be mutants and not announce it, kind of like if someone has religious beliefs..they don't need to announce their background in every situation they come across. Whether they're mutants or not does not affect their Avengers affiliation for now and while it's not mentioned, it can still be a potential reveal for years down the road if that possibility ever arises.

And on the separate point of their level of involvement with X-Men, Quicksilver has a fair amount of association & I'd consider him an X-Man as well as an Avenger. He's behind all the core members but if there's a big X-event I want to know where he is, SW not so much.

 

[MarvelU]

They don't need to be mutants to explain their powers. Hell, we already have a canon explanation they could use, with the slot in the brain that was introduced in IM3.

I have not seen Iron Man 3 yet so I can't comment on that brain stuff, but I don't think it would be that bad to introduce mutants in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Although what ever they choose to do will be interesting.

 

[MarvelU]

I don't think them being mutants really needs to be covered here or mentioned explicitly. They can be mutants and not announce it, kind of like if someone has religious beliefs..they don't need to announce their background in every situation they come across. Whether they're mutants or not does not affect their Avengers affiliation for now and while it's not mentioned, it can still be a potential reveal for years down the road if that possibility ever arises.

And on the separate point of their level of involvement with X-Men, Quicksilver has a fair amount of association & I'd consider him an X-Man as well as an Avenger. He's behind all the core members but if there's a big X-event I want to know where he is, SW not so much.

Yeah I agree, they don't necessarily have to mention they are mutants. They can hint it which can lead to a reveal later on.