Marvel Meanies (And Why They Mostly Suck)

Before we begin, let me make something clear: Yes, this is the article I’ve been intending to write for the last few weeks that kept getting delayed. Finally, right?! Well, now that we got that clarified, let’s get into today’s topic:

Ever since WandaVision kicked off, I’ve been thinking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe a lot more than usual, and asking myself “Why don’t I worship these movies in the same way that almost everyone else seems to?” Don’t get me wrong, I still like the MCU, for the most part. I even don’t mind all the fake-out deaths, among other weird little nuances. Nevertheless, something has always still felt a little bit “off” about it all to me. And I now think I’ve reached the answer, and it’s actually a common issue that many others have already pointed out before me… The problem is the villains… 

Yes, it’s true what they say: Most MCU villains, quite frankly, just plain suck. That being said, however, I don’t think that’s entirely the MCU’s fault. As a matter of fact, I feel a lot of it has to do with the whole superhero genre itself being fundamentally flawed. Allow me to elaborate: If we define those original Superman comics from 1938 as the beginning of the modern-day superhero genre, it becomes clear that the entire archetype itself started as nothing more than a power fantasy for children. Superman fought bank robbers and the like because it was just convenient for the kind of storytelling that the comic-book writers were going for. The villains weren’t the point, the “power fantasy” of Superman himself was. But then, very quickly, readers got bored, so the writers needed to come up with foes that could potentially be more of a “match” for a character like Superman. The problem is this, though: What in the first place would even motivate these “super-villains” to want to be, well, super-villains?! Someone evil who has just as much power as Superman wouldn’t want to just keep robbing banks, would they? No, they’d want something more… But what exactly?

In the late 30’s and early 40’s, the genre itself was still primarily aimed at children, so the motivations didn’t need to be too complex. Just saying a super-villain wanted to take over the world “just because” was good enough back then. The problem is that such motivations haven’t aged well now. We expect more out of our stories these days, especially since teenagers and adults (and fuck, even some senior citizens!) want to indulge in all of this shit now too. But it’s difficult to come up with villainous motivations that are both compelling and can logically exist within a world that feels real, yet is populated with all these fanatical characters. The superhero genre itself was unique when it started, because Superman was a fantastical character who existed in an otherwise “real” world. But again, it’s hard to maintain that balance as the genre continues to evolve and become more complex. That’s why my favorite MCU films are usually the ones that don’t take place on Earth (Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: Ragnarok, etc.), cause I just see those as sci-fi movies instead.

And when I say “a world that feels real,” by the way, I mean “real” in a way that a child would perceive it. So it appears as a normal world on the surface, but is still very “black and white,” and often lacks a lot of the “gray” moral ambiguity that we often find in our own personal lives. And for the record: Yes, I know there were other masked crimefighters with secret identities and supernatural tools that existed in fiction long before Superman. That being said, from what I can gather, it seems that Superman was the first of these types of heroes who had powers that came from within himself, while other “masked, modern-day” heroes before him usually had to rely on external tools, like “ray guns” and whatnot. Therefore, as far as I can tell, my point above still stands.

So back on topic: Yeah, I feel like the superhero genre itself is a bit flawed at it’s core, and this becomes apparent when examining the roots. That being said, I also recognize the fact that big climatic fights between fantastical heroes and fantastical villains on the backdrop of a seemingly “real” world has just become a staple of the genre, by now. Even if it’s kinda stupid, I feel we’re at a point where such tropes might be inescapable, quite frankly. And you know what? I’m fine with that, for the most part. I’ve come to accept that generic, corny villains just aren’t gonna go away anytime soon. So I can tolerate them, as long as the superhero story in question still gives me other interesting and unique aspects to enjoy. I probably still won’t think the story is great, or even good, but I’ll at least think it’s fine! And hey, that’s at least still better than bad, right?! Yes, it’s true that most of these films would probably be just as good, if not better even, without the contrived villains that often feel shoehorned into these stories, but to put it simply: It is what it is. 

Civil War came close to showing what it could be like when a group of heroes become naturally divided. Similarly, WandaVision came close to showing what it could be like when a hero actually ends up being the villain of their own story. Maybe we are finally taking baby steps towards more interesting stories for this genre. Only time will tell, I suppose. Regardless, at least the more “grounded” heroes like Batman and Spider-Man still tend to have a more compelling rogues gallery, since those villains usually aren’t aliens trying to destroy Earth or whatever, but rather just petty criminals in fancy costumes. For that very reason, a friend of mine recently described heroes like Batman and Spider-Man as “not necessarily superheroes, per se, but rather just crimefighters.” His words got me thinking that maybe we need to get back to less “superheroing,” and focus more again on just simple crimefighting, at least for a little bit. Same thing applies to Star Wars, actually. We’ve seen enough galaxy-wide wars for awhile, me thinks! Let’s just focus on some smaller stories there too. Then maybe in like another ten years or something we can go back to telling stories with villains on the scale of Thanos and Palpatine and whatnot. 

But make no mistake; simply “scaling back” isn’t the only resolving factor here. After all, early MCU films were not yet on the scale of Thanos and the like, yet the villains still felt very cliche and, at times, boring. And to be honest, this can also be said about most other superhero films outside of the MCU as well, bar a few exceptions that really have more to do with well-casted actors than anything else (Heath Ledger comes to mind). Still, why do we all seem to be more forgiving of this with other films of the genre than we do with specifically the MCU? I think it’s because of this: As unique as the MCU can be sometimes, at the end of the day, most of them (the ones that take place on Earth at least) are still just fucking superhero movies, to put it bluntly. No matter how hard they try to break away from the mold, if they’re telling a story about heroes and villains with powers (or enhancements of some kind) fighting each other on the backdrop of “modern-day Earth,” then the flaws of the genre itself are still gonna show through. The problem is that we expect more out of the MCU, and always have. 

From the moment Nick Fury introduced himself to Tony Stark and mentioned “the Avengers initiative” at the end of 2008’s Iron Man, we all perceived the MCU as being “something grander.” And for the most part, it is! But that doesn’t mean it’s immune to the issues that have been with the genre itself since nearly it’s very beginning. Had that movie been it’s own thing outside of the MCU, I bet many people would still look back on Iron Monger as “a cheesy villain,” but it wouldn’t be as big of a deal to them. No different than, say, the cheesiness of Willem Dafoe’s Goblin in the original 2002 Spider-Man, for instance, among other examples. I suppose it’s ultimately the price one has to pay for getting a franchise as big and complex and interconnected as the MCU.

Yet another factor to take into account is that, in the comics, all of these foes are often kept alive the whole way through, meaning they get just as much “breathing room” to grow over time as the heroes all get. Whereas in most films, both in and out of the MCU, you’d be lucky if the villain even survives passed one movie. Sure, some adversaries are able to make a good enough of an impression with just one film, like Loki. But for all you know, some of these other antagonists could’ve grown into fan favorites as well, if given more entries to “flex their muscles,” so to speak. Maybe that’s something we’ll start to see more of in the future as well…

Funny enough, that same friend I mentioned above also recently pointed out to me that Thanos’s plan actually makes even less sense than I had previously realized, cause once every fifty years or so, the world’s population would just grow back to where it was before. So really, unless some kinda one-child policy were to somehow be implemented across literally the entire universe, Thanos would need to do the snap once every fifty-odd years. But he destroys all the infinity stones in the beginning of Avengers: Endgame! Stupid Thanos!! Oh, well. Like I said throughout this entire post; super-villains are, by nature, kinda fucking dumb, as are most other villains with “world domination” motives (a lot of Bond villains come to mind). And if you’re one of those people who thinks that “a story is only good as it’s villain,” (I don’t but a lot of people do) then chances are you probably won’t enjoy many superhero stories, let alone the MCU. But once again, it is what it is…

Peace!

Man of Reboots

  So, yet again, I had something else I wanted to write about today, but some big news broke recently in the world of pop culture (at this point I shouldn’t even try to plan these posts ahead of time anymore).

In case you were unaware, it was announced just the other day that Warner Bros. is planning a new Superman reboot film, with JJ Abrams producing and Ta-Nehisi Coates writing. No director attached yet. According to the original report, they’re looking to cast a black actor to play the titular hero, meaning that this project is likely a “hard reboot” (i.e. all of the previous films no longer count) rather than a “soft reboot” (i.e. same actors but still little-to-no reference to any of the previous films). As one could imagine, most people who are fans of the Zack Snyder DC films, and particularly Henry Cavill’s portrayal of the character, are a little upset by this news. And to an extent, so was I. While I’m all for an eventual reboot with a new actor (of any race or complexion), I wanted to see Cavill for at least one more film. As much as I dislike Snyder’s “style” (apart from a few bits and pieces here and there), I actually thought Cavill had the potential to be a decent Superman, if given a solid script and solid director to work with. For that reason alone, I was still hoping that a proper Man of Steel sequel would eventually get green-lit, and that it would be written and directed by one of the many talented filmmakers who were rumored for it (George Miller, Matthew Vaughn, Christopher McQuarrie, etc.). That being said, I’ve since had a change of heart. But to understand why, we need to backtrack a bit…

First of all, let me say this: I’m not really familiar at all with the writer attached to this project, so I can’t really comment on him too much. I do know that at one point he wrote some critically-acclaimed Captain America comics, which is a good sign, since I think many would agree that the character of Steve Rogers has a pretty similar personality and code-of-ethics to most people’s interpretations of Superman. Furthermore, Coates also wrote some successful Black Panther comics at one point, which is an interesting coincidence, since one of the actors who could be involved with this project happens to be involved with the Black Panther film franchise too (more on that later).

So let’s move on to the other big piece of this news… Superman is black now! And like I said up above, I’m fine with that. I don’t care what race the actor is. I just want them to be a fitting actor for the personality and mannerisms of the character. If it were up to me, I’d say Alden Ehrenreich would be my pick for the next Clark Kent, but if JJ and co. find an actor who’s a better fit for their vision of the character (regardless of race), then they should go with whomever they’re more confident in, and not worry about what I want (or what anyone else wants, really). Besides, who says this new Superman is even going to be Clark Kent anyways? One alternate version of the comics dealt with the son of Zod becoming Superman (and they both happen to be portrayed as black in this particular comic). It could also be Calvin Ellis instead. Who’s that, you may ask? Well, in the comics, he’s a Superman from an alternate universe, and not only is he black, but he also just so happens to be the President of the United States. And in case you’re wondering: Yes, he’s based on Barack Obama. Apparently one time Obama joked about being from Krypton and being sent here to Earth by his father, Jor-El. Presumably, the writers at DC were amused by this tongue-in-cheek remark, so they decided to make a whole comic out of it.

A few years ago, it was reported that actor Michael B. Jordan actually met WB to talk about potentially playing a new iteration of Superman. When asked about this in an interview some time later, he specifically said that he wouldn’t want to be a new version of Clark Kent, as he felt he wouldn’t be able to live up to those expectations. He had this to say right after, though: “I’ll be Calvin Ellis.” 

Whether or not this is still a possibility is still a mystery to us. I really like Jordan as an actor, so I’d be fine with him playing any version of Superman he would want to, Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod or rebooted Clark Kent or whoever. That being said, if I had to guess, he’s probably not in talks for this role anymore, as it has since been reported that his Killmonger character from Black Panther will return in the upcoming Black Panther II, and that he may even have a bigger role in that film then previously expected, due to the tragic passing of Chadwick Boseman. The means of Killmonger’s return are still unknown, though I’m guessing it’ll just be something like cloning or resurrection, or maybe they’ll pull him from an alternate universe or whatever. The point is this: I doubt Jordan would want to tackle being a new Superman, while also being some kinda spiritual successor to Black Panther, all at the same time. Personally, I like him enough that I’d be fine with him doing both things at once, if he actually wants to, and if both studios are okay with that. We’ll see what happens, though.

I suppose it’s also possible for Clark Kent and someone like Calvin Ellis to exist in the same universe as one another. We recently heard that a new version Supergirl is going to be in the upcoming Flash movie, after all. To be fair, though, that film will apparently deal with multiverse shenanigans, so that version of Supergirl is probably from an alternate universe or something. Furthermore, if Ellis or Supergirl or anyone else were to exist in the DCEU alongside Henry Cavill’s version of Kent, their origins would have to be revised a bit, so that they don’t relate directly to the destruction of Krypton. I don’t have a problem with that, personally, though I could see some diehard fans throwing a fit over that sorta thing. The original 1938 comic was actually going to have Clark Kent come from a dying Earth in the future, which I personally think sounds kinda neat (despite my general dislike of time travel in stories). I wouldn’t mind either this new reboot or some other iteration tackling this discarded version of the mythology instead, just for the sake of trying something different.

Even if this new project does turn out to be a hard reboot outside of the DCEU, who’s to say we still can’t have Cavill show up in other people’s movies? After all, we’re about to get two different versions of Batman (Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton) showing up in that Flash film, while also getting a separate Batman reboot film starring Robert Pattinson, both in 2022! I may not like having to keep track of multiple movie versions of these characters all at once, but I’ve accepted that this is just the world we live in now, so we might as well just embrace it, at this point. And who knows? Maybe we can even still get Cavill in his own film alongside this hard reboot too. I’ll admit that this is less likely, though I could see them still doing Man of Steel 2 (or Man of Tomorrow or something like that) and then at the same time trying to distinguish this other project by branding it as Superman: A New Hope (is that title taken?). Actually, if this really is gonna be a Calvin Ellis story, then Superman: New Frontier would be a fitting title, since “new frontier” is a saying that’s rooted in politics, and there’s already a DC story arc with that name anyways.

And look, maybe Zack Snyder’s Justice League, which drops this month, really is the last we will see of Henry Cavill’s incarnation of the character. And if that’s the case, so be it. Cavill has already been Superman for a decade (Man of Steel started filming in 2011), and not to be rude, but his age is starting to show. He’s balding, and sure, they can give him a hair piece eventually, but if I had to guess, WB would probably rather just keep recasting these characters with younger and younger actors. It may not always be “morally” right, but this is Hollywood we are talking about, so morality is out the window. Besides, while Cavill could’ve probably shined more with better directors and writers, he had his chance, and frankly, neither tone worked for him. Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman were both criticized for portraying Superman as “too dark,” while the 2017 version of Justice League was criticized for portraying him as “too goofy” (with or without that CGI mouth of his!). Personally, I think Superman works better as a “goofier” character, but from what I can gather in interviews, it seems like Cavill would’ve rather stuck to the “darker” tone. Which is fine, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that WB wants to mostly move away from that style now (except when it comes to Batman, of course!). And in the end, Superman is their character, not yours or mine or Cavill’s. They’re the ones who own the movie license to Superman, not us, and it is what it is.

In the end, I’ll miss Cavill more than I’ll miss Snyder. As I said several posts ago, I know Snyder originally stepped away from Justice League due to a family tragedy, so for that reason alone, I’m glad he’s finally getting the chance to realize his true vision now, but at the end of the day, he still spent years saying crap like “this movie is gonna be so much better than flavor-of-the-week Ant-Man,” among other shallow things. But whatever. He and his fans ultimately got what they wanted, so more power to them. Even if “the Snyder cut” is successful enough to get sequels approved, and this Abrams reboot gets canceled, eventually all of this shit will still be rebooted anyways, and most people will likely be on board. It’s no coincidence that the Abrams reboot was announced literally one day after that new Superman & Lois show premiered to ratings and reviews that exceeded expectations. That alone is proof that the general public is open to multiple versions of this character, sooner rather than later. There are plenty of good Superman comics that haven’t been adapted yet (Kingdom Come, All-Star Superman, For the Man Who Has Everything, etc.), so let’s adapt them. Again, we might as well just embrace all this shit, at this point…

Peace!

Regarding Retcons (And When They Can Be Good)

  Just like last time, I was originally gonna write about a different topic today, but once again, something has happened that has encouraged me to write this instead. And once again, I’m not working from any outline. This might become the norm for me from now on…

Now, as I’ve mentioned a few times on this blog already, I really dig WandaVision! That being said, it’s not perfect. Like most Marvel properties these days, it has a bit of a “trojan horse” problem, in that it often concerns itself with setting up future stories, rather than focusing on the story at hand. That being said, this is one of the few times where I actually don’t mind. Why? The answer is simple: I really like all the characters in this show. Whether they’re playing dress-up and pretending to be living in another decade, or actually being themselves in present-day, this show does enough to make me enjoy seeing these people, even if they aren’t really doing much of anything. There’s plenty of other aspects about the show that I enjoy too, particularly the “meta” factor of it being a love-letter to TV history, which is especially fitting since this is Marvel Studios’ first ongoing show and the beginning of a new post-Thanos era for them and whatnot.

So why am I writing this then? Because something occurred in last week’s episode that got me thinking…

NOTE: Spoilers from here on out! Read on at your own risk…

As most of you reading this probably recall, last week’s episode (the penultimate of the series, as a matter of fact) was structured as a “trauma tour” of sorts, in which we got to go through flashbacks of Wanda’s entire life, leading up to this point. Through these “recaps,” we got to see an aspect of Wanda that was never shown to us in any of the films before, which is that she loves to watch TV, and always has. In fact, we learn that not only does she associate TV (specifically sitcoms) with the happiest moments she ever had with her loving family, but that ever since their death, she has used TV (again, specifically sitcoms) as a means of combating her own trauma. 

This works on multiple levels. For one, it explains the rather unique (and enjoyable) premise of this whole show. Furthermore, it allows us to sympathize with Wanda more as a person. Watching shows (funny shows, at that) is a very common practice for getting oneself through stressful times. It especially makes sense that a foreign kid would do this, as I happen to know for a fact that plenty of foreigners learn english by watching American and British television. This whole ordeal also plays into the show’s theme of nostalgia, and how it can be both a good and bad thing. Nostalgia makes us feel good in the moment, but often distracts us from the hard challenges in life we all really have to face. Another thing we learn about Wanda through these sequences is that she has actually always had her powers (just like in the comics). All the infinity stone did was “amplify” those powers. Regardless, it’s implied that the more trauma she endures, the more powerful she becomes. Still not clear if it’s the same case for Pietro, though I would assume so.

Before I go any further, let me make something clear: I actually like both of these revelations. They made me like Wanda’s character much more than I ever did during any of the movies beforehand. Here’s the thing, though… Both of these things are retcons.

For those who don’t know: “Retcon” is shorthand for “retroactive continuity.” In other words, it’s when a storyteller decides to revisit something from an older story and basically say “Never mind! This is actually what happened!” If you’ve already read older posts of mine, you would know that I usually hate rectons. As a matter of fact, I’m one of the few people who often wishes that the famous “I am your father” moment from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was never a thing… And yet, I like both of these retcons here in WandaVision. Also, just to be clear: The Empire retcon is not a real “twist,” in my opinion, as it clearly wasn’t intended from the very beginning (despite whatever Lucas says).

So for the last few days, since the latest episode aired, I’ve been asking myself “Why am I not okay with the beloved Empire retcon, but I am okay with this stuff?” As a matter of fact, as I’m writing this sentence right now, I still don’t know the answer! But we’re gonna explore this question together here in real time and see if we can come to an epiphany. Cool?

Now, before comparing the two aforementioned examples, I think we need to analyze them individually first. Let’s start with the WandaVision stuff. Before this show, we didn’t really know much about Wanda in any of the films. Part of that is because those movies are usually so overstuffed that there isn’t really enough room to explore most of the characters in-depth. But I think an even bigger factor, in the case of Wanda and Pietro at least, is that Marvel themselves weren’t allowed to even touch any of the “good stuff” that existed in the source material for both of these characters.

For the uninitiated: In the 1990’s, Marvel was a failing company, so it started selling off the movie rights to many of it’s characters to other studios. Sony got Spider-Man, the Punisher and Ghost Rider. Fox got the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and Daredevil & Elektra. Universal got the Hulk and Namor the Submariner (poor guy). Then in the mid 2000’s, Marvel said “Fuck it! We’re gonna make our own movies now! We’re not gonna sell characters to other people anymore!!” And so, with financial support from Paramount (until the Disney buyout in 2009), Marvel Studios was born. And using the characters they had left, they decided to make some Avengers movies. Sure enough, things turned out way better than expected for them, while all of the other studios started to struggle with keeping their own franchises afloat. 

Little by little, Marvel slowly started to collect all of their lost characters back. All, that is, except for the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, as Fox was still able to keep a tight grip on those two properties in particular. Here’s the problem, though. Due to a contractual technicality, the characters of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (aka Wanda and Pietro/Peter) counted as both X-Men and Avengers, meaning they could be used by both studios. The only caveat was that Disney/Marvel weren’t allowed to use their superhero names, nor were they allowed to refer to them as “mutants” and/or imply that they were born with their powers.

And so, when both characters were introduced in Avengers: Age of Ultron, their backstory was left mostly vague, and it was implied that they got their powers from an infinity stone. Then came 2019, the year when Disney bought Fox for $71 billion (jesus), thus finally giving Marvel the rights back to the Fantastic Four and, perhaps more importantly, the X-Men. And that brings us to WandaVision, where we get the retcon of the MCU versions of Wanda and Pietro actually being mutants all along. And just to add a little something extra there, we learn that “the Scarlet Witch” is a long-standing myth amongst secret witches (who I assume are either mutants themselves and/or people who trained in magic like Doctor Strange).

Now, I think there are two reasons why I am forgiving of this retcon (and I figured both of those things out literally as I typed this sentence, go figure!). For one, it allows Marvel Studios to finally present these characters in a way that’s likely much closer to what they had always intended, but just couldn’t do before now due to all of the contract bullshit. But more importantly than that, however, it opens up the ability for Marvel to expand their movie universe in ways that they were never able to before. Having natural-born mutants exist in the same universe as heroes who get their powers through other means creates some interesting possibilities that we haven’t seen in any of these movies before. Furthermore, a character like Scarlet Witch in particular opens up a whole new layer of lore with witchcraft and “witch myths” and what have you. Just hearing how the name “Scarlet Witch” actually came from some in-universe mythology of some kind really fascinated me.

I suppose there isn’t really much to say regarding that other retcon, which showed Wanda having a close sentimental attachment to sitcoms her whole life (in more ways than one). All of those scenes of her watching TV with loved ones were pretty warm and sweet. Also, now that I think about it (damn, I should type these posts as I think of them more often!) while there’s nothing to suggest in any of the prior movies that she loved TV, there’s also nothing in any of them to suggest that she didn’t! Her origin was left as an almost-blank-slate on purpose, after all. So there’s nothing in any of the old films to contradict this revelation of Wanda being obsessed with TV, and using it as a coping mechanism.

I think that’s the biggest difference between the WandaVision retcons and the famous “I am your father” retcon in Empire. The WandaVision stuff either expands it’s own universe and/or shows us something new about a character that doesn’t contradict what we already knew about them, whereas the Empire stuff does the exact opposite, really. Turning Vader into Luke’s dad (after we were clearly told in the original film that he wasn’t, “a certain point of view” be damned) tells us that only one family matters now, and establishing the Emperor as also being the dark force-wielder who corrupted Vader in the first place tells us that all of the galaxy-wide conflicts could be resolved by simply killing one person. 

For those who haven’t read my older posts; the official novelization of Star Wars that came out in 1976 described the Emperor as a doofus with no force powers. All of that shit came later. In the case of Star Wars, this is especially sad, as now people think that these things are the foundation, when they really aren’t. Subconsciously, this is why the fandom has been so divided since the prequels (and arguably even since Return of the Jedi). Just today, as a matter of fact, I stumbled upon a Reddit post saying “Star Wars is supposed to be about the Skywalker bloodline. That was always Lucas’s plan! And then Disney ruined it!!” That was always his plan? Yeah, sure buddy! Believe what that delusional old man says, instead of all the evidence that’s in all of the rough drafts and other documents that have leaked over the years…

The “I am your father” moment in particular though really seems burned into everyone’s brains as being the generally-accepted “core” of Star Wars. You don’t need to look any further than this video to see that. The problem is that it isn’t the core! Star Wars was already a global pop culture phenomenon before Lucas decided to retroactively make the whole thing about just one family and just one “final boss,” among other things (like the force suddenly being a physical superpower now and whatnot).

That all being said, I can admit two things. Firstly; I recognize that a lot of people only got into Star Wars because of the shit introduced in Empire like the darker tone, the family twist, Palpatine being the puppet-master, etc. I can’t take anything away from these people, and I acknowledge the fact that their reasons for falling in love with the franchise (and staying in love with it) are just as relevant as mine. Secondly; I hate to say it, but I have a hard time imagining in my head what a different sequel to the original Star Wars would even be like. I have issues with Splinter of the Mind’s Eye (the Star Wars sequel you didn't see), despite it being more tonally and thematically consistent with the original. I suppose you could just take Empire and tweak it a little bit. Maybe make it more like the original rough draft?

…No, you know what? Maybe Star Wars should’ve never had another movie as it’s sequel. Maybe the “sequel” should’ve been a TV show! Hell, maybe an animated show! I know many people see animation as a lesser artform, but I personally don’t. If anything, cartoons allow for more imagination to be realized. That’s probably why all of the Star Wars cartoons have grown to be my favorite aspect of the whole franchise, actually. Or maybe the best solution is all of the above. A movie sequel that is basically still Empire, just with some tweaks, and a cartoon show in between to fill in some blanks.

But anyway, to summarize the conclusions I’ve come to here: I used to entirely hate retcons, but now I realize that they can actually sometimes be a good thing, but only when they expand the universe of the story and/or show us something new about a character that doesn’t outright contradict what we were told before.

So yeah, one more reason for me to like WandaVision, I guess! I can go on and on about other things in the show that I like. The acting all around (talk about range, man!), the accuracy to all of the different eras, the way the show slowly pulls the curtain back to reveal what’s really going on… Hell, even the name of the show itself has multiple meanings! Vision as in the character himself, vision as in television, vision as in Wanda’s imagination, and vision as in her literal point-of-view (since we see a lot of the show through her eyes). Perhaps the biggest meaning, though, is the fact that the most recent episode showed on the property deed that Vision’s legal first name is The and his legal last name is Vision, which means that, had they gotten the chance to get married before his death, Wanda’s new legal name would actually be Wanda Vision.

The most beautiful moment in the whole show though is easily the scene in the most recent episode where we see the flashback of Wanda showing Malcolm in the Middle to Vision, specifically the moment when she explains that nobody in that show gets injured because “It’s not that kinda show.” That one line alone says it all. And then the fact that Vision follows it up with “What is grief, if not love persevering?” is pretty much perfect. That one scene alone makes me happy that Marvel retconned Wanda into a TV junkie. Also, I know the other two TV shows Wanda watched in these flashbacks related to her personality as well, though neither of those were quite as impactful as the Malcolm one, for me. Though both were still clever.

Needless to say, if there’s any new Marvel project to kick off this new era for them (post-Thanos and post-Fox buyout and whatnot), I’m certainly glad it was this one! As I’ve said before, I’m still a little nervous about a lot of the stuff that it seems to be leading to (multiverse stories, Vision’s actual resurrection, etc.). But regardless of what happens after the show is over, I’m still glad that it at least gave me enough to enjoy the show itself, with or without all of the standard MCU “setup” stuff.

Once again, I apologize for getting off track! Writing without an outline is becoming a lot funner for me, though the trade-off is that I tend to go on a lot more tangents than usual. Hopefully none of you mind!

Peace!

UPDATE 1: I just watched Age of Ultron again, and I noticed that Pietro says the family was eating dinner when they got bombed. But if you look closely at the penultimate episode of WandaVision, you’ll notice that there are trays with TV dinners beside the family when the bomb hits. Clever, Marvel… Clever…

UPDATE 2: I have now seen the WandaVision finale. My only complaint about it is that it felt a little too rushed. Apparently the pandemic had something to do with that. Oh, well… Oh yeah, and why wasn’t Wanda arrested anytime between Endgame and this show? Isn’t she still a fugitive? What about all of the other people who sided with Cap during Civil War? Are they all still on the run? Is Marvel gonna address that? Come to think of it, this whole show (and phase) hasn’t aged welt, for the most part.