Hand to God, I thought they thought they were volunteering for SHIELD or some not-Nazi organization, altho now I can't remember if I might have read that in the Sceptered Isle comic or if my brain just made it up out of desperation.
Altho frankly, since Wanda has been in the team movies since AoU and MCU tends not to have sympathetic (or good) villains (I think Killmonger is one of the very few exceptions), she's not getting a villain edit, no -- they didn't do that even in Civil War, where she was criticized not for joining Ultron or unleashing the Hulk upon a densely populated city, but an accident when she was part of the team. Nat and Gamora also got very light treatments compared to how they can be in the comics, particularly Gamora -- they just basically made a different and much more sympathetic character (with much less autonomy). And stuff like Tony making Ultron pretty much got glossed over too -- "You made a murderbot?!" is a punchline, and Tony's still defending his AoU actions in Endgame, and the movie never really contradicts him on it. It's just Tony *jazzhands*
-- Zemo could be a more interesting villain, if they move beyond "You killed my family, prepare to die" and to him actually having a problem with superheroes, which could tie in with Vision's observation in CW that the superheroes seem to bring trouble, not end it (paraphrasing). But I get the feeling the end of the Avengers is going to lead to the triumphant resurrection of Avengers 2.0, Young Avengers, so that idea will probably not be explored very seriously. (And to be fair, asking a giant revenue-generating pop culture machine worth billions and billions which is based on superheroes to critically examine the idea of superheroes is maybe a little unrealistic in terms of late capitalism.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: less squee
Date: 2021-03-01 12:12 am (UTC)Altho frankly, since Wanda has been in the team movies since AoU and MCU tends not to have sympathetic (or good) villains (I think Killmonger is one of the very few exceptions), she's not getting a villain edit, no -- they didn't do that even in Civil War, where she was criticized not for joining Ultron or unleashing the Hulk upon a densely populated city, but an accident when she was part of the team. Nat and Gamora also got very light treatments compared to how they can be in the comics, particularly Gamora -- they just basically made a different and much more sympathetic character (with much less autonomy). And stuff like Tony making Ultron pretty much got glossed over too -- "You made a murderbot?!" is a punchline, and Tony's still defending his AoU actions in Endgame, and the movie never really contradicts him on it. It's just Tony *jazzhands*
-- Zemo could be a more interesting villain, if they move beyond "You killed my family, prepare to die" and to him actually having a problem with superheroes, which could tie in with Vision's observation in CW that the superheroes seem to bring trouble, not end it (paraphrasing). But I get the feeling the end of the Avengers is going to lead to the triumphant resurrection of Avengers 2.0, Young Avengers, so that idea will probably not be explored very seriously. (And to be fair, asking a giant revenue-generating pop culture machine worth billions and billions which is based on superheroes to critically examine the idea of superheroes is maybe a little unrealistic in terms of late capitalism.)