expectationlost wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzaAgD7jTw follow up in interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLHnZSz7ZA
FunLover18 wrote: » Sorry, I'm not rulling out the multiverse altogether, I think they are going that route but I wouldn't use the Sony driven multiverse rumours for Spider-Man as proof of Marvel going all in. If the Spider-Man 3 rumours are true I am wary because I really don't trust Sony to have the patience or planning that Marvel have. I could be completely wrong but I suspect the Dr Strange 2 may not be flinging the multiverse doors wide open in the way some people think it will be.
Sakana wrote: » I'll have to watch Age of Ultron again. I remember it being pretty dull, no?
Foxtrol wrote: » I disagree with Pietro being intrinsic to the show. For what we've seen thus far they could have had another character we hadn't met play that role - like having her father show up and cause the same toll on her emotionally and cause a similar rift with Vision. It wouldn't have resonated as much as seeing Pietro but you'd end up close to the same results regarding the overall narrative.
Foxtrol wrote: » Agree that this is the likely angle from Sony but the MCU appear to have fully bought into it - at minimum Dr Strange 2 and Loki appear to heavily leverage it (arguably with Endgame starting it). If Marvel were against the idea of a multi-verse than I'd have expected they would have contained it to just the upcoming Spider-Man movie with some form of tech causing it - like Into the Spider-Verse.
FunLover18 wrote: » The Pietro thing is interesting though because this is the first time we've had a recast of a character who had appeared in another franchise. We hadn't seen Rhodey before anywhere else. Feige has said that we won't see X-Men in the MCU for a few years, we know and can guess he's a meticulous planner and has the next few years worked out which is why I'm loathe to believe that they would just pull a Fox franchise character over like this. A possibility I haven't seen considered is that ATJ just didn't want to come back or couldn't come back due to other commitments. I think regardless of who played him Pietro is intrinsic was intrinsic to Agatha's plan which would mean they'd have to recast him anyway so why not do it with a wink. I suspect if they had got someone else there would undoubtedly be fans saying how funny/cool it would have been if they'd got Peters.
As regard the Spider-Verse, as I said I think that is largely coming from Sony. This is the last fillm in their deal with Marvel and it's also the last film in Holland's contract. I've seen people speculate that the title No Way Home could suggest the movie ends with Holland's Parker trapped in another universe which would allow Sony to do their crappy Sinister Six and Morbius films without it impacting the MCU. Just a theory.
pjohnson wrote: » If the MCU wanted a brand new Pietro theres literally hundreds of actors they could choose. Just off the top of my head Grant Gustin (Arrowverse Flash), Ezra Miller (DCU Flash) would be amusing 4th Wall breaking winks regarding speedsters. Not casting Evan Peters would NOT have been seen as an odd choice and rather just immediately distancing from any possible links to the Fox-version. By specifically choosing arguably the most recognisable actor from the recent Fox-Verse movies (Peters*) whose character (Quicksilver) was responsible for the two standout scenes in two Fox Movies to play another character called Quicksilver and NOT expect fans to think there is a connection is hilarious. Especially considering Mavel now owns the X-Men again. If they didn't own them then they might get away with casting him as a "New" Pietro since mutants wouldn't be possible. But yeah they knew exactly what they were doing. Heck, they could have even cast Peters as Mephisto (an early "leak" claimed that was the case) and no one would have been trying to link MCU Mephisto to Fox Quicksilver. He could even still make quips/quote his Fox character and people would see it as being a wink and nod. There was plenty of avenues that wasnt just trolling the fanbase for both a "new" Pietro and casting Evan Peters. They picked the ONE that would inevitably annoy a large part of the fanbase. It worked in that it raised up a lot of attention for the show and clickbait but it was a shítty stunt. *I say Peters is the most recognisable because I highly doubt Fassbender, MacAvoy or Lawrence would be gettable budget-wise.
Zardoz wrote: » Less of the condescending attitude please, I have plenty of patience and like slow burning shows especially dark gritty ones. The first 3 episodes aped every sitcom cliche, but had genuine fun with almost none of them, and weren't in any way funny. It was genre-surfing as a sort of filler, a sketch that lasts half an hour but without any laughs, just to get to the few hints in each episode as to what really is going on.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » To me this just reads like a defence for what would be a blatant bait-and-switch to their audience. They knew what they were doing when they did it. If by taking this approach, their finale fizzles out like a wet fart, then they have to own the consequences of promising much and delivering little. Wagging a finger at the fans and saying 'it's your fault for getting your hopes up' won't wash.
Foxtrol wrote: » I do get those significant differences, however the MCU has for the most part been built in a very consistent way that is relatively easy to understand by the audience. I just don't see them trying to sell both: - All the stuff that happened in other Spider-Man movies produced by another studio that they don't have the rights to happened in their wider MCU multi-verse - Nothing that happened in other X-Men movies produced by another studio that they now have the rights to happened in their wider MCU multi-verse I especially don't see them doing the above while also inserting an X-Men character as Pietro into Wandavision as just a throwaway nod to the audience - making things even more confusing. I really want the old X-Men universe to stay dead but at this point from going off previous MCU approaches I'm not confident
Foxtrol wrote: » In the 3rd episode they introduced 2 well known and key characters, who may continue in the MCU, and also broke the bubble of what was happening outside the Hex. That is hardly filler. You're entitled to not enjoy it but if you don't have the patience for 2 episodes of character and world building, totaling less than an hour of viewing and each including several moments that provide payoffs later, then a lot of TV simply isn't for you.
FunLover18 wrote: » Spider-Man is a separate beast though because it's owned and made by Sony in conjunction with Marvel. Sony already have the Spider-Verse and the casting rumours reek of Sony decision making, they've wanted their own Spider-Man cinematic universe since before the initial deal with Marvel, the AG movies were heavily setting up a Sinister Six spinoff that going to be written by Drew Goddard iirc and they had even announced plans for a Black Cat and a Silver Sable movie.
Penn wrote: » I really disagree with the idea that casting Evan Peters as Fake Pietro was a troll move. There was never any indication whatsoever that he was actually the Fox version of Pietro, and straight off the bat Darcy said "She recast Pietro?" It's a nod, a wink, a reference. It's a fan-service joke that we as the audience get, but just because people choose to read too much into it and it ends up not meaning what they presumed it did doesn't make it "trolling".
Zardoz wrote: » The first 3 episodes were sitcom filler. You could easily have scrapped 1 of those and still had the same emotional impact.
Foxtrol wrote: » If it ends up being nothing it points to them having decided to kill the theory that the Fox X-Men universe characters being in their 'multiverse' and that they could at some point come over to the MCU. That alone makes it more than a pure troll. That however doesn't align with all the rumours regarding the upcoming Spider-man bringing back old characters. Wandavision also advertising the Nexus and having Pietro there is a bit too coincidental for my liking.
Foxtrol wrote: » Similar to the Agatha reveal last week, I simply don't see how this episode hits without the earlier episodes to build out the story. It only worked so well because we saw her and Vision happily living out their sitcom lives, it wouldn't have been the same if everything went to crap on day 1. You need to earn good reveals.
paulbok wrote: » Beginning to think we may have over-thought the plot in this. Might not be the clever introduction of the x-men /F4 /mephisto many of us believed during the last few weeks. Just as likely that Agatha is the big bad, that all the magic types mixing has just got out of hand and the only "big" appearance will be Dr Strange appearing to try and clean up the mess, with the finale or end credit scene briefly setting up/hinting at the multiverse of madness or another Marvel show.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
