• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

fantastic_four

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    45,539

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by fantastic_four

  1. fantastic_four
    Oh, except they are called that in the credits for the films, just double-checked that by watching the acting credits for Age of Ultron. But it's the first on-screen reference.
  2. fantastic_four
    I kept meaning to post it--and maybe someone else did and I forgot--but this is the first time the MCU has ever used that name before. She's always called Wanda in every film, and Pietro is never called Quicksilver.
  3. fantastic_four
    Yep that does seem likely.
  4. fantastic_four
    Sounds viable. Heyward creating that unfeeling version of Vision from West Coast Avengers 45 does seem like a setup for somehow getting Vision's consciousness back into that body. One thing this appears to eliminate is the possibility of Ultron's involvement. He mostly made sense because he's one of the only people who could re-create his mind as seen in the version from Westview, but now we know he's not involved with creating that version, only Wanda is.
  5. fantastic_four
    Wait a minute...I just re-watched the video footage from episode 5 where Heyward claims that Wanda broke into SWORD and stole Vision's body. I did it to see if it was the exact same footage we just saw in this episode, and it absolutely, positively is that same footage--except that we just saw in the episode that she did NOT steal Vision's disassembled body. The video footage from episode 5 cuts off right at the moment she's standing there looking at the parts and you never actually see her leave with them. Doesn't that mean whatever we're seeing in Wandavision absolutely, positively isn't Vision, and the white version we see during the credits was the re-assembled version that was never actually stolen?
  6. fantastic_four
    My favorite Ralph Fiennes moment ever is in "Red Dragon" when he eats William Blake's watercolor of the Great Red Dragon.
  7. fantastic_four
    The whole Vision thing still has me confused. Wanda being able to re-create a sapient synthezoid's body and mind makes almost no sense.
  8. fantastic_four
    He who shall not be named!? Voldemort himself. That's my guess because he's a big name who would give weight to the role of whichever mystical being he might play, him playing Voldemort suggests he's a fan of this type of fiction, he's a Brit so it's possible Bettany knew of him from the theater before Fiennes was even a film actor, and he's 9 years older than Bettany which is the right age for him to be someone Bettany would respect and admire during the time period Bettany was aspiring to become an actor.
  9. fantastic_four
    I corrected this in my original post with an edit, but you quoted it so just to be clear--rabbits are herbivores (I mistakenly typed it as them being omnivores), so they wouldn't eat either birds or cicadas.
  10. fantastic_four
    She transmuted it into a bird, and she explicitly referred to what she had done as being an illusion. She then sent it flying towards Scratchy and it instantly appeared as an insect after it went into his mouth. When he chewed it one of the insect's wings fell to the floor. Not sure what kind of insect it was, but it looked like a cicada.
  11. fantastic_four
    Did anyone recognize either of the two scientists running the experiment on Wanda? Was one of them Strucker?
  12. fantastic_four
    I guess we also saw that the hypothesis of the two people in the Wandavision commercials being her parents wasn't the case. I never heard why people were thinking that anyway so I had no opinion about it. One little thing I wasn't entirely sure what to make of--rabbits are herbivores, but Agatha fed Scratchy an insect. That implies whatever Scratchy is, he's not a rabbit. But most wizards don't eat insects, either, so it's not strong evidence of him being a transmuted Nicholas Scratch.
  13. fantastic_four
    I'll be absolutely shocked if he doesn't appear next episode, even if it's just in a post-credits scene. I'm also going out on a limb that has well under a 50% chance of happening, it's just an educated guess--we'll see one of the big bads we've been hypothesizing about, and he will show up to us in the guise of the guy Bettany has always wanted to work with, and that actor will be Ralph Fiennes.
  14. fantastic_four
    Forgot about that. I've been assuming it since early on anyway for reasons I've outlined in excruciating detail with the twins being descendants of the original primates the Celestials engineered to have the X-gene, so that piece just fit exactly where I figured it would go. Agatha also noted that her power would have gone unnoticed if not for the Mind stone which was a second confirmation of the X-gene being dormant as the Celestials designed it to be.
  15. fantastic_four
    Also with only one episode left I'm afraid we won't feel like the story wrapped up in this series and that it will feel like a really long teaser for Multiverse of Madness.
  16. fantastic_four
    Yup... especially the guy that spent $42,000 on the second appearance of Mephisto in a 9.8. I didn't notice evidence including nor excluding Mephisto, Chthon, Immortus, or Nightmare this episode, just a bit of back story on Agatha mostly taken straight from her history in the comic and a ton of back story on Wanda, much of which we already knew from prior films. The most compelling bit of info about Wanda was the plot of land in Westview. I wasn't entirely sure how to interpret that piece of paper she was holding, but it looked like a map of the land plot with a note from Vision indicating that they could build a home there together, wasn't it? I couldn't tell what went on with Agatha in that 1693 scene. Did she choose to kill her coven, or was it beyond her control? The witch she called her mom said that whatever she was dabbling in was beyond her control, so I couldn't tell what killed them or how she felt about it.
  17. fantastic_four
    If it's one, at most two--it's fine. If it's half a dozen, or even a dozen or more...I'll need to see evidence of them doing that to assume they haven't gone mad.
  18. fantastic_four
    From what I can tell for now (without assuming the sources I'm double-checking with aren't also assuming too much), that's right. And for now that seems like bullsnot. If they were going to move what any scientifically-inclined mind watching the film would recognize as Titan to another solar system...why didn't they just change the damn name to something not named the same as something within our solar system? And it's not like it's just random moon with no currently-recognized chance of life, it's one of two or three PRIME candidates for life viewers would be likely to recognize.
  19. fantastic_four
    In Infinity War when Strange, Stark, and Parker get to Titan Thanos tells Doctor Strange that this is his home, and then he uses the Reality stone to show Strange what life was like on Titan before his people used all of their natural resources. Where did they say he's from a distant part of the galaxy?
  20. fantastic_four
    Odd. Hard to imagine Titan has ever had anything aside from primal life. So were the Celestials just doing their thing on every celestial body with life at any stage of evolution? I would think they'd skip Titan.
  21. fantastic_four
    I never read Eternals--and I'm not alone, the series didn't do well. But just that 6-page story from What If? I posted yesterday has me excited for a movie I had no interest in yesterday morning. The main thing I don't get yet from just that intro story is why Kirby focused on the Eternals more than the Celestials, because I'm 10x more interested in the Celestials--their history, why they're artificially evolving life throughout the galaxy and/or universe, why they release their test subjects (the Deviants) to reproduce (I assume to let natural selection do its thing), etc. I can see that there would be a rich, compelling history in both groups, but of the two the Celestials have far more power and therefore far more intrigue. I can see that the Eternals evolving from humans is quite interesting, and I didn't realize that before. I knew they were on Titan just from Infinity War, but they must have migrated there since they evolved from human primates. I was wondering why they were in our solar system, but having evolved from life on Earth that suddenly makes far more sense.
  22. fantastic_four
    They eventually called it the X-gene. The distinction is that X-gene mutants have an identifiable pattern distinct from a mutate like Spider-Man or Monica Rambeau. And as Bosco and I discussed yesterday the X-gene was designed and seeded on Earth by the Celestials. I found the original story that identified mutants as having been a product of the Celestials. It's from What If? #23 in 1980, and it's a secondary story in the issue that's only six pages and appears to serve as a teaser for the Eternals comic that also explains its back story. All six pages are included below. Very short read that explains the high-level concept of the forthcoming Eternals film including who the Celestials are and how the Deviants, Eternals, and X-gene mutants were all derived from rapidly evolving early human primates. WELL worth a read to see how the X-Men are likely to be introduced into the MCU. Oddly it's not written or illustrated by Kirby, but since Kirby came up with the Eternals I assume he must have collaborated heavily with Mark Gruenwald to get the story points in the pages below straight. Note in particular the final two pages overviewing what the Celestial Oneg did with seeding a dormant gene into primitive man. NOW I see why Feige wanted to do the Eternals film, and also why it's just as easy to introduce the X-Men now into the MCU as it was at any time--you just need a catalyst to awaken the dormant genes inserted into a small set of men by Oneg. And as I mentioned yesterday, I bet it's High Evolutionary who did that in Sokovia because that's the site where the Celestials landed millions of years ago, and Wanda and Pietro are descended from Oneg's test subjects. There's also no reason Magneto couldn't also be descended from them and the father of the twins. Doing it that way smooths over for the MCU the multiple ret-cons of Wanda and Pietro from mutates to mutants and back to mutates that was done in the comics as well as explaining why we're not seeing the X-Men until now. If that's how they're going to do it, we should expect either Herbert Wyndham or possibly someone else who continues his research to appear in an upcoming film and continue identifying Celestial DNA in humanity and experimenting on them to unlock their X-genes.
  23. fantastic_four
    While possible, if true it will be the biggest character flip from the comics that I can recall in the history of the MCU, something Feige has proven repeatedly he is loathe to do. Agatha will have morphed from a protective matron into a Snidely Whiplash exaggerated villain. Far more likely is what I suspected as soon as Agatha sent Wanda to the basement...oh, look, here comes another Wandavision mind control and/or illusion as a canard to distract Wanda from looking for the twins and hide the objectives of the real big bad which also happened with Pietro showing up just as Vision was urging Wanda to release her hold on Westview. Her proclaiming at the end of the number "And I killed Sparky, too!" was the moustache twirl sending it so far over the top I knew for sure it was BS. I laughed out loud at that for two reasons--one, it was just so transparent, and two, Hahn's delivery was amazing. Put more simply--never accept ANYTHING within the Wandavision broadcast as real. If you're seeing sitcom tropes it's a fake part of the show.
  24. fantastic_four
    I posted this a few weeks ago, but it's difficult to read everything when a thread gets this big and I think this is worth knowing about Wanda and Pietro. Below is the page from Thor #134 in 1966 where Stan Lee revealed the origin of their powers. They were later ret-conned in Avengers 184 from 1979 to be the mutant children of Magneto, but in 2014 Ike Perlmutter had them un-ret-conned back to be mutates of High Evolutionary. There have been over a dozen easter eggs referring to High Evolutionary in Wandavision, and all signs for now point to him being Herb(ert Wyndham) in Westview. Earlier in the series I thought they may do more with the mutant origin storyline ultimately leading to the emergence of the X-Men, but I later realized that we're still 3+ years away from the X-Men getting their own films, so it may a bit early to fully unveil mutants and then make fans wait that long to finally see them in full glory. So for now these are probably just seeds they're planting that will bloom in films 1-2 years from now, likely with a TON of more hints in future MCU works. My best educated guess for now (I went into far more detail in my older post) is Wyndham experimented on rapid-evolution techniques in Sokovia and unlocked Wanda and Pietro's genetic potential derived from work done at some point in history by the Celestials and/or Eternals that was still in their DNA but dormant for a yet-to-be-revealed reason.
  25. fantastic_four
    It's the nature of serial fiction being written over a long period of time by dozens upon dozens of authors. Eventually one ret-cons ideas from previous authors unless an editor-in-chief prevents them from doing it. For the MCU Feige is the editor-in-chief, and he's tasked with ultimately making sense of things the comics mucked up over the decades. So far he's done an incredibly great job, and while I can't place him above or even equal to the likes of Lee or Kirby since he's not writing creatively to anywhere near the extent that they did, for the superhero film world he's pretty close to their level of achievement. I've never respected ANY film producer more than that guy, and for whatever reason he's a one of one--although I hope he inspires a lot more people like him in the coming decades. I don't know when Feige will retire, but I can only pray he's tutoring a stable of people to take his place. Nobody has played editor-in-chief better than him with film-based superhero lore. Kathleen Kennedy tries to do it with Star Wars, but she's just not very good at it. I wish they'd give the job to Dave Filoni, who could just report to Kennedy. She's a fine, talented producer, she's just not skilled at keeping the content for an expansive, serial fictional world consistent and compelling. I don't know anything about her personal interests, but Feige is a lifelong comics nerd like us and that's an essential element for why he can do it so well.