Yeah... I'd say almost all of those should go.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
He/Him
Quite a sizable amount of viewers have wanted to see what Derrickson's version of this film would be.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2 Art Museum Curator and frequent helper of the Web Original deprecation project
Regarding Reed Richards, would his appearance qualify his for a What An Idiot or Idiot Ball moment? For one of the smartest, if not the smartest, individuals in a given reality, he tries taking on Wanda with little to no protection. He barely even gets a chance to use his powers. Maybe because he underestimated her but still for an incredibly intelligent person, it was still a stupid move.
Hide / Show Replies
What An Idiot is Flame Bait now because of how frequently it's used to just complain about characters making understandable mistakes, 'irrational' actions motivated by emotion rather than thinking, or not having the benefit of knowing everything the audience does.
Idiot Ball is not YMMV, firstly, and secondly, it's when a character who is otherwise competent makes a dumb call they should be smart enough to not make. In Reed's case, he's a Wide-Eyed Idealist who could relate to Wanda's pain so he clearly hoped he could talk her down, and he's also famously quite arrogant in the source material and prone to not questioning or preparing for the chance he could be wrong on something. In other words, it's not the Idiot Ball because this is completely in-character for him to make a blunder like that.
So, how are we all feeling about the Unfortunate Implications entry? While I see there are articles referenced, I don't think this criticism is credible enough. One, Scarlet Witch has been a villain in the comics and the different X-Men series, so it's not like her becoming a villain is out of left field like Daenerys in Game of Thrones. Two, her actions in Wanda Vision, while understandable, were still villainous overall, the only difference being that the show justified these actions. Three, how is her actions being driven by wanting her children back misogynistic? I feel like that's a pretty relatable motivation for women and men. Kingpin's motivation is Spiderverse was pretty similar. Four, this observation is very surface level and a big part of why complex female villains are so rare in mainstream media. If anything, Wanda being an intriguing, powerful villain is a big achievement in writing.
Hide / Show Replies
1) The times she's been a villain in the comics are generally considered an example of the sexist implications being criticised here (IE, woman is very powerful, must be unstable because women can't handle that power/its scary to imagine a woman being that powerful). Like how AOU got heat for canonising Natasha's sterilisation, it's not "OK" just because comics did it first, especially when the MCU so readily pats itself on the back for 'fixing' comic stuff.
2) WandaVision for its faults made it clear Wanda made a mistake in a moment of weakness, whereas here she's just crazy for crazy's sake.
3) But it's such a tired and overused reasoning. Male Tragic Villain types have the freedom to have their motivations be for a litany of traumas and reasons, but overwhelmingly for female tragic villains its the loss of a loved one, usually a spouse or a child. It's also very simplistic.
4) YMMV. Personally Wanda's heel turn was pretty weak; so much of what she does is just grabbing the Villain Ball (the "what if they get sick?" rationale for why she can't just ask America to port her over instead of killing/taking her power), and there wasn't that much complexity to her. Like, Hela in Ragnarok is a much straighter Complete Monster villain without much tragedy but I feel she was far more complex. Sad motivation =/= complex villain.
He/Him
I don’t know about you guys. But it seems that the majority are disappointed by the soundtrack. Not the minority.
I personally like Elfman’s soundtrack but I’ve seen more people criticize about it than praise it.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2 Art Museum Curator and frequent helper of the Web Original deprecation project
Someone removed Informed Wrongness before I could, but I just want to illustrate why it shouldn't get re-added when some yahoo decides to do just that.
The entry as it was written:
- Informed Wrongness: A major plot point is that Strange is willing to do amoral and extreme things and justify it by insisting it's for the greater good, and that he's a Control Freak who only trusts himself to make that kind of judgment call. The problem is that the two primary incidents characters cite for these behaviors are when he gave Thanos the Time Stone in Infinity War, and this film when he is trying to protect America Chavez from Wanda. But in the former case, Strange looked at 14 million possible futures and only saw one where the Avengers defeated Thanos, so there really was no other way to beat him than giving him the Time Stone, and no one else involved in that conflict except Strange could have looked into the future and learned how to achieve that victory. As for protecting America, Wanda is a threat to the entire multiverse already, and if they get their hands on America's power to open portals between different universes they'll be even more dangerous, but the characters Strange meets in other dimensions almost all dismiss him and assume he's exaggerating. The result is that Strange's actions in the film are extreme but justified, and he is the only one who understands why. However this is completely intentional as the film itself makes it a plot point that MCU Strange is different from the variants the other characters know and as a result they realize that their treatment of him is undeserved.
Firstly, besides the point it was removed for (this trope is about the narrative, not individual characters), I want to point out that the entry argues with itself, stopping to note its 'justified' because they're actually judging a different Strange. That in my experience seems to be a no-no here.
Secondly, the actual point about Stephen, Thanos, and the Time Stone, this is overlooking the fact that this was a huge plot hole, since, as many pointed out back in the time between films, there was plenty of ways they could have gone about that without handing him the stone. I don't want to diverge into a rant about Infinity War, but it's just kinda ridiculous to me to scrutinise the writing of this film while invoking that film in such a way while overlooking the flaws in that films' story, particularly around that one point.
Thirdly, reiterating the point given by the person who removed it, but Strange is being criticised here by characters who are not meant to be right by the narrative's view. It's not a case of that; if anything, I'd argue its the opposite, and Strawman Has a Point.
He/Him
We can't add it now. But can I just say? This is probably going to be the most base-breaking MCU movie ever. See you guys in 6 months when we can add it.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2 Art Museum Curator and frequent helper of the Web Original deprecation project
In terms of a lot of the film's Narmy moments. I think it's pretty ambiguous as to which scenes/moments are intentionally cheesy or not. Given Sam Raimi's involvement and all.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2 Art Museum Curator and frequent helper of the Web Original deprecation project Hide / Show Replies