Why'd they introduce him just to kill him off?

Why'd they introduce him just to kill him off?

Was it a "Fuck You" to FOX and their rights to the X-Men movies?

Other urls found in this thread:

desustorage.org/co/search/text/3 movies contract/page/2/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Was it a "Fuck You" to FOX and their rights to the X-Men movies?

No, it was because Wheadon wanted to kill someone off because he's aware of his reputation. They actually filmed an ending with Pietro alive incase Marvel didn't let Joss kill him off.

Killing off Quickslav actually makes it easier for Fox. Now they get to use the character without casual getting confused more than they already may be.

Fox has Pietro, Marvel has Wanda.

Pretty sure it was the opposite. One had to go so they chose to keep Scarlet Witch. FOX cucked Marvel out of Quicksilver.

If it was a "fuck you" it was directed at people who care about Quicksilver. It felt more like "Welp, we've gotta put Quicksilver in an Avengers movie, but we don't want to share a character with Fox, so we'll just halfass it and kill him off"

This has me sort of curious.
Are there any other characters that overlap and belong to both Fox & Marvel?

Because they realized xmen's quicksilver was 1000x better and didn't want to have to compete in popularity.

Wanda. I once heard that Marvel can use Skrulls but not Super Skrulls, but I don't think that's true.

Everyone cites Whedon as the cause, but it seems convenient that both companies killed off the character that wasn't the run away hit for them.

Although getting rid of QS may have made things easier down the line. He'd throw off the CW numbers (unless they threw in Captain Marvel) or would be pushed to be stronger after Fox's smash success. Which fucks up the MCU due to their modest power levels.

Sharon Carter would've fought for Team Cap as the concept art shows.

>but it seems convenient that both companies killed off the character that wasn't the run away hit for them

Fox didn't kill Wanda though. She was just never onscreen. Unless I missed a bit where QS's sisters (excluding the third one in Poland) were both killed.

Because Whedon thinks drama can only be created by killing of major characters. He felt he HAD to kill an Avenger. He couldn't kill of Iron Man, Thor, Cap or Hulk because they were too important and needed for future movies, he couldn't kill off Black Widow or Scarlet Witch because they're women. Killing Hawkeye would be too predictable, everyone would see it coming (get it?). So it was between Pietro and Vision, where Vision had more potential in future movies and Pietro would create more drama as his twin sister he grew up with would lose him and his act could be selfless, while Vision was "just a robot" they just met.

I bet Marvel could use Beast from his Avengers days, but I doubt they would bother.

The short haired Bucky looks good.

So Wanda and QS would have just sat it out? Sounds like the fight would have been even more lopsided.

And why does Sharon get shited on so damn much? Isn't this like the third time her role has been kneecapped?

My mistake. Didn't watch apocalypse and assumed it was Wanda who bit it when they brought up Mag's family being dead.

It really makes no sense for Fox's QS to be QS. They should have made him Northstar

Because he came packaged with Wanda, and Joss likes to kill off characters for drama.

/thread

This, Whedon is retarded and I'm surprised he didn't fuck up the first movie so badly

>but I don't think that's true.
It was corroborated by Whedon, Fiege, and James Gunn, but you just follow your gut, user.

That's the Sup Forums way nowadays.

>he had a 3 movies contract

>assumed it was Wanda who bit it when they brought up Mag's family being dead.

It's an easy thing to miss. Wanda is only loosely referenced by QS's mother and younger sister in the Rogue-cut of DOFP. They wanted you to never notice her.

It's better this way anyway. The MCU hardly needs any more characters at this point in the game. He filled his purpose and now he's gone.

In this VERY special episode of Avengers, one of these characters will be HORRIBLY killed....

For real? He didn't even appeared in three movie. Counting his cameo in WS, there's still a movie left for him.

It probably went something like this:

Joss wants to use Ultron.
And if you have Ultron, you have to have Vision.
And if you introduce Vision, you have to introduce Scarlet Witch.
And if you introduce Scarlet Witch, you have to introduce Quicksilver.

Whedon probably got a lot of internal opposition over introducing two characters with shared rights (Marvel *hates* promoting characters with a Fox connection, and refuses to put Wanda or Pietro in most games, merchandise, cartoons etc).

But that probably meant he didn't get any pushback from the studio over wanting to kill off Pietro. He said he had an alternate ending where Pietro lived, but Disney didn't use it. Because they don't care about Fox-affiliated characters.

The only reason they're using Wanda still is that they have so few women in the MCU. But they've got plenty of superpowered dudes.

So basically, he died because he was considered expendable and none of the other heroes were considered expendable. And he was really mostly there because Whedon is a '70s kid and wants to see Vision and Wanda together.

The contract only means that he has to appear in that number of movies if they ask him to. If they don't ask him to, he doesn't have to appear.

Kang isn't this way, but he should absolutely belong to both Fox and Marvel.

Ye, initially he and Elizabeth had a contract for 3 movies

Also this desustorage.org/co/search/text/3 movies contract/page/2/

>I once heard that Marvel can use Skrulls but not Super Skrulls, but I don't think that's true

It is true, Feige confirmed it. Both Marvel and Fox can use Skrulls.

I believe the standard contract is that they have the option to use you in a certain number of movies, they don't actually *have* to do it.

So presumably if they wanted ATJ to be in another movie he would have to do it, but it's their option.

...

Every time Fox introduces a sister for Pietro she seems to be kind of a shout-out to Wanda without actually being her.

So the little sister in DoFP was not Wanda, but she was wearing a tiara. The girl in Apocalypse was not Wanda, but she was a mutant with spooky powers. And a cut scene from DoFP had Pietro saying he has another sister who bothers him.

Fox doesn't seem to want to introduce Wanda (why should they, they have plenty of superpowered women including Jean Grey, who's very similar to Wanda). But they put in little shout-outs.

And now she'll end up having probably one of the most significant roles in the two upcoming Avengers movies. And there's possible demand from fans for a solo movie, assuming Olsen deems it a good enough story to pursue.

They only do that to force actors to come back for X number of movies unless that actor pays a fee.

3 or more is standard. Otherwise if you want to get someone back, you need to negotiate a contract each time - which means the very first time they're going to put their rate up, because they know you need them.

How it works is you're essentially paying them a retainer, then each time they make something for you you pay them the agreed portion of the contract they've signed - so they can't ask for more no matter how big they get in the interim, and you don't get screwed when they're already under contract with someone else and can't meet your filming dates, because going into other projects they're going to let their other employers know they have work lined up with you - so if your movies take off, you've got shotgun.

It's similar with scripting and so on - when you hear about the rights to something being sold, that's a cash payment with the promise of more up to the headline amount, depending on how far the project goes. It doesn't mean that you'd get $10m for your IP just because you nominally sold the rights for that amount - you'd only get the money in full once it entered full production.

If it weren't for this system, FOX couldn't possibly have afforded Jennifer Lawrence in 2013, or Halle Berry in 2003 and 2006; and they can't afford to re-sign JLaw right now what with XMA looking like it's struggling to reach $500m.

Sometimes people will sign longer contracts - 6 pictures, maybe more - if there's scope for the project to go on longer. The benefit of this to the actors (and directors etc) is that they've got the promise of consistent work over a very long period of time, so it frees them up to pursue less profitable but more stimulating projects.

Technically if you want Vision you need Wonder Man first. I wouldn't put too much stock in your theory.

I don't think she will get her own movie. She isn't really a solo character (as her current book is proving, at least to me).

Much more likely, if they last long enough, is a Vision and Scarlet Witch movie. That has more of a precedent in the comics.

Lizzie Olsen's career was pretty much going nowhere before she got the MCU gig (she made crap choices after her success in Martha Marcy May Marlene) so while she gives polite answers to "would you do a solo movie?" questions she's probably just thinking she doesn't want to get killed off.

Ah, but Whedon has said he doesn't like Wonder Man. (Another reason to hate him!)

He did say something in pre-AoU interviews about Wanda and Pietro being part of the Avengers DNA or something. They are very important Avengers, along with Wasp and Hank (who weren't available to him). But when he was reading the comics, Wanda and Vision were in nearly every issue and Pietro didn't appear much. No prizes for guessing which of the three he considered the most expendable.

Sorry I can't fact check everything that gets posted here, user.

I thought they killed him off because marvel wanted the movie to have a death, but couldn't bear to part with one of the characters people care about, so the settled for bootleg Flash.

Hey, remember how in Batman V Superman they killed FUCKING SUPERMAN!?

I wonder what Wanda's powers would be in Fox-Men.
That's not only thing Batman v Superman killed.

I haven't seen anything of her's apart from her MCU work and Godzilla. Was everything between Matha Marcy May Marlene and TWS really that bad?

To introduce Scarlet Witch.

>Technically if you want Vision you need Wonder Man first. I wouldn't put too much stock in your theory.

And if you need Wonder Man for Vision you need Pym for Ultron. So yeah, the theory doesn't really hold.

The only exception I can think of is Marvel Adventures where Ultron wasn't created by Pym and Vision was created partly due to Storm.

I think she's just being realistic.
Even the most famous Scarlet Witch stories would fit more an Avengers

I think a better theory mentioned is that Whedon remembers that Vision and Scarlet Witch's relationship was central to the time period of Avengers he'd probably read when he was a kid, as opposed to "I need to use Vision because I have Ultron, etc etc".

>that pic
You think she proudly watched Oldboy with her parents?

Doubtful. Her parents were probably already divorced by the time she became aware and or involved with that project.

Marvel (Whedon) wanted to use the twins, so they had to ask Fox's lawyers if that was okay. Fox said no, but then Marvel got to make their "They were Avengers first," argument and legally Fox could not keep the twins from the MCU.

In response, Fox put Quicksilver in DofP with a little sister in red (who couldn't be his twin but could also be a mutant). Marvel said to Fox, look if you're gonna be a giant bitch and use the characters just because we are then let's each just pick one. That's why Quickslav dies and the X-Men don't get a Wanda/why Phoenix shows up early.

The Olsen's parents are divorced?

20 years ago.

That's kinda Whedon's thing.

Buffy was kinda defined by introducing characters that were built up only to destory them unexpectedly.

>making up shit

>Eric meets this woman while hunting nazis
>pumps and dumps, leaves her with a son
>meets her again years later, gifts her with another child, and fucks off to fight for mutant rights
Swagneto

>Whedon probably got a lot of internal opposition over introducing two characters with shared rights (Marvel *hates* promoting characters with a Fox connection, and refuses to put Wanda or Pietro in most games, merchandise, cartoons etc).

Scarlet Witch does get merchandise though. Sure, not as much as the other MCU characters, but a helluva lot more than Quicksilver does. Last year the comic version of SW had a Marvel Legends released (and since it shared the "Maidens of Might" name with the Captain Marvel figure, it didn't need to reference Quicksilver). This year the MCU version is getting a figure. Quicksilver only got the Hasbro minifig, a Minimate, and the Hot Toys figure. Scarlet Witch got all those, Marvel Legends figures, and Funko Pops.

The issue with putting her in games and cartoons is that if they introduce her, they'll definitely have to introduce Quicksilver and if they introduce Quicksilver they're promoting Fox. Lego Avengers got away with it probably because they were specifically adapting the films.

That reminds me, did the Disney Marvel cartoons kill off characters? I haven't bothered to watch any of them since that first season of USM.

Yep. Don't know how long ago precisely. Long enough that their father remarried and has one or two other kids by his second wife.

Is the little one in here one of those two kids?

Whedon wanted to give the ending more weight. That is seriously it.

It actually has little to do with the rights issue.

Age of Ultron was one big argument between the studios and Whedon. Whedon wanted loads of crap. The studios wanted loads of crap. E.g. Whedon wanted the whole farm situation and the studios hated it. Whedon hated the Infinity Gaunlet plug ins (e.g. with Thor). It ended it some of the worst ideas slipping through.

Whedon steadily was losing control of the project. Some of his ideas were good but a lot were bad. Studio were getting anxious thinking it couldn't top the first one. Whedon decided to give the ending some more weight.

Oh yeah, forgot that QS and SW also had Lego figures for AoU, too.

Wrong, inspite of your nice dubs set.

>Erik meets this woman while hunting nazis
>pumps and dumps, leaves her with twins
>never meets her again and she gets knocked up by some other guy

If there are time shenanigans in Infinity War, they'll likely take advantage of that free movie slot.

So that little girl isn't supposed to be Wanda? My mistake

Whedon built up Hawkeye's death and killed Pietro for the same reason he put BW and Hulk together, he wants twists for the sake of having twists, he said so himself.
I'm glad he's gone.

It's entirely possible, though I can't be certain. Her halfsiblings are named Taylor and Jake. I've heard the name Taylor used as a girl's name a few times. If it's not that, it could be some other relative.

QS died because Whedon is a shitter

Nope, watch the Rogue Cut.
There's a new scene where her mother tells her to go bother her sister, and the little girl says that her sister is the one that bothers her.

>So that little girl isn't supposed to be Wanda?

Nope.

See >It's an easy thing to miss. Wanda is only loosely referenced by QS's mother and younger sister in the Rogue-cut of DOFP. They wanted you to never notice her.

>twins look like 50 year old orcs
>flat as a board
>like 1 feet smaller than Elizabeth
what went wrong

A lot of people make that mistake, but that's because it didn't get clarified until a Bryan Singer interview (he outright confirmed the little girl wasn't Wanda and that he threw in a line about Quicksilver having another sister, that got cut) and then the Rogue Cut, which put the cut line back in.

Ah, thanks

Wanda a qt.

Yes, she is, user. She is.

>Ultron telling her to get somewhere safe before tearing his heart out
Actually felt bad for him there.

This. Pietro was the easiest to kill because he couldn't kill a big name hero or Black Widow, Hawkeye would be to easy, and Scarlet Witch and Vision have been more popular than him.

>Ah, but Whedon has said he doesn't like Wonder Man. (Another reason to hate him!)

Nobody likes Wonder Man. That's why he's being relegated to easter egg status in the MCU.

>Nobody likes Wonder Man.
B-But... user, that hurts.

>Pietro just watching as he gets cucked in front of him

I kind wish they'd explore how she relates to the team. Obviously it'd be retarded for the plot.

>Watches movies with Vision
>Goes to flea-markets with Steve to buy cool old shit
>Sam takes her out to ball-games
>Nat probably taught her how to properly apply makeup
>Rhodey... took her to a flight simulator?

God, Ultron's design was dogshit

Skrulls are owned by both but the Super Skrulls are linked with F4
Madame Hydra/Viper is owned by both but X-men can only call her viper and MCU can only call her Madame Hydra
I'm sure there are a few others but I'd hope they work things out and draw a line in the sand on certain characters

>Rhodey... took her to a flight simulator?
Or they played some walking simulator, maybe

I think she probably only had any meaningful friendships with Vision, Cap and Hawkeye.

Ouch, right in the
Achilles heel

I don't know if they had drug problems but they definitely an eating disorder at some point. A lot of former child stars are a wreck in some way. Hollywood evidently isn't a great place to raise a child.

Well played, Mr. Stank.

CARLOS!

Black Widow probably taught her spy stuff and street smarts like we see in the beginning of CW.

Plus Black Widow can't have kids and gets along really well with the Barton kids, so she's probably got a slight parental/aunt/big sister thing going with SW.

Wonder how old she is considering she's everyone's daughterfu.
19?
20?

Would it be possible to make tighter pants?

Difficult to say. Her age isn't outright stated. Many think she's in her early 20s. Like the 22-24 range.

I, personally, like to go on thinking she's the same age as Olsen (27). At least until Marvel confirms otherwise.

>barefoot
>skirt dress
>slav, so she probably doesn't have underwear

Technically? Probably. But do you want her more uncomfortable than she already may have been?

Didn't she say that it took her like half an hour to put on the entire outfit?

>Hey, remember how in Batman V Superman they killed FUCKING SUPERMAN!?

Because I'm sure everyone believes that's permanent.

>barefoot

>implying thigh-high version isn't superior.

>implying you can't have both
Just give her a leg version of the things she had on her arms in AoU.

Probably not a teenager, old enough to be an Avenger (on Cap's side, Tony doesn't really care about age), probably not older than 28 tops.

Black Widow herself is just 31. I'd say Wanda is probably in her early to mid-20s. Like 20-26, but more likely 20-24 just from how they push her youth.

>assuming actor's age is character's age
That's not how that works. And 27 is too old for the daughterfu.

Don't know. Probably. I only recall her comments about the costume in relation to having to use the toilet since she had to remove most of it to do so.

Maybe next time they won't put her in tight overalls under a bustier and will actually give her a proper pair of pants.

>That's not how that works.

In most cases, you're right. But most of the cast is the same age as their actors. Nat, Clint and Sam are supposedly the same age as their actors. Tony and Rhodey are a like two years younger than Downey Jr. and Cheadle. Steve's probably physically the same age as Evans, though obviously not chronologically.

I don't think I need to say anything about Vision.

>1 year old
>looks like an almost 50 year old
>bald
>his waifu probably hates him