This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Raise your hand if "eeew.""
11945 members | you are not logged in | 21 November 2014




Tweet







October 03 2013

(SPOILER) Samuel L. Jackson reveals who is playing the Scarlet Witch in Avengers 2. "I know we're shooting in London, that James Spader is Ultron and going to be the bad guy, and that we added Ms. [Elizabeth] Olsen". Spoilers for Tuesday night's episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

Because this goes out on our social media pages etc, I've tweaked your entry to avoid confusion.
It's been known for a while now but I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that SCARLET WITCH is going to be in the next movie. SCARLET. WITCH. Written and directed by Joss Whedon. Isn't it just the best time to be a (Marvel) comics fan or what?
Saw a no cut horror movie with Elizabeth in it. She was great.
Fantastic news. This is up there with Mark Ruffalo for casting.
I recently saw Martha Marcy May Marlene and Elizabeth was so good in it she will be a great addition to the Marvel family.
I really liked her in Martha Marcy as well.
My wishful casting for Scarlet Witch was Sarah Michelle Gellar, so I'm disappointed.
Sarah is way too old for the role and also physically not a good fit for it. I havent seen anything of Elizabeth Olsen yet but I just googled her and she looks great for the part (Of course her hair needs to be dyed red). She is going to be in the Godzilla remake next year, I am gonna check that out.

I am sure she will be great as Wanda.
SLJ didn't say the first name - maybe he meant Mary-Kate or Ashley.
Am I the only one who had a heart attack and immediately hit Google, only to breathe a huge sigh of relief when they learned it wasn't one of the evil twin Olsens?

A non-evil Olsen, in a Joss Whedon summer blockbuster movie. The earth is definitely doomed. Or at least very very weird.

[ edited by apollo11 on 2013-10-03 19:04 ]
Scarlet Witch is my favourite Avenger, but I'm just not excited for this. Joss has already said she won't use her iconic headgear in the movie, which is annoying as all get out. Elizabeth Olsen is too young for this role. And oh yeah, because of the Disney/Fox debacle, they can't even portray them as the mutant children of Magneto! Ugh!!! If you can't do it right, just don't do it at all!
There's nothing evil about the Olsen twins. They are incredible billionaires and good people.
Yeah, I don't think they bother with acting anymore, they've build an empire that stretches across a variety of industries. This is good news, I too saw her in the horror flick (can't remember the name either for some reason) and she was quite good.
Silent House?
I'm happy that Elizabeth Olsen is confirmed for Avengers 2 and I would be even more happy if they could introduce Scarlet Witch in AoS. :)
Elizabeth is Mary-Kate and Ashley's sister. (And yes, Silent House).

[ edited by gossi on 2013-10-03 20:25 ]
watcherinthewoods : Last I read they didn't know he was their father, which is pretty much a guarantee they do know now.
Re that, and the headgear, it's presumably the old story true of almost all such adaptations -the movies exist in a slightly different "yniverse" from the comics. Or the TV shows as in Dr. Who, or the novels in hundreds of thousands of films worldwide :-)
That's true, but I'm a purist and would rather see Scarlet Witch as both an Avenger AND a mutant. I blame this on both Fox and Disney for not being able to compromise.

That being said, if Joss puts Vision in Avengers 2 and has him and Wanda get together, all will be forgiven. ;-)
I have a feeling that Marvel Comics will rework Quicksilver and The Scarlet Witch as Inhumans. This no doubt will have been mandated by Avengers 2.
I loved her in "Martha Marcy May Marlene." She was fantastic.

I don't know much about the Scarlet Witch, but after that movie I'd watch Olsen is just about anything. And of course I'm thrilled that another woman is joining the Avengers, as the androcentrism of most previous Marvel movies is the one major flaw in the franchise, IMO. (It was both cool and a little sad to see how excited my 13-year-old sister was when she saw Natasha in The Avengers.) Anyway, this news is all yay in my book. :-)
Really you think they will retcon them as not being mutants anymore? That would....well be a slap in the face of comic book history.

I wonder who will end up playing Quicksilver. I totally understand why they change costumes for the movies. I am a comic reader for 20 years but I still understand that movies are a different medium and what works well in comics doesnt necessary translate well to movies. Look at the Superman costume. Chris Reeve was awesome no doubt but the Superman costume in his films or Superman Returns looks ridiculous. Whereas the Man of Steel costume REALLY works perfectly for a movie. For the same reason they changed Batmans spandex into armor (and no doubt they will go for that look again in the upcoming Batman/Superman movie) or the X-Men costumes into leather. I love Wolverine to death (my most fav marvel character ever) but I really dont want to see him running around in yellow spandex in the movies. That would just make him look ridiculous.

They found great ways to create costumes for Spider-Man, Cap and Thor that are very close to the comic book versions yet differ enough that they fit into a realistic live action world in the movies. If Cap would run around in scales and spandex like in the comics, he would look ridiculous.

There is a debate of wether Thor should wear his helmet in the films and he wears it shortly in the first Thor film but I understand that it looks better on film if you see his full face and hair (Plus in the Ultimate version he doesnt wear a helmet either). And you cant ever give him feathers.

Another good example would be Green Arrow or Flash. If you make them look like in the comics on film, it would be a parody. For Smallville they changed Green Arrows look into a very cool modern design that kept the basics but really made it work on television while his look on "Arrow" is more of a modern Robin Hood look and less superhero-ey. The Flash has a full on spandex costume. Looks great in comics but will never work in live action so I am excited to see his new look on Arrow this season (Where Flash will be introduced). The Injustice game had a great look for him that could work in live action.


As for Wanda, I am sure they will go with her Ultimate-look which translates very well into live action. or her new Uncanny Avengers-outfit which also looks way more simple and elegant and not nearly as skimpy. the headdress really isnt neccessary if you put her in a red coat or leather outfit and give her red hair. Just remember: the movies are not the comics, they are just based on them.
The headdress is part of her iconic look. She's just a generic woman without it. I hate how comic book movies shy away from the classic looks that make the characters so awesome. I will never get over the ugly black outfits the X-Men wore in their movies.
You enslave yourself too much to the comics (Never thought I am ever gonna say that to anybody considering how much of a comic geek I am lol). Comics are not movies. You cant put everything 1:1 in there.

I also vehemently reject your statement about Wanda. According to you without her headdress she would be a generic woman? So you basically reduce the greatness of her character on a silly headdress? So when she forgets to wear it in the comics or everytime she isnt wering it (She isnt having one in the Ultimate universe either) she is not wanda anymore and everything else about her character doesnt matter? Sorry but I find that way of thinking pretty blind. Do you really want the characters running around in spandex outfits (in the movies) and look like a carnival parade ?

You shouldnt be so fixated on the comics when it comes to the movies and accept that they are entirely different mediums. There will always be changes. they will never adapt comics or characters 1:1 because it doesnt work and would turn non-comic readers off.
Concerning the Mutant/Inhuman question mark, Ultron, I think this explains it mighty well.
Thanks for the link but this would only mean that some mutants might be turned into Inhumans instead. However I dont get how that frees the X-Men characters from Fox-exclusivity. For instance even if Wolverine is no longer a mutant but an inhuman, he is still an X-Men related character and therefore owned by Fox for movies. wether he is mutant, Inhuman or whatnot doesnt really change anything in terms of rights.
She was terrific in Silent House, which literally revolved around her character (on a Steadicam I think).
I want my comic book movie to feel like a COMIC BOOK movie, not a comic book MOVIE. And that means Wanda with her classic headdress.

With regard to the Avengers needing more female teammates, I hope the Ant-Man movie introduces Wasp and then she joins the Avengers in Part 3.
Then you need to read the COMIC BOOK, not watch a MOVIE. jez you´re worse than the Harry Potter purists lol
plus Hawkeye didnt have his purple mask as well in the film since they used his Ultimate costume. And Wandas ultimate costume has NO headdress as well. Yet it is a comic book (She appeared like that in Ultimate X-Men and the Ultimates). So comic book doesnt always mean wanda has a headdress. comics have different versions so why should the movie feel obligated to enslave itself to one particular comic version if it can draw from all of them? You need to chill about this.
Ultron, your mission here seems to be browbeat any one who disagrees with you. So goodbye.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home