Good, Evil? Who's the Bad Guy in Wandavision?

Wandavision begins as a total ontological mystery. We've seen these characters before in a totally different context - the same cinematic universe where we had the mega-blockbuster war against Thanos so recently. So the first, massive question, is why Wanda Maximoff and Vision are in a 50s sitcom.

Over the course of the series, we've gotten at least a sense of the parameters of this weird reality - that it's limited to a certain location, and that "Geraldine" is actually the cute kid from Captain Marvel all grown up and now a badass super-science agent. And most recently, we've learned that one of the figures here was always aware and unaffected by the "Hex."

Indeed, last week's ending seemed to suggest that we finally had our true villain unmasked, but while I think you can retain that interpretation, it's possible that we've had it all wrong. Let's go into a spoiler cut to discuss it further.

Black Widow and What Makes a Supporting Role

 The first Avengers movie was shockingly effective. The MCU had been popular, but of the first five movies that preceded it, only the first, Iron Man, could really be called a classic, and perhaps only because it introduced us to the MCU (though from the start, Marvel showed that they were masters of perfect casting - Robert Downey Jr. was a hell of a get). The Incredible Hulk is dour and joyless, Thor has a fun cast in search of a plot without any sense of stakes. I actually really like Captain America: the First Avenger, though it's overshadowed by the other Captain America movies, which are some of the highlights of the MCU. And Iron Man II struggles to be memorable.

But the latter does introduce us to one of the MCU's best characters: Natasha Romanoff, played by Scarlett Johansson, aka Black Widow.

Given that the Avengers is initially comprised of six superheroes, only four of which have movies setting them up, we actually get big supporting roles out of Clint "Hawkeye" Barton in Thor and Natasha "Black Widow" Romanoff in Iron Man II before they make the team in the Avengers. (Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner actually works way better than Edward Norton's, even though he's downgraded to supporting player in his appearances.)

Even just watching clips of Iron Man II, though, the "male gaze" is profoundly focused on Black Widow, even as the movie uses that gaze as a plot point when it's revealed that she's not just some super-talented assistant, but a SHIELD plant there to evaluate Tony Stark for the Avengers Initiative. Yes, this is Scarlett Johansson, a strong contender for "most beautiful woman in the world" - I'm not disputing how hot she is - but lines like Tony's "I want one" leave a gross taste in my mouth, and I think the "we're playing with the male gaze" intention gets a bit fuzzy with "we're just exhibiting the male gaze" execution.

Indeed, one of the criticisms of the MCU has been its focus on white, male protagonists. Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and Thor (literally a god form Norse/Germanic culture - a mythos that is often, sadly, co-opted by white supremacists) are all very white and very much dudes. (Ok, Drax might dispute my calling Thor a dude.)

And the combination of Black Widow's popularity as a character and Scarlett Johansson's A+ list Hollywood notability, after The Avengers, there was a question lingering in the air: why doesn't she have her own solo movie?

Last year, we were supposed to get it - a movie centered on her, entitled Black Widow, in which she returns to Russia and seems to reconnect with figures from her time as a Soviet assassin. (The timeline here is pretty weird, unless in the MCU, the USSR lasted longer - Natasha Romanoff is established as the same age as Scarlett Johansson, who is in her mid 30s, and thus was born in the mid 80s, meaning that she was under 10 when the Soviet Union collapsed, while the flashbacks to her training suggest that it continued well into at least her teen years).

Marvel has worked on representation, at least on-screen (though Black Panther notably had a lot of Black artists behind the scenes, which I think helped give it the authentic voice which made it connect with such a wide audience) and so we got Black Panther, a non-white superhero, and Captain Marvel, a woman superhero, in Phase 3. With Wandavision giving us another woman-led story and plans for a Captain Marvel sequel, the Ms. Marvel show (starring someone who is, *gasp,* both a woman and not white) and Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, clearly Disney has recognized that diversity is profitable (hey, if we're stuck in a capitalist system, at least as the populace grows more progressive the system will have to accommodate our tastes).

So the arrival of the Black Widow movie is a bit of a case of "better late than never." Still, "late" carries a couple meanings here. And just in case you somehow never saw Avengers: Endgame and care at all about the MCU (such people must exist, right?) we'll do a spoiler cut here (SPOILERS for all existing Marvel movies).

As WandaVision goes Single-Camera, the Stakes Get Higher While the Mystery Remains

 I really like WandaVision (Wandavision? I can't recall which is the official capitalization) but I will confess a slight impatience to see some stronger progress on its central mysteries. However, one important element to the show is more thoroughly introduced this time around in the new addition to the cast (in case you didn't see last week's episode, let's do a spoiler cut.)

The Expanse Prepares For Its Endgame

 A week late, I finished season five of The Expanse, the penultimate season of one of the greatest Sci Fi shows ever. While I'm a bit concerned about the choice to end it next season, given that there is more than one book to be adapted, I'm glad that Amazon has allowed the show to double its life expectancy after its cancellation on the SyFy channel. In a just world, this show would be getting as much buzz as Game of Thrones did, but c'est la vie.

What happens in season five, and where do we end up? Surely, the balance of power has changed utterly, but the final moments of the season introduce (or, rather, re-introduce) a threat that no one, except maybe James Holden, has been thinking about.

Let's go into the spoiler cut:

Canon-Melding and Wandavision

 Ok, let's talk about the implications of the reveal in the most recent Wandavision. This is going to be major spoiler territory, so if you aren't caught up on the show, I'd caution you to sit this post out until you are unless you really don't care about spoilers.

I was never a big comic book fan as a kid - I read the paperback Tintin books, and I think the only superheroes I was ever really into were the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which I didn't even really think of in the same context. I only really started reading non-Tintin comics when I was in college and read through Neil Gaiman's Sandman series and, of course, Watchmen.

When I was in my last year of summer camp the summer before I headed off to high school, we were taken to the movie theater at the nearby mall, as would happen maybe twice a month. The only remotely interesting option for me was X-Men, which I enjoyed more than I thought I would.

A Very Special Guest Star Has Profound Implications for the MCU

 The latest episode of Wandavision, A Very Special Episode, synthesizes last week's total break from the decade-by-decade climb through sitcom history with its previously-established conventions. So Wanda, Vision, and their rapidly maturing boys are now in a Reagan-era 1980s sitcom, full of teachable moments and "that one wacky character" who always busts in and gets applause from the audience.

But things are starting to break down. Not only have Billy and Tommy aged themselves up first to 5 and then to 10 (the latter to be old enough for a new puppy) but also some of Wanda's control over the sitcom reality is breaking down as well - the day changes from Saturday to a weekday, which justifies Vision's presence at work.

Meanwhile, on the outside, the SWORD team is trying to figure out how to reach Wanda. Monica, realizing that her own bullet-proof vest was simply transformed into her 1970s pants, sends a drone made of 1980s technology so that it won't be changed by the hexagonal energy field. She uses this drone to talk to Wanda, but unbeknownst to her, Hayward has armed the drone and tries to use it to take Wanda out.

It's then that Wanda emerges from Westview, all-powerful Scarlet Witch that she is, and tells them to back the hell away. Monica tries to appeal to her, to try to help her, but Wanda isn't having it and returns.

However, Vision is starting to grow suspicious - after an earlier scene in which Agnes wants to take a scene over because Vision's skepticism is against the "script" they're meant to follow. After accessing e-mail through the rudimentary 1980s internet, he unlocks his co-worker's mind, who seems to be in a state of horrified pain at what has been done to make him comply with this reality.

The boys go after their dog, who Agnes finds, apparently dead from eating the leaves of her azalea bush. Now, Agnes has been... weird this whole episode. Not only did she suggest a new run at the early scene, but she also seems unfazed by the boys' age-changing.

It is also in this scene in which Wanda tells the boys she can't simply un-do death, despite it looking like that's exactly what she did with Vision.

The episode ends with Vision confronting Wanda over the weirdness of Westview - Vision has no memories that extend prior to it, and when she literally has the credits roll to try to get out of the argument, he persists. Eventually, she confesses that she doesn't know exactly what's going on: like why there are no children in the town apart from theirs, and even how this weird reality began.

And then, the doorbell rings. And Wanda claims it's not her doing it. She goes to answer the door, and we see who's there, starting with the back of his head, and it's clear that Pietro, Wanda's dead brother, is standing there.

And then, the most batshit crazy thing happens when we see his face:

This is not Quicksilver as we knew him in Age of Ultron. This is Evan Peters' Quicksilver, from the X-Men movies.

Now, we know that once Disney bought 20th Century Fox, the rights to the X-Men came under the same umbrella as the MCU, so the longstanding "no mutants" issue ceased to be one.

Now, Quicksilver in the X-Men movies was A: only introduced in Days of Future Past (which I think is even set in the 80s... like this episode) and "Peter" Maximoff appears to be an American. He was also, actually, a much more popular character than his MCU counterpart.

While one might have expected the X-Men movies to simply be swept under the rug with a big reboot, they've been fairly popular.

So basically, is Evan Peters' Quicksilver truly now part of the MCU? Or is this a bit of stunt casting?

Notably, the next Doctor Strange movie has the subtitle "The Multiverse of Madness," and we know that Wanda will be a major character within that one. Perhaps the entire X-Men universe will be canonized within the MCU, but just as a different universe.

This is some crazy bullshit, and I'm here for it.

Nearly 13 Years On, the MCU Continues to Astound Me

 Many a gallon of digital ink has been spilled over the proliferation of superhero movies. Many complain of their dominance, and the fear that medium-budget "serious, adult" movies are being forced to take a back seat in favor of the latest effects-extravaganza.

I suppose you could trace the current (though now 2-decade-plus) surge in the genre back to 2000's X-Men, followed shortly by Sam Raimi's Spider-Man and then Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. Obviously, though, the real game-changer was Jon Favreau's Iron Man in 2008, which was the first movie out of Marvel Studios and launched the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I don't begrudge those who don't like these movies. If you're not into big action-set-pieces, fantastical soft sci-fi (that has, in some films, become true fantasy) and that particular ratio of quippiness to action, I get it. I'll also allow that some of the character moments aren't allowed to hit as hard given the necessities of keeping the franchise going - Captain America: Civil War, climaxes with a devastating falling-out between Steve Roger and Tony Stark, but ends with a promise from Rogers to Stark that when push comes to shove, he'll be there to back him up, undercutting, a bit, the gravity of the film.

But the MCU just kind of works, though, doesn't it? It's the biggest film franchise in history and puts butts in seats (less so in this plague time) and tends to get pretty good reviews from critics as well (though the folks who are sick of these movies might also complain that critics have given them too easy a pass.)

There have certainly been crossovers before, and spin-offs, but I can't name any other film project that was structured quite like the MCU before it: multiple series within a broader franchise that take place within the same continuity even if the stories don't always overlap. The Guardians of the Galaxy encountering Ego the Living Planet doesn't have anything to do with Killmonger's desire to turn Wakanda into a colonial power in order to punish the Western world for doing just that centuries earlier, but the two do happen within the same universe, and that's what allows Rocket Raccoon to fight off Thanos' forces when they attack Wakanda.

The Shard Universe is something others have tried to do, but what's shocking is that they've basically all met with at best mixed results. DC, which doesn't have its own studio but does all their films through Warner Brothers, were the obvious people to try to replicate this. After all, just as Tony Stark and Steve Rogers team up occasionally, Superman and Batman often do likewise in the comics.

But while DC has made enough money with its DCEU to keep making them, critics have been much less positive on the results. If I recall correctly, the DC movies are Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Justice League, Shazam, Suicide Squad, Birds of Prey, Wonderwoman 1984, and kind of Joker.

Of these, I think the first Wonder Woman was well-received, and Birds of Prey I heard was decent, and Shazam was fun (full disclosure, it's the only one I've seen.)

Tonally, though, the movies are all over the place. Initially, the tone was set by Zack Snyder, whose sensibilities have always been "dark and gritty" first and foremost.

Perhaps we should blame Christopher Nolan, whose dark-and-gritty Batman movies were, at the time, a refreshing change of pace after the high-camp of the 90s Joel Schumacher ones.

Now, to be frank, my armchair quarterback analysis of what happened with the DC movies is that decisions were made by businesspeople rather than creatives. Consider the following:

The MCU had four movies to establish its headlining Avengers: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America: the First Avenger, as well as Iron Man II, before The Avengers came out. And yes, among these, three were not great (though Thor I'll concede established that Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston were both good in the roles even if the movie itself wasn't great. The Incredible Hulk is a bit of a slog while Iron Man II was a little all over the place tonally - though at least we got Don Cheadle in that one as Rhodey, who I like better in the role.)

Still, we had a full movie, and in one case two, to establish who these characters were before we threw them together. We established Tony Stark's core of believing that as long as he's the smartest guy in the room, he's invincible. We've established Steve Rogers' core of uncompromising ethics and morals. We've established Thor's hubristic might. And what worked so well about the Avengers was that the main conflict was less the invading CGI army, but the challenges of getting these larger-than-life figures to actually function together as a team.

This, by the way, is huge: the conflicts (at least in the best MCU movies) are centered on the characters as humans (or Asgardians, but you get it) as well as superheroes. That makes the individual movies mostly good (I think pretty much since Age of Ultron, I'd grade every movie in the franchise as a B or higher) but it also allows for character dynamics that really enrich the whole franchise.

Consider, for example, Steve Rogers' journey: he begins as a literal embodiment of idealism and heroism ("I don't like bullies,") and is pointed at the most unambiguously evil regime in modern human history. But when he discovers that Hydra more or less Operation Paperclipped its way into America, he lost faith that the structures and institutions he once served could actually be trusted. As such, when the Sokovia Accords are presented, he doesn't think they can trust the establishment to govern their operations.

On the flip side, Tony Stark begins as an egomaniac, and over the course of his movies and experience, he's learned that he can't simply go it alone, that he needs others to check his power and keep him doing the right thing. And so, he winds up embracing the restrictions that the Sokovia Accords would place on them. Both have grown, but in doing so, they've sort of grown past one another in different directions.

The DCEU's equivalent movie: Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, was the second film in the franchise. We'd had one (polarizingly dark) Superman movie to at least get this version of Superman, but then no movie to establish this new version of Batman to see how a conflict might form between them. Marvel didn't put its superheroes against each other (at least in any serious way) until we'd already seen them team up and each had gotten at least two movies of their own to show how their journey brought them to that conflict.

Disney bought Marvel in 2009 - the first step in their campaign of global domination (they own 20th Century Fox now, which has interesting implications for the X-Men franchise and also for, you know, monopoly law) - and certainly, they've benefited tremendously from the success of the MCU.

What I think is fascinating, though, is that they haven't been as successful with the other enormous franchise they bought: Star Wars.

The Star Wars sequel trilogy has, I think, since Rise of Skywalker came out, been seen as something of a failure by fans and critics. Now, granted, the Star Wars fanbase is infamously unpleasable, but I think we can identify some serious flaws: The first movie, the Force Awakens, introduced some cool new characters, but put them through a retreaded plot. The Last Jedi, then, was extremely polarizing, as it deconstructed various aspects of the franchise. Rise of Skywalker, however, united fans because everyone kind of hated it - it abandoned the ambiguities of the second film and basically just gave us the same stuff over again (Since Star Trek Into Darkness, I've come to regard J J Abrams as a hack).

Disney has tried to branch out Star Wars as a broader cinematic universe, but to mixed success. Rogue One was a starkly bleak decidedly stand-alone war movie that was, on one hand, ballsy, but on the other hand, certainly did not expand the possibility of ongoing series with those characters. Solo, a Star Wars Story, on the other hand, was basically a parody of unnecessary prequels, seemingly answering every question you never had about Han Solo (for instance, I would have been satisfied if Solo was just his name, you know, from, like, his parents) while also setting up a separate series that never took shape.

Of course, unlike the DCEU or the Universal "Dark Universe" or any other of these attempts, this is also Disney. Now, yes, Disney's a huge company, but you'd think they could look to Marvel Studios and see how they managed to be so successful.

Here's my theory: Keven Feige. Now, that's not exactly a secret: he's been the one credited with the MCU's success, but I think there's another element at work here:

Consider Edgar Wright. Wright is one of my favorite directors - his "Blood and Cornetto" trilogy are three classic comedies, and Baby Driver, despite the revelations of depravities of certain members of its cast, is a fantastic work of intricate cinematic storytelling.

Famously, Edgar Wright wound up quitting Ant-Man over creative differences, and the film was given to a lesser-known director.

And while I'd love to be able to see what Ant-Man Edgar Wright might have made, I also sort of get it.

While The Avengers (Avengers Assemble in the UK) was a revelation, some of the biggest successes to follow it in the MCU have been directed by the Russo Brothers. Their background is in TV - they actually directed episodes of some of my favorite TV comedies: Arrested Development and Community. The point is, these are people who are good at stepping in to direct work that is someone else's creative baby.

Wright did do some TV, but it was Spaced, a series that he had creative control over.

I think what is odd, but also effective, with the MCU, is that this sort of series is a producer's medium.

Looking at Star Wars, The Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker are clearly JJ Abrams movies, while the Last Jedi undeniably has Rian Johnson's stamp on it. Their conflict in vision of the franchise - Abrams wanting to simply re-make the movies he loved in his youth while Johnson wanting to reexamine the mythos of Star Wars from an adult perspective - gave the sequels their disjointed and inconsistent feel.

Indeed, much of my problem with Rise of Skywalker was not so much the choices that were made, but the choices that were unmade - if improv is all about "yes, and," Abrams' response to the Last Jedi was "no, but..." (I'm still really bummed that Rey had to be descended from some established character.)

Having a primary auteur at the center of your cinematic universe seems like a good first step, though we'll have to see if someone else can match Kevin Feige's skill at it.

Now, the MCU itself is in a weird transition period. With Tony Stark's and Steve Rogers' stories finished, not to mention the untimely death of Chadwick Boseman and thus his T'challa (they've announced that they will not simply re-cast him, meaning that Black Panther 2 will probably focus on the search for a worthy successor) there's a new question of who the story will focus on.

We don't even really know if there will be more Avengers movies, or if perhaps some other super-team will form. While WandaVision is giving us our first (wonderfully weird) look at a post-Endgame (well, post Spider-Man Far From Home) MCU, and presumably when the Black Widow movie actually gets to come out (wear your fucking masks, people! I mean, if not to save other peoples' lives, at least so we can see that goddamn movie in theaters!) we'll find out if Natasha is truly gone or if there will be some comic-book-fuckery that allows Black Widow to come back from her heroic sacrifice in Endgame.

Still, whatever the future holds, the 22-movie, 11-year project from Iron Man to Endgame is something unique in cinematic history, and one I think we'll be studying in the years to come.