Joss Whedon on ‘Avengers 2′ Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver Powers

Published 1 year ago by

With the recent news that Bryan Singer is casting the roles of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch for X-Men: Days of Future Past presumably designed to one-up the reports that Joss Whedon is using the same characters in The Avengers 2, anyone expecting some kind of half-cocked, defensive response from Whedon will have to look elsewhere. Singer’s news came hot on the heels of Whedon’s confirmation that the characters would show up in the sequel to his blockbuster, but the details are still under wraps.

During an appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon on May 24th in order to promote his upcoming ultra-low-budget passion project, a modern-garb adaptation of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, Fallon asked about the brother and sister sometime-heroes and why Whedon included them.

Watch the whole video above, but talking specifically about Quicksilver and his sister the Scarlet Witch, Whedon had this to say:

“Besides the fact that I grew up reading them, their powers are very visually interesting. One of the problems I had on the first one was everybody basically had punchy powers. [Quicksilver]’s got super speed. [Scarlet] can weave spells and a little telekinesis, get inside your head. There’s good stuff that they can do that will help sort of keep it fresh.”

Joss Whedon on Scarlet Witch Quicksilver powers 1 Joss Whedon on Avengers 2 Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver Powers

Interestingly, Whedon never once acknowledges the fact that these same characters will appear in Days of Future Past nor says anything which will fuel the swirl of questions many fans no doubt have regarding this fact. True, his real reason for appearing on Fallon’s show was to promote Much Ado About Nothing, but his measured response suggests he knew there would be an Avengers 2 question, and he was completely prepared.

Due to a complicated rights agreement between Fox – who owns the movie rights to the X-Men – and Marvel, Singer’s film can use the characters since they are the children of main X-villain Magneto and part of the established mutant universe. Whedon can include the characters if they are never acknowledged as mutants or part of the X-Men universe as a whole. His reasons for including them actually makes perfect sense when explained this way – infusing the Avengers with a variety of superhero powers feels like an organic way to expand the universe even further, rather than an expanded cameo in an already-crowded cast of mutant characters (as Singer’s news seems to be).

With reports that the origins of the duo will be re-imagined (they’ll be British this time around, rather than Magneto’s Eastern European offspring), Whedon clearly already has a specific approach in mind regarding these two and how they can be utilized as a counter-point to the Avengers: “You know, they had a rough beginning. They’re interesting to me because they sort of represent the part of the world that wouldn’t necessarily agree with The Avengers. So they’re not there to make things easier. I’m not putting any characters in the movie that will make things easier.”

Joss Whedon on Scarlet Witch Quicksilver powers 2 Joss Whedon on Avengers 2 Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver Powers

While rumors abound that Saoirse Ronan (Hanna) is the model for Scarlet Witch’s re-design, Whedon also noted that they’re casting the role now. This means that they will be also be finding an actor to play Quicksilver – a character to be played by American Horror Story star Evan Peters in Singer’s film. This either means the moviegoing public will be treated to two sets of actors playing the same characters in two big-budget blockbusters opening within less than a year of each other – which would prove confusing, to say the least – or Whedon’s characters will significantly differ from the source material or there really might be some kind of crossover between the rival movie universes, just as Days of Future Past producer Lauren Shuler Donner has stated she would like to see.

So are these just offhand remarks by Whedon? Is he shooting back at Singer by not acknowledging the X-Men news? Is this just another red herring? Stay tuned for more details as these maybe-parallel projects develop.

Much Ado About Nothing opens on June 7th, 2013. X-Men: Days of Future Past will premiere on July 14th, 2014, and The Avengers 2 will open on May 1st, 2015.

_____

Source: Late Night with Jimmy Fallon [via Comic Book Movie]

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the avengers 2

208 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Just out of curiosity, I reviewed Beast’s character progression and realized that the original character didn’t become furry until after the original X-Men comic was canceled (in Amazing Adventures). His first team as the furry blue Beast was The Avengers.

    I actually liked him on the team (especially when John Byrne was drawing it) and I think he didn’t really interact closely with the new X-Men issues because they had Nightcrawler (and too many similarities). Beast didn’t go back to an X title until a bit into the X-Factor stint.

    With all the legalities regarding Superman’s ownership being broken down into *costume* elements, not long ago, it almost makes me wonder if Beast could fall into the same joint ownership situation that Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are in, especially as the “blue, furry” version…

    • the problem here is that beast is property of Fox, therefore Marvel’s not able touse him…

  2. “Whedon can include the characters if they are never acknowledged as mutants or part of the X-Men universe as a whole. ”

    The second part I can see. Do you have anything valid to support the claim of the first?

    How far can the acknowledgment stretch? Meaning if they were explained to have been born with their ‘power’ but they did not activate till they hit puberty would that be the same thing?

    Again im looking for any information that does not allow the term mutant or reference to them being mutants existing.

    This is a news site can we get the news on this?

    • Yikes, I though I spelled this out for you before.  There is no deal to be found that actually says “mutant”.  However, here is the deal that Fox made with Marvel:

      The 1993 Agreement.  In October 1993, Marvel and Fox signed an agreement (the “1993 Agreement”) pursuant to which Marvel licensed to Fox all the rights that Fox may require in order to produce, distribute, exploit, advertise, promote, and publicize theatrical motion pictures based on the “X-Men” comic book series.   The “X-Men” comic book series, referred to in the Agreement as the “Property,” includes the X-Men Characters, specifically the “core” Characters and the Characters of the “X-Universe”;  their origin stories;  storylines from individual comic books;  and “all other elements relating to the Property and the Characters.”

      Let’s talk about “all other elements relating to the Property and Characters.”. Mutation, as it exists in X-Men comics is the source of all the characters super-powers.  If another film studio attempts to use characters from Marvel Comics and refers to them as “mutants”, that will be seen as an infringement on Fox’s rights and it will be a GUARANTEED lawsuit by Fox.  I’m not telling you Fox will win that lawsuit, but there will be one.  Marvel Studios and Disney do not want an unnecessary lawsuit when one can be so easily avoided by changing the origins of the two characters.  They’ve done it before and they will do it again.

    • In fact, let me provide you with a very dumbed down version of what that phone call was probably like between the two studios:

      Disney: Hey. Can we use mutants?

      Fox: Not unless you want to see us in court.

      Disney: Okay. Just checkin’.

      • BRAVO! That was hilarious, I just spilled my coffee… Thanks for the laugh!

  3. Just more proof that Singer sucks.

  4. If done properly (say both actor and actress playing Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch) it could tie in the entire Marvel Universe. It’d be very cool if these characters were cast the same. If done differently it will feel sort of odd and give you that feeling of Hulk being played by Ed Norton and Rhodey being played by two different actors in Iron Man 1 & 2. I hope for the same casting and Fox & Disney doing the wise thing by having the same actors for these parts. I mean I know it’s superheroes but can’t the studios grow up and do what’s right for business? Tying in the Marvel Universe has obviously helped as Iron Man 3 seemed to benefit from The Avengers. Maybe X-Men Days of Future Past can do the same and Avengers 2 pick up that momentum. This is why it would have been best if all the movies were under Marvel Studios they wouldn’t have to play these games.

  5. Has it been overlooked that Singer has already significantly altered the history of the X-Universe (not to mention his turning Superman into a “Baby Daddy Peeping Tom Stalker”)?

    He’s the Tim Burton of the Comic-to-Movie genre.

    As far as the 1993 agreement, it’s not rocket science: call them “Wanda” and “Peter” (since Joss is changing their history from East European to British.

    Defense could argue that Singer’s revision of the history/characters since 1993 actually serve to legally protect, for example:

    A British Male named Peter who discovered his incredible speed while being chased through Piccadilly Square by a gang of Neo-Nazi Skinheads. Later that night as he’s leaving his sister Wanda’s flat, Peter is surprised and knocked unconscious by the same gang. The shock of what Wanda sees from her window causes her to go into a fugue state from which her subconscious manifests its own punishment on the attackers while simultaneously lifting Peter’s body to safety inside.

    In short, Bryan Singer’s revisions have been so substantial that they triggered “Scènes à Faire” (Doctrine of Merger). Even without putting the whole blame on Singer, all anyone has to do is to concentrate on making the characters sufficiently distinguishable from the (alleged) source character.

    Hell, Joss could name the siblings “Paul and Wanda Mutante” who are partners in a law firm (“Mutante & Associates”) specializing in Intellectual Property with, as a former adversary describes:

    “… going after adversaries with everyone in their firm, like some kinda evil brotherhood, and usually getting the maximum off their target”

    Courts have reaffirmed scènes à faire”/Doctrine of Merger without fail since Kal-El sued Ralph Hinkle in 1981 (Warner Bros. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 654 F.2d 204)

    … how do you all think Tim Kring got away with “Heroes”?

    • Tim Burton is the Tim Burton of the comic-to-movie genre; he made two Batman films years ago. And Singer is nothing like Burton. Burton has a more defined vision (albeit quirky) and his two Batman movies were executed rather well (Burton’s Catwoman was by far more memorable than Nolan’s).

      Burton is more Goth, where Singer’s directing comes off like an Emo whiner with far too much estrogen as witnessed by the dreadfully rehashed and mopey Superman Returns.

  6. Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch were with the brotherhood before the Avengers.

    • yes.

      what was your point?

  7. I just made myself giggle thinking about filming on the set of Avengers 2:

    Whedon: Scarlet, you’re up now for your close-up shot.

    Scarlett Johansson: Who? Me? I’m not in this scene!

    Whedon: Not you, Scarlett… the other Scarlet, the witch.

    Johannsson: What did you call me?!

  8. I have always disapproved of Bryan Singer returning to the X-Men franchise, especially as director and it is justified almost as quickly as it is announced. There are 100s of mutants to use besides those 2 for ‘Days of Future Past’ which, they didn’t even have a part in really, There are 100s of characters that can be used in Avengers, this is a publicity stunt to drive interest. Marvel has had a it’s eye on getting back all the rights, if they keep making money they will. This is a hint towards that big cash cow they have worked so hard to fatten up. 2015 is essentially money in the bank for both studios, petty bickering over redundant characters, (Minus House of M, of course.) is redundant. Ellen Page as Shadowcat is just about the only reason to see Singer’s next attempt at destroying all interest in anything mutant. Rogue will not fly and Silver Surfer will not have his last chance to reason with Thanos conversation so who cares?

  9. i never understood why Joss Whedon chose the 2 Avengers that had NO SuperPowers to put in the movie when he could’ve chosen them with Powers, it makes sense now to have QUICKSILVER because he is basically like THE FLASH of Marvel and SCARLET WITCH is Marvel’s answer to WONDER WOMAN, Avengers 2 will be very very exciting it seems now that they will include these 2, i CAN’T wait….

    • You are absolutely right that Quicksilver is the Flash, but Scarlet Witch and Wonder Woman doesn’t work. That would be Ms. Marvel. The Witch stands on her own. She’s OG gangsta.

    • And, This is not a personal attack mind you, What’s wrong with “no superpowers”? Batman takes on criminals everyday as a masked “vigilante” on the mean streets of Gotham. And don’t say that He’s just a glorified cop, because, in the comics, Batman has taken on (and won against on numerous occasions) people who Superman has almost never been able to beat, and when Supes’ has beaten them, it was merely on writer’s whim. Honestly, being an avid comic book reader and lover, the only way I can see you being able to say that is if you’ve never picked up a Batman comic in your life. Iron Man also has no “superpowers”, or had none up until Extremis in the comics (If you saw Iron Man 3, the adapted version, then that would suffice as well) Up until that point, he only had his intellect and his suit, and he still fought and won (50/50) against his own rogues gallery on countless occasions. You could also make the argument that Iron Man’s Suit WAS his power, or was the source of his powers, much like Mutation is the source of the X-Men’s, and his God-Like Heritage and Hammer are the source of Thor’s. Against that, I can say that a “powerless” character like Batman in his insider suit would be able to beat Iron Man, Extremis or no. Of course, Batman wasn’t the point of your comment, but was merely the proof of my Hypothesis. (What’s wrong with having no superpowers?) One last thing. Having no superpowers, or being an “everyman” in a spectacular world, full of superpowered heroes and threats, opens up a whole world of exigency when the writer opens a plot point using that character, filling the audience with a sense of suspense and drama that is not present when characters who are “Invulnerable” or “Immortal” are on-screen. I mean you no offense.