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. They aren’t the only two in the Marvel universe who can run really fast or distort reality… why use the one’s that you don’t have complete access too?

    • Cause they were in the Avengers in the comics? Dumbass

      • No reason to call him that, dude. He was just asking a question.

        • LOL. It’s okay, I’m obviously a dumbass for asking why use characters that have to be completely changed to non-recognition over characters that you don’t have to do that with at all.

          I apologize for my stupidity.

          • again, because they were in the avengers, dumbass. and bryan singer is a terrible director his versions don’t even really exist.

            • How do you even know patrick? did you even see DOFP? if so please tell us what happened.

              Bryan Singer is a great director I loved x-men 1 and 2 those were great films.

              • I love lamp..

                • Ha.

            • Brian Singer directed X1, wrote/produced/directed X2 and wrote/produced First Class. The best in the X-Men franchise, so don’t go around calling Bryan Singer a terrible director.

              • +1

              • Singer came up with the story…not the screenplay and he was 1 0f 8 producers on it-if anything he got a paycheck,he works for fox duh

                also he’s a good director-not a great one…matthew vaughn is a better director and he’s only got 4 movies under his belt…

                at the end of the day, Whedon’s versions of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch will be remembered,not the atrocity that Singer is filming right now…
                Truth: the best Xmen movie was First Class..it was the only one that got it mostly right the first time…

            • Wait a minute… Wasn’t Spider-Man a part of the Avengers once?
              So how come they don’t have movie rights for him too?

              • because marvel sold the rights to sony once upon a time…
                sony was able to keep them because they were consistently using the character…
                the idea is a company has to be involved in putting out a product based on the character or characters that they paid the rights for otherwise it reverts back to the original owner..
                thats why FOX had to give back the rights to Daredevil and Sony and New Line gave back Ghost Rider and Blade…No work, no rights..
                Also theyd have to renegotiate a contract between companies to have even a cameo of spiderman..with Sony-they have a better relationship,FOX on the other hand like to play hardball as if they;re sh*t doesn’t stink..
                FOX still has the FF and XMEN..so as long as they keep putting
                abominations of those characters and keep making money off of them,they’ll still have the rights..

        • si that the opposite of a SmartA**?

          • Why, I spelled “Is” wrong (“Si”….I must be turning Mexican! And here I thought I was Danish/Welsh/Scottish/English! You learn something new every day…now please pass the tacos!).

            • LMAO goldi! this site needs to ban those disrespectful mexicans!!

            • You know mexicans ain’t the only people who speak Spanish?

              • I spic Mexican: let’s see..there is Taco, Burrito, Marlboro, Winston, Green Card…why la Cuckoo My Racha, I almost sound like the Taco bell Chihuahua or juan Valdez or somebody!

                • Oops…I meant “speak” Mexican..sheesh, I better shut up and just go watch Zorro or something.

                  • Blatant racism… eh Goldilocks?

                    Stay classy.

                    • You know, I usually don’t let these type of comments get to me, but Goldilocks sounds even more ignorant than most. The site’s called “Screen Rant” not “Make Racist Comments For No Reason”. Go air your racist sh*t somewhere else.

      • They were in the Avengers, but making then not mutants or magneto’s children then why use them, those two things are core to who they are. YOu wouldn’t have Iron Man without the armor.

        • they simply won’t mention how they got their powers

          • They can alter it to obtaining their powers from terregen mist exposure rather than x genes. Either make then inhumans and introduce through them that whole world to the MCU with an Inhuman movie in phase 3 to further explore it. Or just tweak the mists so that human exposure isnt toxic and can result in powers. The mists are still introed in the MCU leading to a less direct but still substantial connection to the inhumans (and possible phase 3 film). Before they greenlit GotG Feigne talked them up constantly in interviews, now he’s doing the same to Inhumans. Have a feeling it’s not a coincidence. would be an easy way for the MCU to get “mutants” and much needed power set variety (or origins since up to now its mire of less limited to power via technology/science or they are aliens) without calling them that.

        • Neither being Magneto’s children (which they weren’t for nearly thirty years) nor being mutants are central to their characters. Being fast and altering probability are central. They could make them Inhumans and that would be fine; they can do tons of things with them. But these two features are less central than everyone is making them out to be.

          • Agree with you Parmandur. Also in keeping with Singer I doubt they will even be called by name in days of futures past. To me it seems like theyll just be a cameo at some point during a major confrontation with say sentinels in the alternate future. So other than similar powers people of the gen audience wont even make a connection between these characters and the ones in avengers 2

          • It IS central : in the 616 they live as orphan, relying in each other during their childhood and when they realize who their father is, quicksilver outright rejects everything he is. in ultimate quicksilver suffers from being completely despised by his father. In both case one can say their incestuous relationship has been powered by this extremely shaky relationship with their sole parent.

            • It is waaaay, waaaay less central than what Marvel has shown themselves to be willing to change, at any rate. :)

          • Exactly. During 90% (or more)of their tenure with The Avengers, the term mutant rarely ever came up. Most of the time, people even saw Scarlet Witch as a sorceress and her mutant powers were usually tied up with them, typically just being referred to as her “hex” power.

            Saying that their “mutant” heritage is core to their backgrounds is like saying it should be to Namor, the Submariner…

        • Scarlet Witch is the most interesting character on the Avengers. I think they need her in the movies by whatever means possible. I trust Joss not to butcher the origins. The mutant thing is all much ado about nothing. I know, that was stupid. I never claimed to be smart.

        • whedon should just do it the way the characters are in the books and not worry about what fox does…. fox will screw up the character anyway..

      • @Miles Morales
        Your comic book sucks.

      • a chill pill will do you good.

    • Because they’re avengers

      • …okay…

        I would be all for that argument if Marvel had not just given us IM 3, where they made it clear that they have no problem giving the finger to source material.

        I’m sorry, but you can no longer use the “because that’s how it is in the comics” argument anymore in regards to Marvel.

        • And why not? Every studio has changed things from the comics. They’re keeping the source material in mind, but changing thing they don’t believe will translate well.

          • @Tay

            That too.

            Honestly, I never saw IM3 as a middle finger to fans at all, the changes worked for me personally so I’m mature enough to cope when movies deviate slightly from the comic books.

            • Nobody said it was a middle finger to the fans: I said it gave the middle finger to source material, which it absolutely did.

              That seems to be the plan from here out, if they are hell-bent in including these characters in the MCU.

            • Dazz,

              It has nothing to do with immaturity. It has to do with the fact that the Mandarin was made out to be a joke and basically ignored that they introduced the Ten Rings in the first Iron Man.

              • @Will

                Mandarin wasn’t a complete joke though, he was a total badass that went toe to toe with Stark without having to suit up first.

                The guy that Kingsley played wasn’t The Mandarin, he was a puppet. It made complete sense to not have a frail looking guy like that suddenly suit up and fight or use technology to fight with a bunch of rings.

                What IM3 did was take what we had in TDK movies where Batman is a symbol and turn it into the opposite view where Mandarin was a symbol of fear and hatred.

                I actually liked what they did in the movie more than what they would’ve done if they’d followed the source material to the letter and I just think all the hatred comes from those who don’t seem mature enough to handle the kind of themes that Shane Black and Drew Pierce gave us.

                That’s not meant in an insulting way, it’s just that I see the argument being similar to how us English would try to explain our National Health Service being open to all regardless of wealth, age, gender or race and then you guys scratching your heads and saying “Wait…you DON’T pay for your health care?”

                It’s that differing mentality thing that lets some of us see things others don’t. Another example is that in a recent MOS trailer, I saw a movie about outcasts feeling like they belong while one of my friends just saw an awesome movie with explosions and lots of action.

                • I agree with you, but to Iron Man the Mandarin is one of his biggest foes, so to the comic book fans it set it up and then turned it into a symbol of terror and not the real think.
                  Which is perfectly fine, but they could have used a different character, one not so ingrained in the history of Iron Man.
                  It was still a pretty good movie and I can accept that the cinematic universe is different than the comics. I wouldn’t want to see a movie exactly like the comics, because then the element of surprise isn’t there.
                  But nobody can deny that the movie Mandarin was a large let down. Seeing him with actual rings would have been extremely amazing, I mean there is so much power behind each of them.
                  I respect and disagree with what Shane Black did, but also am able to accept it for what it is.
                  I can see that it is meant to show how terror can be implemented in many forms, but yet again I wish it wasn’t the character of the Mandarin who turned into this symbol.

                  • i can deny that it was a letdown. i liked it. someone posted in a different IM3 bashing thread that he was a reverse compilation character. trever has the appearance, while killian had his villainy. i thought that was the most apt description. it is what it is, let’s move on already.

                  • As someone who hadn’t ever read Iron Man and had no preconceptions about the Mandarin, I thought that IM3 was an excellent film, one of the best recent comic book movies.

                    However, with The Hobbit, in which case I had read the source material, I was very disappointed with the film. So I can understand both sides.

              • Actually I couldnt tell if he was manipulating tony stark or not.

            • Please IM 3 was terrible

        • They were Avengers in the past which makes it easier for Avengers fans who would otherwise complain that it wasn’t Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in the movie.

          Sir Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender have used English accents when playing Magneto and it’s entirely likely that his kids could’ve been born and raieed in England yet still have Eastern European names (much like how people from Boston like to claim to be Irish despite the fact they haven’t had family coming from the Republic of Ireland since maybe 200+ years ago and are in fact 100% American).

          That way, they can still be foreign to a lot of audiences but most of the people watching the movie won’t have any idea that they are Magneto’s kids in the comic books.

          It also helps that they come from a different part of the world so that Joss can have a total culture clash with the Avengers team but not have to alienate US audiences with an accent they may not fully understand.

          Those are just my guesses anyway, maybe Joss has his own reasons that none of us could ever imagine?

          • I don’t think everyone from Boston likes to claim they’re Irish other than people from Boston who are from Irish descent. And it might not matter to those people it’s been 200+ as you say, ’cause that doesn’t change the fact that great-great grandpappy O’Sullivan was from Ireland.

        • Being creative with the source material is hardly giving it the middle finger.

          • Yes it is. If you remake the Godfather and have the cat be the actual godfather the whole time you aren’t “being creative” with the source material… you are giving it the finger.

            • Hey Dr. M,

              Just so you don’t feel so ganged up on, I fully agree what Shane Black did with The Mandarin was snubbing both the canon and the fans. And the fact that Marvel fully signed off on the “twist” was a bit disheartening. My only hope is, considering all the backlash, that they will think twice before deviating so much in future movies.

              The reason why is was done however was to sell tickets, pure and simple. I fully admit if I had no clue who the characters were that it was a fun and interesting plot idea but to use and basically toss IM’s most iconic villain aside was just……yeah. I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that if you can’t satisfy both the fan and layman alike, then you have failed on some level. It’s just laziness that you aren’t willing to go the extra mile and make everyone happy (imho of course). By doing things like this Marvel might be making a bundle now but they are risking much by alienating their fans, you know, the ones who have supported them for 50+ years and who might not be around once the Superhero movie bubble has finally burst.

              back on topic and your original question though……

              “They aren’t the only two in the Marvel universe who can run really fast or distort reality… why use the one’s that you don’t have complete access too?”

              While they aren’t the only two who have those powers, they are two of the very first recruits to the original Avengers. Please look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avengers_members See when they were made members? They absolutely deserve to be in there, even before Black Panther and Black Widow who is further down on the list. (We won’t talk about why Ant-Man or Wasp are missing but that’s a topic for another thread)

              Now as for not having full access…..that is a bit misleading. Marvel not being able to mention that they are mutants or who Daddy is is a very very small part of who they are. Sure, in the comics there have been stories that have made that connection important but, at their core, the Marvel version will still have the exact same power set, name and costume (if they want it). I mean if we aren’t going to see an origin movie for them, how important are those two particular facts about their history?

              I hope that is a satisfactory enough answer as to why Whedon chose to use them despite the small negatives.

              • Trust me, I know my comics. I understand why it would great to include these two. Whatever FOX has planned, Marvel can do it better. I have no doubts about that. Being a comic snob, however, it does irk me when characters are completely re-imagined to fit parameters set by a rival studio.

    • Because Joss Whedon wants them.

    • Because, knowing Whedon’s work, they are two characters who he knows exactly what to do with. In Joss we trust.

    • “More like Slowsilver” – The Flash.

      • The FLASH is THE SPEED FORCE

        • Yes, being the “Speed Force” is awesome but how exactly do you make that important and defining? It’s a difficult task to communicate that to the general public who doesn’t know either character. For most, they would see the character as essentially the same.

      • If the Flash is so fast, how come Quicksilver will have been in 2 major movies before the script for The Flash’s has even been finished yet? Sounds like the Flash has got a real case of speed envy.

        • Come on, you are punishing a character for their owners inability to capitalize on their own IP.

          (also if you are picking nits, The Flash did have his own TV show for a couple years back in the 90′s ;) )

        • Naw, he’s just moving so fast you can’t see him.

    • Why not?

    • Well, there was Quicksilver, Whizzer, and Whirlwind (AKA The Human Top), just to name three in Marvel. I also know of numerous Flash spin-off characters, from Kid Flash to Jay Garrick to Barry Allen to Professor Zoom & more for DC. Superman had his share of super-speed guys from Supergirl and Krypto to Mon-El of the Legion of Super-Heroes who were no Johnny-Come-Latelys to the “Go like the cops are after you” super-speed genre, either. I don’t think anyone will be singing, “Get yourself a Slo-Poke, it lasts a long time” in those two comics houses.

      • I say use Whizzer if you absolutely “must” have a speed guy. Incorporating Squadron Supreme (whom you have all the rights too) makes a million times more sense then trying to squeeze in certain characters in accordance with another studios parameters.

        Again, this is all very odd.

        Wait a second… I think I just realized why Joss and Disney wants Quicksilver so bad:
        Nobody has really done a convincing “fast” super-hero yet on the big screen. That’s could be what this is about. A race to see who gets there first.

        I dunno.

        It’s odd.

        • lol
          yeah let’s replace a slightly obscure character that the fans know & love, with a very obscure character than only 10% of the fans and 0% of the general audience knows. Or…just use the more known and arguably better character(s), and deal with the fact that Marvel & Fox have an agreement.

          Personally I think it would be dumb NOT to use Quiksilver and Scarlet Witch just because another studio is also able to use them.

          • If you can’t call him Quicksilver and he’s not a mutant, I say that constitutes as dumb.

            One of the main reasons FOX is doing this is for merchandising rights. Go ahead and try to sell a kid an action figure named “pietro” next to the one named “quicksilver.” Marvel can no longer use the name Quicksilver. That’s the point of all of this.

            • Or just work out a deal with Sony to cameo Spiderman!

              • Yes, because deals between studios to be cooperative with all the money on the table is exactly how stuff works. Spiderman will be in Avengers 2 and all the X-men will show up in Avengers 3.

            • Who says they can´t call him Quicksilver?

              • Because when it comes to these particular characters, that’s how it works. First come first serve. That’s why FOX did this. I’ve gotten that from a few sites and to be honest that makes the most sense about the timing. Joss gets quoted in saying he would like to use the two, and almost immediately Singer responds with a tweet saying – “welcome Quicksilver!”
                So really, this is FOX saying- ” Nya nyaaa!! We did it first! Ha ha now you can’t say “quicksilver” without owing us money!”

                And before you try to argue that no one can be so petty, try to understand this stems from FOX being irked at Marvel for offering them an ultimatum when they asked for extensions on the FF and DD properties.

                • ummmm, if they can’t use the name then why did Whedon JUST use his name in the interview above? That unfortunately disproves your point.

                  The fact is, both studios have FULL access to the character names and powers. Marvel just can’t mention “mutant” or “Magneto”. period. The head of Marvel, Kevin Feige himself, has mentioned this point repeatedly in interviews. Are you telling us he doesn’t know what he has access to?

                  • No. You can say there names in an interview all you want at this point. Neither movie has come out yet so technically both studios have the same access as of right now.
                    Once FOX uses the character Quicksilver… what you can’t do… is sell merchandise outside of FOX that uses the name Quicksilver. That’s the point to all of this.

                    Think about it. Two different companies can’t sell merchandise using the exact same character.

                    • ^name. exact same character name.

                    • You continue to say words like “can’t” without one shred of actual proof. You are trying to use personal logic to dictate what should or shouldn’t be.

                      Have you in fact read the actual contract made between the two studios? I know I haven’t so unless you have and/or can post a link to some real empirical evidence supporting your assumption, then you really need to stop posting personal opinion as actual fact.

                      Logic would dictate that if the both studio head AND director can name drop then those names are fair game. It makes no sense to use those names publically to SELL the movie and then turn around and not be able to use them in the actual movie.

                      Oh and technically Fox already used Quicksilver. His name was referenced in XM2 and had a 2 cameos in the horribad XMO:W, so we can put that to rest right now.

                    • 100% agreed, Dr.

                      And mongoose, you want proof of why two companies cant sell the same thing using the same name? Is that what you are talking about?

                      If so, I’m gonna back out now, because I feel like it is a wasted cause.

                    • ah, nope. I want proof that Marvel doesn’t have a right to use the names which is what Dr. M keeps claiming.

                      Mr. M is looking down the road and seeing a potential problem and then working backwards to a conclusion which, while a great way to troubleshoot, is a flawed idea because he doesn’t know all of the variables (and I don’t either) or what the Marvel/Fox contract states. I also would be willing to bet that Marvel and Fox already have merchandizing worked out (and would Further bet that it’s Marvel who has control of that part)

                      The facts are, it makes ZERO sense to use names if they can’t be used in the movie.

                      We know that both the Director and head of Marvel have said the characters can be used by BOTH and then said specifically what they couldn’t use about those characters. If the names couldn’t be used that would be an IMPORTANT specific and would have been mentioned if such was the case.

                    • @ mongoose

                      it’s obvious you need somebody else to tell you what I have been saying.

                      Here you go:

                      http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=80162

                    • Yeah, because CBM is such a reliable source. Kevin Feige stated that both companies, Marvel and Fox, can use the characters. The only restrictions are:

                      1. They mustn´t use the word mutant
                      2. They mustn´t mention any connections to Magneto and/or the X-Men

                      Nobody ever said Marvel is not allowed to use the characters´ codenames.
                      And since Fox´s Magneto goes by the name of Lensherr, the name Maximoff shouldn´t be a problem.

                    • And that proves what, that they aren’t playing nice with each other? That’s not exactly a news flash and doesn’t do anything to prove your assumptions.

                      the only parts of that article worth anything are:

                      “and so what we’re going to see is a legally-negotiated stand-off in which we’ll get two totally different versions of one character.”

                      “there is now a very real possibility that the studio will no longer use the duo due to any confusion or legal problems this could cause.”

                      It sounds to me like we will be seeing (and I quote) “two totally different versions of one character.”

                      No mention of Fox owning the name (which they do not) and no mention of Marvel not being able to use it (which they can and WILL) only that (and I quote again) “their mutant heritage could not be mentioned.” period.

                      Also the writer of the article is speculating just as much as YOU are. They however smartly use words like, “possible” because even they don’t know for sure and are trying not to post their opinion as fact.

                    • @dr m,
                      who says fox gets any kind of merchandising rights? they maybe do have the rights, but, with all the characters allegedly going to be in x:DOFP, who even says that fox will make action figures off those particular characters? either way, marvel is the one who wins, because there has to be some kind of royalty paymentt or something for movie merch. if not, then they will be called “x-men’s quicksilver/scarlet witch,” and “the avenger’s…”
                      you’re making it out that the time/space continuum will be disrupted if there are 2 versions of toys.

                    • You guys are awesome. If there wasn’t an issue with each studio using the same name for the same character, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion.

                      If you want to naively believe that two different studios are both going to use the same character name… by all means go right ahead and let the rest of the world know just how wicked smart you are.

                    • Soooo, just because we don’t agree with your distorted version of reality, we are somehow the bad guys picking on you?

                      So what if both studios use the same name. If we can all get over the fact that studios switch actors on the fly for the same character (Batman has now been played by how many people? Then there’s IM’s Rhodey and the list goes on) I think we are all intelligent enough to grasp having the name Quicksilver used in two different movies. It’s not that big of a deal. If it’s gonna bother you that much I would maybe suggest avoiding articles like this in the future and both movies.

                      As to your assertion about merchandizing issues…….I was just at Wal-Mart and took a stroll down the toy aisle. Know what I found? A Wolverine figurine being sold under the, “Avengers Assemble” name through Hasbro and Marvel, NO Fox anywhere to be seen. I also saw Marvel’s Spider-Man being sold by the same Hasbro/Marvel label.

                      I’m gonna go out on a bit of a limb and say I’m pretty sure Marvel has the merchandising rights to ALL their characters at this point. I also don’t recall XMFC specific toys, just general merchandise related to the movie like T-Shirts and the like.

                      Sony might have joint rights to put out their versions of toys based on their versions of characters because I do remember some toys coming out about the time of TASM but Marvel [at the same time mind you], continues to put out their own official ones regardless.

                      I highly doubt, based on what I just saw, that Fox has merchandizing rights but if they do have even joint rights, little Timmy is just going to have to get over it. Take him to therapy if need be but tough cookies otherwise.

                    • @ mongoose, Batman has been played by a bunch of different people, but not by two different people by two different companies, at the same time. (Fox and Disney)

                      And that Wolverine action figure you just so happen to walk by on accident, that was not a movie tie in was it? I bet it was not.

                      (Why were you in the toy line anyways? If you are old enough to go on the computer, you out grew the toy phase.)

                      Besides, you are talking about Marvel owning the toys and the comics, NOT the movie rights to some of their characters. So to think that would make your argument better would only prove your distorted view on reality.

                      But honestly, you are not a lawyer, and neither am I, I doubt anyone in this conversation is. So how about we just agree that toys are for kids and agree to disagree.

                    • First of all, MARVEL GETS PAID REGARDLESS.
                      Secondly,if they use the real names in Avengers2 wtf will Fox do? It won’t really matter because their crappy new xmen film will be in the bluray bargain bin at BestBuy by the time AVENGERS2 comes out-so it really doesn’t matter..
                      Also its also important who plays the character and whether he’ll be a lasting impression or not-with Fox’s xmen, they have a history of screwing up minor characters(who are major xmen now like Psylocke,Rogue)so for singer to say Quicksilver is in the film-whatever,the cast it seems is a mess already with the addition of Sunspot,and Thunderbird…
                      its just FOX making there own made up xmen story again..

                    • Mindbender, both Marvel and Fox can use the Quicksilver name. Whether they both should is a matter of opinion.

                      As for merchandusing rights, if the Wolverine is any indicator, then Marvel owns the merchandising rights. I checked on Marvel’s official website, and Marvel is selling Wolverine items.

            • Mongoose: glad you shop at Wal-Mart, because that’s who I am a cashier for. Thanx for helping support me in the manner to which I could easily become accustomed! (Incidently, ironically, since we are discussing super-speedsters, I have held the record for the 19+ years our store has been opened as the fastest cashier my store has ever seen!)

            • I hadn’t heard that Marvel couldn’t use the name Quicksilver. That’s a bummer, then, and if that was the case then I wouldn’t use Quicksilver at all.

              • Marvel CAN use the name.

                • LOL. As if I needed more proof that you are no lawyer…

                  Go ahead, Mr. Attorney, declare your argument.

                  • He doesn’t need to. I have already proved that your argument is full of holes and complete BS.

                    If you want to voice that as your OPINION, great, but all posting non-substantiated assumptions as fact does is cause some people (like Jon there) to believe its true without reading all the posts.

                  • It’s getting old that you keep on falsely writing that I am not an attorney. I bet you 100,000 U.S. dollars that I am an attorney licensed to practice law in NY. If you don’t have that much money, then how about a 1,000? Of course, you won’t take the bet. So, keep your false accusation to yourself.

                    As for my argument, it’s not a legal one. Joss has specifically called the characters Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. It doesn’t make sense for him to then call them different names in the movie. Now, will he change their birth names? Maybe.

                    The merchandise issue is even easier to prove. Since Marvel is selling Wolverine and Spider Man items on its website, it’s logical to assume that Marvel also has the right to sell Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch merchandise.

                    • Both of you guys are comparing apples and oranges. The MAJOR difference in the toy lines is this one is MOVIE RELATED. Read the 1993 Agreement between FOX and MARVEL. It’s available online.

                      Once one studio uses a character name, another studio can’t go and use the same name. Had Marvel used Quicksilver before FOX did, they would have retained the rights TO HIS TITLE. Whedon announces that he wants to use Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch… so what does FOX do? (while they had already casted DoFP and began shooting)Immediately add Quicksilver to their story and make it a point to tweet to the world that they have him, and used the name Quicksilver.

                      Now, the special clause with these two is that there like-ness can still be used. Marvel can still have a really fast guy named Pietro. Marvel can also, (at this point) use the name Scarlett Witch since another studio hasn’t claimed that title yet. And if FOX decides to throw Scarlett Witch into DoFP, Marvel can still have someone named Wanda who can distort reality.

                      You guys need to understand the difference in “using a like-ness” and “using a title.” Mr. So-Called-Attorney should know that sort of thing back and front.

                    • @ Justin J. Poppiti

                      You are not a lawyer. If you were, you would have flawless writing. You must have nothing short of flawless writing skills in order to be an attorney. Now, you tried much harder in that response, but it still is not flawless. Not to mention your maturity and age shines through with your “wanna make a bet” ultimatum.

                      It just so happens that before I was a master of mind control working for a terrorist organization, I was an English major with a minor in political science who at one point planned on joining his friends in law school. I went in another direction, no regrets, and those same friends that I didn’t join in law school still brought me their dissertations for review.

                      So, yeah… if there was some way for me to take that bet, I would take it in a heart-beat. You are just some kid on a computer using the name of the attorney off of a near-by billboard or something, whose mom tells him he SHOULD be an attorney cause you like to argue. Just understand, there is a lot more to being an attorney besides the gift of gab.

                      Actually, I’m now realizing that I CAN take that bet.

                      AND I WILL.

                      If you are an attorney, you should have no qualms with posting your office address, your email, and your phone number… since it is all advertising who you are.

                    • That is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. Do you understand how stupid you come across by writing such a false sentence? There’s no law that requires an attorney to have flawless writing. Again, you should read some of the publicly available complaints. If you did, you’ll find numerous examples of writing that isn’t flawless.

                      Wow, you’re delusional. Do you really think that I would use the real name of someone else? That’s absolutely insane.

                      I post under my name on this site, Business Insider, EW and other websites. My business insider account, for example, is linked to my facebook account. A picture of me, in a thumbnail version, appears when I post a comment on Business Insider. I’m wearing a Bucknell hat. I attended Bucknell from 2002-2006.

                      So, to prove I am who I claim to be, I can send 1) a pic of me WITH my law school diploma and 2) the e-mail I was sent by the NY Board of Bar examiners informing me that I passed the bar exam to your e-mail address.

                      Also, if you actually don’t want to be lazy, you can type in “Justin Poppiti avvo” in a google search bar. The first hit will be a link that reads: “Lawyer Justin Poppiti – Morganville Attorney – Avvo.com” It’s mentioned that I have been licensed to practice law in NY since 2010. I used to live in Morganville, NJ before I moved to Old Bridge, NJ in 2011.

                      My bet has everything to do with being tired of a liar like you making a false accusation about me. As the ole saying goes, “Money talks and bs walks.”

                      mindbender, you owe me 100,000 U.S. dollars. I’ll accept a check (if you want to send me a check, I’ll send you my address via e-mail) or a PayPal deposit to Fl1pm0de95@aol.com (I’ve had that username since I was 14).

                    • “There is no law requiring an attorney to have flawless writing.”

                      See, that’s exactly why I don’t believe you are who you say you are. It is a NECESSITY for tactful lawyers who want to get work that every inch of their paperwork included but limited to: lawsuits, court orders, and summons via subpoena duces tecum, etc. to be worded nothing short of perfect.

                      I can also google search someone’s name, research it, then post that it’s me. Something tells me this is your dad or your uncle or something.

                      Then again, your bar exam results were emailed to you? What is that, online law school? That would explain a lot…

                      Whatever, I guess I’ll just leave it at… if you are an attorney, wow. You’re doing it wrong.

                    • Haha. Once again, read some of the published complaints. Some of them have a handful of grammatical errors. So, as usual, you’re wrong. Aren’t you getting tired of me proving you wrong?

                      Also, you used “tactful” the wrong way. Gosh, are you sure that you received an English degree???

                      Furthermore, many lawyers, like me, AREN’T litigators. So, we rarely write complaints, subpoenas, court orders and the like.

                      Sure, that could be done. But, I am not a famous attorney or anything.

                      Wow, so now you’re claiming that I’m using my dad’s or my uncle’s name. Do you understand how absolutely pathetic you are?? For the record, my father is Edward A. Poppiti, Jr. He retired from Goldman Sachs in 1994. My uncle is Larry Poppiti. He was a school teacher, but he’s been retired for a while.

                      Re-read what I wrote and try to understand it. I received an e-mail informing me that I passed the NY State bar exam months after I took the bar exam. Soon after, my name was posted on the NY Bar Examiners website with all the other people who passed the July 2009 bar exam. The NY Bar Examiners have NOTHING to do with a law school. For the record, I went to New York Law School. Get it, now?

                      It’s obvious to everyone but you that I am who I claim to be. It’s also obvious that you are too gutless to post under your real and tell us anything about you.

                      I’m not doing anything wrong. I am who I claim to be.

                    • Oh, and immediately going for “I bet you 100,000 US dollars” is the tell-tale sign of a bluff.

                      “Money talks and BS walks” Uh huh. You sure are convincing.

                    • That last response by you is what I’ve been trying to get out of you this whole time: Now you have given me a reason to doubt my assumptions that you are not who you say you are.

                      My original doubts stems from a comment you made a week ago-

                      “Im an attorney. And I just destroyed your argument.”

                      1) Attorney’s know they can’t be the one’s to validate there own argument.
                      2) What’s the point of posting “I’m an anything” while on-line? It makes it look like you want to appear as one. Regardless of what you might post, you really can’t PROVE any of this
                      3) It’s grammatically incorrect, something that attorneys have 0 room for, and having to be perfect with wording carries over into everything that they do. I know this first hand by dating a personal injury attorney. She would txt me entire novels when regarding something simple.

                      I don’t mean to pick on you, but I want you to know that my doubts that you are who you say you were formed by me looking at the evidence provided in the way you wrote.

                      Now the amount of detail you just provided, does make me believe that it would silly for someone to go to such lengths to try and provide a false front.

                      Regardless of who you may be, my deepest apologies for attacking you for really no good reason. It’s not why I come to this site, I’m better than that and am nothing short of ashamed with myself. I despise trolls yet here I am being a filthy troll.

                      BTW, although “tactful” wasn’t the best word, it still fits. Being “full of tact” means doing and saying the right thing, saying the right thing can also mean writing the right thing, which is exactly what you want a lawyer to be doing with your paperwork.

                    • Dear Justin J. Pooppoti,

                      No one cares if you’re really an attorney. The fact that you’re trying so hard to convince us, when it doesn’t matter in the first place, is evidence leaning against you. It makes you look bad.

                      No one cares if you’re really an attorney, we just care that you write like a d0uche.

                    • Without taking sides, I would like to thank you both for this wonderful source of entertainment for me between football seasons…

                    • woooo, I’m going to completely sidestep the discussion with JJP and go back to the topic……

                      “Both of you guys are comparing apples and oranges. The MAJOR difference in the toy lines is this one is MOVIE RELATED. Read the 1993 Agreement between FOX and MARVEL. It’s available online.”

                      This appears to be the main point of contention and if the agreement is online (in it’s entirety) then you obviously had access to something no one else did…..So WHY didn’t you provide us with a link to that agreement and specific section you appear to be quoting from so ardently when I first asked you??? Would have made all this unnecessary.

                      Unfortunately……I cannot find the 1993 agreement “online”. I can only find court documents related to the “Mutant X” lawsuit between the two in 2001. They do quote parts of the agreement but only select parts. It also goes on to say that the rest of the 1993 agreement is confidential (paraphrasing of course). So I don’t get how it’s just available on line.

                      Regardless, you appear to be using a lot of terminology that all sounds very official so if you can please post a link to what you keep claiming, that’s all it would take because I can’t find it.

                    • Yes, please do! Let’s take this barn-burner into overtime!

                    • My posts are being censored by Paul Young, so I needed to just post under my first name.

                      1) Actually, you’re wrong. It’s Tuesday in America. If you try to argue that it’s Wednesday in America, I can point you to a calendar and a clock. So, I would be able to prove my argument.

                      2) The point is that I am not ashamed of who I am. It’s customary in my country for an attorney to add “Esq.” after one’s full name.

                      3) Why do you keep on making the false argument that attorneys have zero room for grammatical errors? Obviously, as I’ve already proved, you’re wrong. I have seen numerous instances of grammatical errors in complaints, briefs, memos, subpoenas and the like. Furthermore, this is a post on a movie website, not a damn legal document. Even if I had a grammatical error in every single post, that wouldn’t prove that I’m not a lawyer. I am sure that even David Boies, one of the most successful attorneys in America, has made grammatical errors in some of his legal complaints and internet posts. As for the two sentences in question, my iPhone auto-changed I’m to Im. In regards to the second sentence, some grammarians differ as to whether it’s grammatically proper to start a sentence with a conjunction. I also intended to add a comma after and, but to no avail.

                      Are you continuing to write “regardless of who you are” because you truly still have doubts about who I claim to be?

                      I’m sure that it wasn’t easy for you to call yourself a “filthy troll.” I’m really flabbergasted that you continued to question who I am. I guess we can agree that neither of us are on this site to make bad comments about other people. Note, however, that besides one time where I told someone “don’t ask a dumb question”, I have never been the first to launch an ad-hominem attack against someone else on this site.

                      Haha, you are persistent. I have never seen anyone ever write that someone should be more tactful when someone was pointing out someone’s grammatical error.

                      Overall, I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But, I’m disappointed that you went the route you went. Eventually, I’ll get over it.

                    • @Justin, Mindbender – You’re not even talking about the movie related to this article, or movies in general for that matter, and I’m pretty sure the rest of the subscribed readers don’t care much about your opinions on whether someone is a lawyer or not. Let’s just move along and get back to the topic at hand please.

                      And Justin, yes I am moderating your posts because you tend to say inflammatory things very quickly, which makes the conversation escalate. If you stop, then I’ll stop.

                      Thanks,
                      Paul Young – Moderator

                    • @ Ken: Wow, you made a joke about my last name. That’s really juvenile.

                      It does matter when someone accuses me of lying. I wasn’t trying to convince anyone else except for mindbender, since he was the only one who accused me of lying. So, basically, your whole post added nothing of value to the discussion.

                    • Paul, that’s b.s. Mindbender suggested that I am lying about who I am and made ad-hominem attacks first. I don’t see you publicly writing that he too writes inflammatory stuff. Mindbender publicly admitted that he was acting like a “filthy troll” in his posts to me on this thread. So, your enforcement actions, basically, suck.

                    • @ mindbender: To get back on topic, the entire 1993 agreement isn’t online. Only snippets are available. From what I have read, I still think that Marvel can use the Quicksilver name and make Quicksilver merchandise. We’ll find out who is right.

                    • What I added to the conversation is I helped you realize that you’re arguing about something that’s unimportant. If you still didn’t realize it, after I kindly helped you out, that’s your problem not mine.

                      As for “I was called a liar so I have to do this…” that’s nonsense. What you’re really supposed to do, when someone on a website attacks you or calls you out or says something you don’t like, is laugh a little, write a one sentence response that basically consists of “yeah, sure” and then forget about it. Who cares was some goon on a site says?

                      The fact that you’re kicking and screaming so hard about something no one cares about indicates one of two things: either 1) you aren’t an attorney. If you were an attorney you wouldn’t try so hard to look like you were, or 2) you’re an attorney, but so hyper-insecure that you have to beat people over the head with it even who no one’s interested in hearing it.

                    • @ Ken: That’s just your opinion that it’s unimportant. To me, it is.

                      And, mindbender seemed to care too since he continued to bring up that he didn’t think I am who I claim to be. Nevertheless, it wasn’t your place to interject and it certainly was inappropriate to make a crude joke about my last name. Just move on.

        • It’s not odd, and it is not all about these Marvel characters at this point. As other people on this site have stated, Fox is probably really, really mad about Disney getting Star Wars more then who is using Quicksilver in a movie.

          This is only going to get more petty as time goes on because Disney is going to start edging other studios out of the summer movie market by having more product on more screens.

          • Also, Quicksilver has a very close connection to the Inhumans (marrying one, in fact), so Marvel using him makes more sense than Singer suddenly announcing his use for an X movie, imo.

            On top of that, Scarlet Witch makes more sense for Avengers than an X film simply because of her relationship to NUMEROUS Avengers characters, i.e. Vision, Wonder Man, Ultron, Jocasta, Henry Pym, The Wasp, Grim Reaper, et al.

    • There are no rights issues with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch because they have both been a part of the X-Men and Avengers series. Kevin Feige confirmed this. Whedon has total access to the characters, save Magneto. There will be no mention of Magneto or Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, but who cares? That was well and done with by the time Wanda joined the Avengers. Hopefully,this may lead into Ultron and the Vision (yay!)

      Interestingly, Bryan Singer confirmed Quicksilver in Days of Future Past the day before Joss confirmed Pietro on Jimmy Fallon. So we will have two separate versions of the character in two different franchises simultaneously, and played by two different actors. My money is definitely on Whedon’s interpretation.

      • I’m in the Whedon camp, but was seeing mention of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in the Avengers movie prior to both Whedon’s appearance on Fallon and Singer’s announcement. I am primarily in Whedon’s camp, but hope both renditions will do well. However, I think a couple years down the road the Whedon versions are more likely to be remembered at first thought than the Singer versions.

  2. Bryan singer is just desperate to do something with the already jacked-up mess they have with the xmen universe. Marvel has the upper hand now because all the fans who understand these characters needing to belong in same universe are begging for it… its just a matter of time before marvel can reintegrate spiderman,xmen and ff into their movie universe with respectable stories.

    • I seriously doubt that as soon as whedon announced that quicksilver, singer stopped filmimg and rewrote his script to add him. Its more like whedon announced it and singer was like sh*t i guess i should announce an addition that i was waiting to reveal

      • Yeah I feel the same because, DOFP script was written way before Avengers 2′s. I doubt he’d be that press in that little bit of time to change a big amount of the script to add one character

  3. All I’m saying is this situation is odd. There are plenty of characters and Avengers that haven’t been used yet that don’t have to follow these silly stipulations due to studios owning certain character rights. Wonder Man, Ms. Marvel, Black Panther, Wasp, Ant-Man, and Vision are all also Avengers and FOX has no say about it. That’s all I’m saying. I’m wondering why it has to be those two. I’m guessing it doesn’t, and it’s pretty much a tit for tat between Disney and FOX.

    • The Scarlet Witch has been on the Avengers more than any other woman in the history of the team. So I don’t know where you guys are getting the idea that she belongs more with the xmen. When she was in that comic she didn’t even know Magneto was her father. Learn your history.

    • Kinda understand whedon on this more then. Look at the character you’ve named and though they have their unique attributes they all resort in the end to “punchy power” as Whedon put it. At least visually Quicksilver’s ability are very different than whats currently available and Scarlet you’ll definitely be different. Just a thought.

    • I would say (as a reader of the early Avengers comics when they first came out in the 60s and 70s) that Whedon and Marvel are trying to do the right thing and use the early founding Avengers memebrs first, as well as the second team of sorts as the first team kind of broke apart and went their seperate ways. The first team was Giant-Man (Ant-Man/Hank Pym), Wasp, Hulk (soon after the Avengers’ foundation, so I have included him here), Thor, and Iron Man. Captain America joined very soon after. This was team #1, essentially. Later, these characters mostly went their separate solo ways (although some popped back into the team from time to time, like Thor, iron man, and various incarnations of Hank Pym and of course Wasp). The team was kind of like a revolving door. The second team was captain America, Quicksilver, Hawkeye, and Scarlet Witch, joined very soon after by Hank Pym as Goliath and Wasp, with guest appearances by Black Widow (who was very different in look and background from the Scalet-Jo movie version many of you would think of now…I liked the book version better, but that’s what I grew up on). Later heroes came and went so much, it was like a giant roster-blender out of control, and soon even arch-enemies would get a spot at the table. Whoa, a little too much, slow down the world, I wanna get off.
      So who would I like to see in the team by about Avengers #3 if they keep going and add or subtract members? Well, Captain America as leader, of course, and Iron Man/Tony Stark as well. Al;tho I was not a Thor fan in the comics, I think he could probably be OK in the movie team in future installments. I also want to see Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Goliath, and Wasp in the movie team together. If I had to drop someone, it would be hawkeye (unless he becomes more like the comics version of the 60s), Black Widow, and Hulk. I suppose Nick Fury could stay or go, but they kind of need him to keep Shield going. Later heroes (male and female) could come much later, I suppose, but they are not priority. Maybe Black panther, the black female Caotain Marvel, and Vision much further down the line, but let’s do the afore-mentioned heroes first, and go from there.
      Villain want-list: Ultron, Kang, Skrulls, Whirlwind, Diablo, and a “real” Mandarin!

    • they were the first new recruits…they were originally bad guys..

  4. Yep mindbender you are right, there are so many other characters to use. Personally i think disney and marvel may use this to insinuate the mutants exist in their movie universe. Iam hoping the new cartoon will do as well. Without all of characters both fox and sony will run out of gas.
    Its pride and greed preventing them from selling rights.

  5. It’s like a Geek/Fanboi divorce custody battle, “Who gets the kids?”

    • Haha

  6. This is an incredible opportunity to weave together the X-Men and Avengers universes. There seriously needs to be some cooperation between studios. Please, don’t fight over the characters, guys. SHARE them! The publicity and raised awareness of the two franchises coming together would make each franchise skyrocket in future sales!

    • no, there doesn’t.

      Now if Marvel had some major input over what Fox had done with the X-Men IP, THEN I would be all for a merging but…..they didn’t. Fox has done a lot of things and taken a LOT of creative liberties with what they bought and I’m pretty sure Marvel doesn’t want those versions polluting their shared universe.

  7. I love Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. I love The Avengers. I love the old comics of the 60s and 70s. I just hope Whedon does not change Q & SW around too much, and keeps their costumes & powers exactly like in the old comics. I always thought of the two as Avengers, not X-men characters (although I am aware of their X-men Universe attachments as well). I’m looking forward to seeing this pair in Avengers #2, and hopefully #3 as well. Now as to the X-men Q & SW…well, after the less than satisfactory showing of the X-Men franchise (except for #1 & #2, which I loved, even tho I would have done a few things much different, and made Cyclops the hero, not made it The Wolverine & Magneto show), including lukewarm (but not bad) spin-offs and the blech-bland mess that was First Class, Singer has something to prove, so he’d better not mess this up. I also think he is being baby-ish (although he probably thinks it is a smart chess-player move to steal Whedon’s thunder and steal a march on Avengers) all of a sudden foisting his version of kiddie-Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch into the mix, just for spite (“I poke your eye twice as much as you poke mine, just for spite, cuz I can…nyah-nyah!”). If he had originally planned on using these two, we would have heard long ago. I wish he had concentrated on a way to get Cyclops back in the fight (he’s dead? A mere technicality I could get around, if I were a screen-writer). I hope both flicks do well, I will buy both DVDs, good or bad, I look forward to seeing both versions of Q & SW….BUT: as I said, I think Singer has a bigger mountain to climb to prove DOFP is a good flick, than Whedon does with Avengers #2, which probably has the majority of viewer confidence behind his film more than Singer does. Still, as I say, I wish them both well, and anticipate some enjoyment out of each film.

    • If he had originally planned on using these two, we would have heard long ago.

      Really? Just like all the other directors who let on about every casting decision and plot detail before filming has even wrapped? Who is Peter Dinklage playing? Im only asking because it seems that all casting and characters should be confirmed by this point apparently. No surprises allowed. Ive googled but cant find a confirmation as to what part Omar Sy is playing either. It seems Singer doesn’t always share his casting decisions with the public, and does like to keep some things secret for a time.

      • Omar Sy is playing Bishop. No clue about Dinklage though.

      • what do u mean no surprises allowed?

      • Yes, but these are BIG parts tho (at least for Whedon). The timing seems just a little too coincidental to be called mere circumstantial evidence.

  8. So basically, Marvel sold Fox the rights to these two characters, and now they’re trying to renege using some loophole? “Oh, we’re not putting ‘Quicksilver’ and ‘Scarlet Witch’ into our movie. We’re using two characters called Wanda and Pietro X, who look and act exactly like those two and have the same powers.” Whedon’s vaunted creative genius at work I guess.

    • Not really.

      I don’t know if the two were sold as part of the X-Men franchise or not but it was Whedon that staked his claim to the characters first when he hinted at the pair being in Avengers 2 and this DOFP news recently came out of nowhere, almost like – as Goldilocks said – it comes across as more immature and “I got there first” on Singer’s part.

      At this point, nobody knows who decided to put the characters in their movie first but we DO know that Feige himself stated that they could appear in both franchises.

      And no, I’m not a “Whedon fanboy” for arguing for him because I’ve stated many times that I haven’t enjoyed a single thing that Whedon has put his name to.

      • Casting a character doesnt happen overnight, there is multiple tryouts at time. I find it hard to believe singer added a character days after the news dropped. Its more likely it was casting in processes and singer wasnt ready to reveal it, i mean he releases a tweet every week or so. When whedon revealed his plans singer had no choice but to let everyone know

        • @Trey, Okkk Are you guys ready?….. Are you ready for the BIG reveal to a character that will be in…DRUM ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL….one scene…(crash cymbal,with slow hand claps & crickets chirping)

        • @Trey, Ok… Are you guys ready?….. Are you ready for the BIG reveal to a character that will be in…DRUM ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL….one scene…(crash cymbal,with slow hand claps & crickets chirping)

      • Obviously I haven’t seen the actual agreements between Marvel and Fox but based on everything we’ve been reading online Fox does in fact control the rights to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. They leased the movie rights from Marvel fair and square as part of the X-Men deal. That’s why Quicksilver appeared in the Wolverine movie and he can appear in DOFP. Marvel seems to have found some loophole whereby they can create unofficial knockoffs of those two characters and use them in their movies without paying Fox a dime as long as they tweak them just enough and avoid using their actual names. That’s why Marvel can’t call them “Quicksilver” or “Wanda Maximoff” and they’re supposed to show up in Avengers 2 as two people called Wanda and Pietro Whatstheirname.

        Yes, it looks like Fox is racing to beat Marvel to the punch here but I don’t really blame them given the fact that they’ve been writing Marvel checks for years to protect their rights to maintain the film rights to these characters and now Marvel is about to swoop in and undercut their investment.

        • Then you’re reading totally different articles on this site than everyone else.

          According to the content on this site (and every other film site that’s covering it), part of Fox’s licensing agreement with Marvel is that they can both use these two characters. This is likely because they’re equally Avengers and X-Men related, but Marvel execs haven’t actually gone into detail about the “why” of it.

          It’s not a matter of “Marvel found a loophole,” it’s a matter of “these two characters are specified in the contracts. This is what both parties agreed to.”

          • If that’s the case than why can’t Marvel use the actual names of the characters? There must be some reason why Marvel is forced to tiptoe around the identity of their two characters “Pietro” and “Wanda” who can’t even be named “Maximoff.” There’s clearly more to the story. Granted this is speculation but it sounds to me like Fox paid for the exclusive rights to develop films based on the characters “Quicksilver” and “Scarlet Witch” and weren’t expecting a competing studio to develop different versions of the characters.

            • Because the one thing that Marvel DID sell off to Fox was the concept of, “mutant”. That’s what it boils down to. So Fox controls everything that relates specifically to the X-Men, mutants and supporting characters. And since Magneto is a major part of the X-Men, Marvel can’t acknowledge him. As Ken mentioned though, there are a few characters that both studios have joint custody of.

              And pay no attention to the erroneous idea that Marvel has no access to the names Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. If they didn’t they why would both Feige in past interviews AND Whedon in the interview above, use those exact names? They can and WILL be using them.

              • Actually, pay no attention to erroneous tips from people that obviously haven’t thought through why two different companies can’t use the exact same character name when it comes to selling a product.

                • You personal opinion is just that, not fact.

                  So prove it.

                  • Business 101 is not a personal opinion, professor.

                    • I’m sorry for being snooty mongoose, I see you are kinda missing the point, so let me go into detail for you.

                      Once FOX officially uses the name Quicksilver and makes Quicksilver toys associated with DoFP, you can’t have another company sell another toy called Quicksilver.

                      Why?

                      Because no side, Disney nor FOX, is going to risk the rival side outselling them using a name they established.

                      Example: Little Timmy loves X-men, he loves the first X-men movie he was allowed to see: DoFP. He likes collecting the action figures. FOX should be reaping all the benefits for this, HOWEVER… little Timmy purchases the Marvel Quicksilver and not the FOX Quicksilver.

                      That’s the problem. That’s what studios want no part of, and that’s why once FOX officially uses the name Quicksilver next year you will see Marvel stop altogether.

                      The special clause with these two, since they are Avengers, is that you can still use there like-ness.
                      Marvel can’t do that with other characters, for example: Marvel can’t have someone named “scott” who shoots energy beams out of his eyes.

                      I hope this clears this up for you.

                    • And you are missing the point that there is not a shred of proof stating that Fox has controlling rights over merchandizing a character both companies have equal access to. You are assuming they do and basing everything around that which is a house of cards waiting to collapse.

                      How do you know the Marvel/Fox contract doesn’t state that, where equal access is involved, Marvel retains merchandizing control? Fox gets “mutant” and Marvel gets merchandizing. My PoV is JUST as logical as yours but also fits more with what Marvel is doing and how they are proceeding atm.

                      So unless you can cough up more than an opinion as to why you think you are right, please stop putting forth your opinion as a statement of fact, because it’s not.

                    • Mongoose if you keep saying things like “there is not one shred of proof” when regarding the topic of why two different companies can’t sell the same thing under the same name, as someone else told you above then there really is no point in continuing this.

                      Watch. Joss Whedon will continue to say “quicksilver, I’m using quicksilver” right up until DoFP is released. Hell, he’ll probably keep saying quicksilver right up until the release of A2. Then it will stop. He won’t be called Quicksilver in the movie. Not when another studio just made it a point to announce to the world that they have quicksilver. This is a stab at Disney, make no mistake. FOX is just being difficult and throwing a wrench.

                    • Read the article you linked above and still see zero proof of your assumption.

                      You keep going on and on about companies not selling the same toys but keep missing the idea that you are getting WAY ahead of yourself.

                      Can you prove to everyone for a fact that Marvel doesn’t have merchandizing rights?

                      And Marvel has announced the same thing so I’m not sure why you think Fox all of a sudden has, “dibs” on the character. It’s not whomever gets to the punch first. Fox has in fact used the character before but yet Marvel STILL can use him, imagine that.

                      Merchandizing is so far down the list of things to be concerned about it’s not worth discussing but you think it proves everything when nothing is written in stone.

                      Lets not put the cart before the horse, ok?

    • I think they will be called by both their Proper first names and hero names as well in Avengers. I am not so sure which names will be used in DOFP, tho.

  9. I don’t care what anyone says but I don’t have faith in Bryan Singer when it comes to action scenes in his x-men films. Some of them are okay, but not what you would expect for a x-men film and I won’t even get started on Superman returns.This whole quicksilver controversy sounds like a desperate PR move on Singer and the suits at fox. But here’s another conspiracy theory I’ll throw out here and I’ll use an old wrestling term. This could all very well be a “work ” on Marvel and fox’s part. Highly unlikely that we’ll ever see a Avengers/x-men movie crossover on screen, but also never say never. Fox is hungry and obviously wants a piece of that Marvel /Disney pie.

    • Yeah, it does seem like a bit of a work. At the moment, Singer seems more like the heel, especially judging by the SR comments on any X-Men related article.

  10. Honestly, I believe that he just may be throwing them in there so that WB will avoid using Zatanna or Flash in any similar capacity.

    • How would that work though?

      That’s a bit….I dunno, nuts to assume?

      That’d be like saying “Marvel put Man-Thing in a movie so DC can’t make a Swamp Thing movie”.

      Why should what Marvel do affect whatever DC plan to do? Sorry to put this so bluntly (a comment I just replied to put me in a bad mood) but do you ever actually use your brain?

    • WB will use The Flash, no doubt, in JLA and possibly in a solo flick as well.

  11. I’m sorry Dazz but what the hell does 100% American mean exactly? Native? been around a bit longer then most? Please enlighten me and others who may be interested as to what constitutes ”American”? I could have sworn the people of the U.S.A were made up of all kinds of different races, who are both proud of such distinctions and their over all nationality.
    I didn’t realise that that there was a definitive time limit on race or culture, especially somewhere like America. Maybe I have the wrong idea?

    • 100% American means “born and raised in America”.

      I dunno, I’m just jaded by the fact that one low-intelligence fellow years ago used to call himself IrishCanadian in his message board username and claimed that “we Irish do and spell things a certain way” and I thought “Dude, you were born in Canada, you’re Canadian. Not Irish”.

      I myself have Irish heritage due to a great grandfather being born in that country but I class myself as 100% English because I was born in England. I don’t walk around claiming to be Irish to sound cool like some Canadians and Americans do (especially those in Boston).

      It just smacks of desperation to me, like “I’m so cool, I have TWO nationalities” or “I like being American but I’d also like to be this too”.

      It’s falsely elevating yourself. African-American is a term I hate because a majority of people with that label weren’t born to an African parent so where does the African bit come into it? Shouldn’t they just be called American?

      I also know an Australian who has a Puerto Rican parent but identifies herself as Australian because that’s where she was born and refuses to call herself a Latina because her reasoning is “I wasn’t born in a latino country, I’m Australian”.

      I dunno, it just annoys me for some reason. I told one guy to his face “If you’re a proud American, why are you pretending to be Irish too just because your last name is O’Connell?”

      I just find it hilarious in a weird way that I even brought that up as a reason these characters could be changed to British in the movie and as usual, an American jumps all over it taking massive offense and seemingly looking for a fight when there really was none intended. I guess this is what Middle Eastern countries feel like.

      • One quick note to add, this isn’t an attack on Americans at all. I actually had this conversation with a friend’s dad (he was a former Corporal in the US Marines, now retired, makes some great cakes for his local church) and he agreed with me.

        • So if you are born in America, you are not supposed to be proud of your family’s heritage?

      • I, as a 100% American, also agree with you Dazz.
        I’m curious as to whether people of color in Canada or Great Britain call themselves African-Canadian or African-English or not.

      • I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. The USA, like Australia and Canada are young countries. People referring to themselves as Irish- American, Italian-American, etc, is a cultural thing.

      • My dad’s side came from Denmark (a couple generations back), and my mom’s side came from England, Scotland, and Wales (a couple generations back). My parents were both born over here in America, as was I, and first and foremost, I consider myself a flag-waving, world-saving, all-American boy who loves this country, salutes the flag, and eats alot of apple pie (try it with melted cheddar or American cheese over the top–yum, yum!).

        • And rightly so! I’ve got relatives who are extremely proud to be American, but they’re also proud of their Irish heritage.

  12. Here is a true case of “nice guys finish last”..but don’t necessarily have the last laugh. Marvel has been too nice with Fox and Fox knows they have them buy the gonads with what Marvel would really like to do. Fox will prevent it while holding on to those gonads and try to coattail behind Marvel Studios so they can have their foX-Universe Billion dollar movies too. Marvel/Disney most definitely need to stop playing this game and buy back the rights and Disney HAS the money to do it. They will clash again, this needs to stop.

  13. Marvel and Fox need to go into discussion about these characters. Its going to confuse everyone, what if in x-men DOFP Quicksilver dies, and then we see the same character alive. I hope they are working together eventually on this, and not rip the character in half

    • I don’t think it will be that much of an issue. Marvel doesn’t actually own the rights to Quicksilver. Non-comic readers’ reaction will be something like “Hey, this British guy in Avengers 2 Pietro Wellington who’s the son of an investment banker and got superspeed when he was bitten by a radioactive cheetah seems vaguely familiar to that Quicksilver guy from the last X-Men movie. I wonder if there’s some kind of connection… Nah!”

  14. I doubt Quicksilver has ever gotten this much attention during the characters whole existence.

    • I doubt you´ve read House Of M.

      • I haven’t, do not plan on doing so either. I have stated many times on here that I have not bought a comic since 1997 and the few I have read over the years have not interested me much. That is the thing at this point, movie makers and other fans assume the general public know or care about a lot of this material.

        I know about Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch from the early comics up until I stopped reading them. I know their original back stories and such, but this whole issue with who uses them in the movies just seems like hype to me aimed at current fans. It also looks like a p*ssing contest between two huge entertainment companies out to make more money off of people.

        • I don’t really agree it’s a pissing match.

          Marvel is using the characters in a meaningful way as major players and rightfully so as they were some of the first Avengers to be recruited.

          Fox, on the other hand, is just taking a spiteful stab at Marvel by saying they will be using Quicksilver AFTER Marvel’s announcement. It’s Fox is taking the low road and Disney is doing nothing wrong afaik.

          • In this instance Fox and the people producing the X-Men movie appear to be the one’s trying to one up Marvel Films/Disney by using these characters. But this could be part of the larger picture as it relates to Fox losing certain Marvel properties because deals could not be made and more so Disney’s acquisition of the Star Wars property and the truckloads of money Fox will never see again because of it.

            And let’s not forget that overall Disney is notorious about keeping their intellectual properties to the point where they lobbied the government so their money makers would not go into public domain. This is about money on both sides at the end of the day, everything else is just fodder for debate.

  15. I think technically you don’t even have to explain their powers. Just say that they have had them as long as we’ve known them, and make them mysterious. Marvel’s writers just have to not say they are mutants. This creates friction in the team.

    They weren’t originally the children of Magneto. They were the children of the Whizzer and then it was retconned in the lates 70s that it was Magneto. So it is definitely not vital to their origin, because it wasn’t originally a part of it.

  16. I ove joss whedon and the avengers and all but there are plenty of other characters on the avengers he can use that have unique powers, there mutants, I for one don’t want to see them change their origins, that’s a big smack in the face to xmen fans, and quicksilver and scarlet have way more importance in the xmen universe the. Xmen. And I for one would like to see quicksilver maybe get a spin off with havoc XFACTOR movie!

  17. Im going to wait to see how things go unlike some of the bitches on these comment board its like really? Just wait till to you get more info until then calm down and just relax

  18. Like most fans, I don’t want to see 2 different versions of the same characters on 2 different films within 12 months of each other.

    They’ve surely got to come to some sort of a deal and crossover, or one of them is going to have to back down and use different characters….but unfortunately, I fear bloodymindedness is going to take over rather than what us, the paying public, will want!

  19. The essential part of the characters is not their origin. It’s their abilities and their chemistry. Quicksilver being overprotective of his sister and Scarlet Witch being a bit unstable. They are used for the dynamic they will bring and being the children of Magneto is not important in this universe.

  20. Scarlett Witch had mutant powers where she could effect probability by speaking it. Like when she said no more Mutants in the x-men comics and almost every mutant lost their powers i do not like the idea of bringing sorcery into the frey.I would love to see the Leader,Ultron,Beyonce Noles as-She-Hulk,Warbird,Giantman,Black Panther,Luke Cage,and wasp.

    • haha, they have given her some extreme powers so I’m pretty sure she will be scaled back a bit in the Avengers 2 so as to not one up everyone.

      Wasn’t there some debate as to whether it was a pure mutant ability or the ability to manipulate the primal chaos magic? So confusing in there sometimes.

      What’s the problem though considering they will be bringing in Dr. Strange at some point and we already have guys swinging around magical hammers?

  21. I would love to see Scarlett witch i did not mean to seem like i did not i just do not want her powers to be sorcery i want them to be her natural gifts.

    • I know a couple girls who’s natural “gifts” are very bewitching. Va-va-va-voom!!

  22. It could be that both companies will not go into too much origin about the 2 characters just in case there ends up being a crossover sometime. For example, if quicksilver is used in DOFP at a young age in the late 60′s/70′s part of the movie but is used in the Avengers 2 and is older then that will help with continuity. Plus in Avengers 2 if they have both Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch use the Terrigen Mist to gain their powers but in DOFP they already have them, then later it can be explained that the 2 of them were depowered when they were introduced in Avengers 2 which is why they used the mist. Also, in Avengers they can explain the 2 as orphans who don’t know their father or who act like they don’t know their father.

  23. By the way, as far as I’ve read and researched, both companies can use the names of the characters but Fox gets to call them mutants and Marvel will have to create a way to make them mutates.

  24. Everybody with a Twitter account, please Tweet Joss Whedon and tell him to put Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for this season ASAP!

  25. For whatever it’s worth in terms of these films (as opposed to the comic books), I think that it makes more sense for the Avengers to use these characters. The X-Men films are already juggling so many characters that a lot of them are glorified cameos. And that’s when hyper-focus on Wolverine isn’t turning most of the other main characters into bit players.

    With the main, established Avengers characters having solo films to develop in, it makes sense for more, new characters to be introduced in the team-up films.

  26. I think if you look at it in terms of it’ll lead to an Inhumans movie, it makes perfect sense.

    Terregen mist to explain why they’re not “mutants”, even though I believe the Kree designed both the Inhumans and the mutant gene. So you’ll theoretically have two members of the Inhumans in the Avengers 2, you’ll have the Kree potentially show up in GOTG and you maybe have a full on Inhumans movie in Phase 3.

    Not positive that’s what’ll happen, but it sounds legit.

    • Also, the Fox movies don’t take into consideration the fact that these characters were altered by the Other. He gave Wanda the ability to manipulate magic. They could easily adapt them both into the next movie using a similar plot line using the Mist.

      Fox movies pretty much ruin every character they get a hold of, so what they do in their movie is insignificant compared to what Marvel is doing overall. I personally don’t consider the Fox movies in league with Marvels whatsoever, so it takes place in a completely different universe to me.

      I actually feel differently about the rebooted Spider-Man. That feels like it could take place in the same ‘verse as Marvel, but maybe a few years earlier or later than the Avengers.

      • @FILTHpig, you are right sir, speaking of which, “The Other” aka Chthon, another character, The High Evolutionary has much back story with these characters as well. It may be in fact that “The High Evolutionary” aka “Him” and “He” may be the villain in Avengers 2 which may be a HUGE reason why Joss Whedon put Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in his script in the first place. I can also see The High Evolutionary being the leader of the “Masters Of Evolution”(evil/evilution).

        • Just for some of the less comics-savvy readers out there, this is a good time to point out that “The Other” from the comics is not the same character as “The Other” from the Avengers film. We don’t want people researching “The Other” after you mentioned him, and thinking Thanos’ henchman from the film is Chthon.

          All this talk about Chthon makes me think he’d be a nice addition to the Doctor Strange movie, what with being an Elder God and creator of the Darkhold. It does seem more likely they’d use Dormammu since that’s Strange’s arch-rival.

    • The Celestials introduced the mutant gene.

      • That’s right, my mistake.

  27. “which would prove confusing, to say the least”

    I think we can cope.

  28. Some people need to stop saying that Marvel Studios can’t say the names Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch. All throughout their tenure with the Avengers they’ve been known as Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver(including their real names). If that’s the case then Marvel Studios wouldn’t be able to call the Skrulls by their name and would have make up something else, which is surely not the case because Kevin Feige already cleared all of this up about characters in the “gray area”. It’s Fox “trying” to call their bluff with the name stuff just to try and keep Marvel Studios from wanting to use them because in order to make them even more alienating the their true selves or make less legitimate versions. Marvel Studios knows who they can use and can’t use also what names they can and can’t, they’ve been through this enough times already. It’s all archived.

    • Understand the difference between “using like-ness” and “using names” and then you’ll understand.

  29. If Marvel cant use Quicksilver…call him Speed Demon since he’s a bad guy…and call Scarlet Witch Arcanna…done!!! Not like theres gonna be a sinister syndicate or squadron supreme movie…although it’d be funny if Squadron Supreme comes out before Justice League

    • Actually, at the risk of going back to “primary colors”, they are good guys. And members of the Avengers. Remember them? Heard of them? Hello-hello…is anybody out there????

<-- Taboola Alt -->