How were Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch / Pietro and Wanda allowed to be in the MCU

Before the merger these two characters were about as mutant as it gets. Directly related to the primary antagonist. Characters in literally X-men cartoons. I know they couldn’t use their superhero names but couldn’t they have Pyro and just call him John by that logic?

What makes those two special?

Voir le contenu lié

Commentaires

BaronZhiro2025-11-14 05:02

Well, first off, that their comics history was far more tied to the Avengers than the X-Men, and second, that it was negotiated. Not sure of the particulars, but it’s significant that one studio basically ended up with Wanda and the other Pietro.

torturedwriter712025-11-14 05:23

>one studio basically ended up with Wanda and the other Pietro.

Man...splitting the kids in a divorce is harsh.

FX1142025-11-14 05:36

I don't believe that was a legal thing, just a mutually beneficial favor they did for each other to avoid audience confusion.

FuegoHernandez2025-11-14 17:24

Days of Future Past came out the summer before AOU and that version of Quicksilver became extremely popular. Joss Whedon wanted to kill off a character to raise the stakes in Age of Ultron. Since Fox had more of a long term plan for Quicksilver, Marvel decided to kill theirs off to avoid crossover confusion.

RedRxbin2025-11-14 09:37

I heard that both Disney and Fox had the ability to use Wanda and Pietro, but Disney couldn’t link them to Magneto or call them Mutants, and Fox couldn’t reference their history as Avengers.

From there, it seems that Fox just opted not to use Wanda, and went with only Pietro (who they renamed to Peter, I think?). And Pietro dying in Age of Ultron wasn’t because of a legal thing, I think it was just Joss Whedon’s fascination with killing off characters in their first appearance, something he’d done or tried to do a few times, as far back as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

neezaruuu2025-11-14 13:35

Yeah and it was only until Disney bought Fox that they slowly explored Wanda and Pietro’s backstories

AnonymousFriend802025-11-14 14:41

Quicksilver's death was more able people constantly complaining able the lack of stakes and how everyone lives.

chickenintendo2025-11-14 05:02

They were mutants and avengers.

th3budman2025-11-14 05:03

They are also avengers and that’s mainly how. They’re “enhanced” and not mutants. Remember, he’s fast and she’s weird.

Tipop2025-11-14 18:22

> They’re “enhanced” and not mutants.

Though that’s been changed now. I THINK it was in WandaVision that they showed her and her brother hiding under the bed, trapped there for days due to an unexploded Stark bomb in their living room. She used her innate power to disable it eventually. So she had a mutant power before being “enhanced”

PossessionSensitive82025-11-14 18:30

In Wandavision it’s not a mutation. She’s a witch. Agatha used that memory to show Wanda that she’s been a witch even before she got in contact with the mind stone, the mind stone just amplified the powers that already existed inside her.

bujin_ct2025-11-14 19:47

My headcanon is that, when Pietro was experimented on, she subconsciously used her powers to give him powers and keep him from dying.

I can accept that she's a once-in-a-millenium Scarlet Witch, or that he miraculously survived being experimented on, but not both in the same family.

vivianvisionsburner2025-11-14 05:05

[deleted]

eagc72025-11-14 06:33

Actually they could use both at the same time, there was no limitations over who gets the other (the only limitation was that the MCU couldn't make them mutants nor the kids of Magneto and Fox couldn't make references to the Avengers) its only a coincidence that one Maximoff got more focus on each franchise

Even Joss Whedon said he himself made the choice to kill Pietro it wasn't a mandate from the higher ups, he even filmed an alternate ending with Pietro living if Disney said no.

S0ulace2025-11-14 06:58

Is kraven a pietro variant ?

Vast-Hold65782025-11-14 07:27

😂

Illustrious-Cut-83332025-11-14 05:06

I could be wrong but i think it’s because Quicksilver and Scarlet joined the Avengers pretty soon after their debut and were part of the team for a considerable amount of time, probably even in more avengers comics than X-men comics so legally they were part of the avengers rights despite being mutants.

wickedsmaht2025-11-14 17:10

I might be misremembering but I think Marvel had to agree not to call them mutants when they were allowed to use them by Fox.

Gueld2025-11-14 05:19

They were largely in the Avengers comics and Wanda is also tied to Vision romantically.

GoodOmens1822025-11-14 05:23

[deleted]

eagc72025-11-14 06:30

Should be noted that Pietro's death was not result of any legal reasons, Joss made the decision to kill Pietro himself because he didn't wanted everyone to make it out alive, so Pietro was the one he picked, he wasn't even sure if they would let him kill him, which means this was not an decision from the higher ups if Joss wasn't sure they would let him die

FX1142025-11-14 05:31

There are some characters who had dual rights ownerships. Kingpin is usable by both Fox/Disney and Sony, because he was as much a Daredevil villain as he was a Spider-Man one.

archiminos2025-11-14 11:13

That may not be the case. Kingpin has only appeared in MCU TV projects, not in any of the films.

Riley__642025-11-14 13:11

Yeah kingpin has the same a similar deal to Spider-Man, Disney can do whatever they want with him in tv but when it comes to film Sony own the film rights.

So if Disney ever want to include kingpin in a movie even if it doesn’t include spidey they’d still need permission from Sony

FX1142025-11-14 16:19

He was in the Fox Daredevil movie.

archiminos2025-11-14 21:16

Yes? That just confirms my point

FX1142025-11-14 21:16

All of the rights Fox had, Marvel now has (even before the Disney/Fox merger). If Fox could use him in a movie, Marvel can.

parabola192025-11-14 06:15

Disney could not refer to them as mutants or call them the scarlet witch or quicksilver. They had to use their full names. Whedon said he killed off Pietro for emotional effect but who knows. Maybe they figured split the kids for ease 🤷🏻‍♂️

Longjumping_Shine8742025-11-14 11:56

What changed in multiverse of madness?

ExultantSandwich2025-11-14 12:22

Disney bought Fox, the entire company, and regained the rights to all the characters they held. That’s why we finally got the Fantastic Four in the MCU. Certain other characters had their options expire early because Fox didn’t make another movie quickly enough. Daredevil returned to Marvel in 2013 and that’s why they were able to make the Netflix show

Longjumping_Shine8742025-11-14 12:23

That explains it, I forgot Spider-Man is Sony, not fox.

Uncanny_Doom2025-11-14 06:22

I don't know why comments are spreading misinformation/speculation that there was some kind of deal or rights that allowed Marvel Wanda and Fox Pietro. It's more likely that because Marvel can't use the X-Men toybox at the time, and Pietro was already adapted first in Days of Future Past, that they just felt secure not further pursuing using the character because doing Pietro without the X-Men stuff is way harder than Wanda, who is particularly tenured with the Avengers so all the important stuff regarding her character can still largely be explored.

The easy way to explain how it works is that the stuff pertaining to the characters in Avengers comics can be used in Avengers movies except for referring to them as mutants because that general broad Marvel universe concept was part of the X-Men rights deal the same way Sony gets the broad Spider-Verse as a whole in their deal. Could they try to adapt a character like Pyro with the limitations? Yes but...why? The reason Wanda and Pietro were used wasn't because they were X-Men, it's because they were Avengers.

eagc72025-11-14 06:28

Basically people are under the belief that since Pietro died in the MCU, but was more used in the X-Men films while Wanda wasn't in it means they could only use one. but as you said that's not true, but people took that theory as a fact over time.

Even Joss Whedon says that he made the decision to kill Pietro because he wanted there to be stakes he didn't wanted to allow all of the Avengers to survive Sokovia.

Uncanny_Doom2025-11-14 06:52

I'm glad you mentioned Juggernaut because I totally forgot about that being the case!

eagc72025-11-14 06:23

Basically they are tied to Magneto yes, but they have a more stronger presence in the Avengers than they did in the X-Men

So that allowed Marvel and Fox to be able to have use of the Maximoff's in their projects provided certain terms were meet.

Same happened with the Skrulls and Kingpin, the Skrulls are strongly associated with the Fantastic Four, but are also Marvel Universe general threats, so they were shared, also Kingpin is Daredevil's arch-nemesis, but he's also one of Spider-Man most reccuring foes, so Sony and Marvel share costudy

Moist-Illustrator-572025-11-14 09:06

But are there not other characters they could have used that are more household names which can draw an audience that share Avengers/ X-Men lineage or is it mainly these two?

I mainly ask as a fan of X men evolution and quicksilvers relation with his Dad being a big part of the show

SimonShepherd2025-11-14 09:44

Wanda is like literally one of the top 10 Avengers in terms of sheer comic appearances.

kah432025-11-14 15:54

Neither Quicksilver or the Scarlet Witch had any ties to the X-Men until the mid 80s. Before that outside of a couple very early appearances as members of Magnetos Brotherhood they were strictly Avengers characters. Once they retconned them into being Magnetos kids Quicksilver started having more ties with the mutant books like when he joined X-Factor, but even then Wanda was still more and Avengers character.

eagc72025-11-14 22:18

I mean at the end of the day it doesn't matter anymore since Spider-Man aside, Marvel has all of their characters back under their control (minus the distribution deal with Universal that prevents them from doing Hulk and Namor solo films)

Edboy7962025-11-14 06:39

They weren't referred to as mutants, just enhanced.

Made easten European in origin (Sokovia), so you get Pietro instead of Peter.

Hedgewitch2502025-11-14 06:52

They were loopholed in cause they were avenger characters as well as X-men. There was a whole chart explaining the rights of who had what like cyclops is a hardcore X-men character so he’s fox property but because quicksilver had footholds in both teams both studios could make use of him

Live_Answer_38752025-11-14 07:27

Simple. They didn’t refer to them as mutants at all when introduced.

milo3252025-11-14 07:55

It’s my understanding, from reading articles at the time, that the deal with Fox when they sold the rights allowed them to use all the mutants, including the characters of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Disney got around that by referring to them only by name, with no mention of them being mutants nor the children of Magneto. They didn’t refer to Wanda as the Scarlet Witch, I think, until the end of Wandavision, by which time Disney had acquired Fox and all of their licenses.

Sony still owns the rights to Peter Parker/Spiderman, and has leased them back to Marvel for the MCU Spider-Man movies. I think part of the reason there hasn’t been another solo Hulk movie is because Universal still has rights to make those movies.

Zerek_Doolander2025-11-14 09:41

Re: Hulk - Disney have the rights to make solo Hulk movies if they wish, but Universal have first distribution rights options on solo Hulk films. So as Disney don't want to just give Universal earnings for a film Universal didn't make, Hulk instead gets used in team-up films or films/shows where he is a supporting, secondary or cameo character.

milo3252025-11-14 09:42

I think that’s similar to Sony getting a chunk of the Spider-Man profits, but Marvel decided (rightly, I think) that Peter Parker is too important to sit on the sidelines.

YellowHammerDown2025-11-14 12:50

What people also don't talk about regarding this is that when Marvel reacquired the animated TV rights to Spider-Man in 2009 (to give Sony an extension for starting principal photography on a Spider-Man movie before the rights revert back to marvel for no money), was that Sony sold their sizable chunk of Spider-Man merchandising rights back to Disney/Marvel in the deal also. So Disney is okay with the revenue splits on the movies (although they have renegotiated that a few times) in order to have some creative direction with the character on the big screen, which helps drive their merchandising machine.

AdmiralCharleston2025-11-14 13:28

The difference is that sony and disney co finance spiderman films, whereas for hulk they would have to finance the film themselves but split the profits

AnonymousFriend802025-11-14 14:44

The reason Hulk hasn't had a new solo movie is because the CG is extremely expensive and time consuming if you want it right. All Hulk scenes in A1 had to be carefully planned, and was some of the first things planned, in order to appease the producers.

FUCK1NGFABULOUS2025-11-14 08:05

The studios could use both Wanda and Pietro because they overlap between X-Men and Avengers. There were arrangements that were made between both studios. At the time, Disney could not use the word mutant. In addition, the twins could not be tied to Magneto or the Brotherhood in the MCU but they were okay to do so in the Foxverse. Whereas they are mutants in the Foxverse, in the MCU their origin was tied to experimentation. This is why Baron Von Strucker said to Dr. List that they were no longer in the age of spies but were now in the age of miracles referencing them as miracles instead of mutants.

jazzmaster_YangGuo2025-11-14 08:19

just as a big middle finger by marvel/disney to fox, they RETCON'ed their origin stories -> instead of mutants, just "experiments" by the high evolutionary. publish it, then announce the casting introduction into the MCU -> profit

why? because fox played hardball on the then to be reacquired xmen rights by marvel/disney

pretty much what sony is currently doing with spider-man IP -> just pump out films, flop or not, and the contract stays intact -> profit

ThyNameisJason02025-11-14 08:53

Fox made Pietro an X-Men and a mutant, while Marvel Studios made Wanda and Pietro enhanced by the mind stone and no titles. Both Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch have been X-Men and Avengers. Fox just agreed to not mention anything Avengers related and Marvel Studios can't mention mutants and X-Men, also no titles.

KostisPat2572025-11-14 09:09

Wanda and Pietro started out as Avengers in the comics (or Avengers villains to be more accurate before joining the team) before having their origins tied to Magneto and the mutants.

So Marvel and Fox co-owned the characters just like Sony and Marvel co-own Kingpin due to his strong ties to both Daredevil and Spider-Man in the comics.

Joshawott272025-11-14 10:24

The rights to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were more legally complex because although they debuted in *X-Men* comics, a lot of their publication history was with the *Avengers*.

To get around that, Marvel Studios and Fox were both allowed to use the characters, but neither could use elements of properties that the other had the rights to. So, Marvel Studios weren’t allowed to acknowledge that they were mutants, and the Fox movies couldn’t have them involved with the Avengers.

ginger_snap2142025-11-14 10:40

iirc they were shared rights marvel couldn’t use the mutant origin story but could use the the characters and their powers

mega5122025-11-14 14:46

Shared. They couldn't call them mutants. That's really it.

AceofKnaves442025-11-14 15:40

Legally they weren’t allowed to be referred to as “mutants” and Magneto couldn’t be their father.

Earthwick2025-11-14 16:08

They couldn't use the name Quicksilver I remember that very specifically

reviery_official2025-11-14 16:36

One exec picks up the phone, calls the other one, makes an offer, gets accepted. They thank each other and wish each other well. Movie is made.

fin

CycloneJ0ker2025-11-14 17:13

They're in a weird spot. They may have debuted as Mutants in X-Men, but they've both spent FAR more time as active Avengers. Similar case with Black Panther, debuted as an ally of the Fantastic Four, but much more closely associated with the Avengers over time. As long as they didn't call them Mutants or make reference to Magneto or whatever, then they were fine.

Sycosocial202025-11-14 20:25

1. They have been Avengers.
2. There was no mention of mutations or the X-gene.
3. There was no mention of their X-men names Quicksilver or Scarlett Witch (until Disney bought Fox).

Just_Visiting_Town2025-11-14 20:39

Marvel made a deal with Fox. They could both use Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch but Marvel couldn't use the term Mutant and Fox couldn't mention the avengers.

They made a deal when it came to Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2. as well. Fox owned the rights to Ego and let Marvel use them if they could change Negasonic Teenage Warhead's powers for Deadpool.

KingOvDownvotes2025-11-14 22:05

“We’ve got enhanced in the field.”

JizzEMcguire2025-11-14 22:24

i thought the mind stone fused with her when it shattered in her premonition? it activated the "mutant gene". Another reason why she was so attached to Vision. Her abilities are basically all mind games that are brought from her mind, into our reality which causes our reality to become one of her choosing. The mind stone did that. It also exploded twice in front of her. once in the facility and once at her own hand. I believe this is what took her from infinity war wanda to the wanda that almost ripped Thanos apart. similar concept of when Monica passed through the Hex multiple times. It altered her DNA. Activating her mutant gene. So the cosmic radiation from both stones exploding took her from gypsy witch.. to she not needing us to tell her who she is.. something else the mind stone showed her.. Who she was capable of being. in her darkest, dirtiest time of her life. A prisoner to hydra experimentation. The stone showed her a polished power house, scarlet witch.. equipped with a crown. It needed to explode to unlock her truest potential. fulfilling the stones purpose. if she is destined to destroy the cosmos, than that stone followed her, leading to it being in her lovers forehead.. so she can only feel it. the universe conspires to make events come to fruition.

Her brother was just lucky to share the womb with the chosen one. he didnt see that coming.

sly_eli2025-11-14 23:47

I think Fox just decided to play ball.