• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Agatha All Along discussion and spoilers.

I hope they get a second season. It is IMO the best way to continue the story. I like how they could bring in a whole bunch of new characters as well with most of this seasons cast, well dead. Tommy would be one character for sure. Would love to see Wong and Madisynn.
 
Curiously, Variety reports that Agatha All Along will be submitted in comedy categories for awards season, suggesting that a second season is planned instead of the show existing as a miniseries and then continuing the story of searching for Tommy somewhere else.

I'll definitely take it if it happens, but how does submitting it for awards imply that a second season is planned?
 
I think there's some rule that says you have to submit limited series into the limited series category. I think this is how we knew there wouldn't be a second Moon Knight series. By submitting it into a more general category they're saying it isn't a one and done season.

Someone else will probably be able to explain that better than me :)

Anyhoo, I'm totally on board with a second season; The Search for Tommy. One hopes they might even get Lizzie for some of this one...
 
I think there's some rule that says you have to submit limited series into the limited series category. I think this is how we knew there wouldn't be a second Moon Knight series. By submitting it into a more general category they're saying it isn't a one and done season.
That, plus WandaVision was submitted for limited series categories.
 
It's interesting to think about. But looking up more info I see that FatWS and Hawkeye were both submitted in non-limited series categories, too. And there's apparently also a rule that a limited series must have a complete story arc without leaving stuff for later stories, which would possibly disqualify AAA as a limited series even if it is a one and done.
 
Yeah, the article says that in order for something to not go into the limited series category that have to show that the storyline or characters will be appearing somewhere else later.
Although it sounds like might go the other way too, and in that case the fact that this is a spin-off from WandaVision might be why it's an ongoing series. I think it said they did that with The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live, which I believe was just one season.
"Thanatos" is Greek Mythology or/and Freudian Psychology which basically boils down to Death worship, or love of death. You can argue definitions, but I'm right and I'm wrong.

I had a brain fart and forgot that Sandaman was DC.

Death is a figure in both projects, Sandman and Agatha, who did not have to be played by two different beautiful women.

In episode one or two of Agatha, Agatha refers to her powers as "purple"

Thanos is Purple.

In the Comics Thanos wants to bang Death.,

In Agatha, Agatha stuck her tongue down Death's throat.

They are both intimate with Death from Marvel.

Movie Thanos is an Eternal, brother of Eros, and not sexually fascinated by the avatar of Death.

Eternals are robot servants of the Celestials used to culture population rates, to the point that a high planetary population triggers the hatching of a Celestial egg, destroying a planet and the 5 billion people living on said plant.

An immortal purple Robot devised to increase the population of the universe, deciding to halve the population of the Universe, doesn't just happen. Thanos is either trying to save life and planets as the ultimate humanitarian, or he's picking a petty fight with his creators, the celestials, by screwing with their Birthrate, because of daddy issues.
Thanks.
 
It's interesting how willing people are to make excuses for Agatha, to say she only killed out of necessity or suggest that it would've been better if we'd seen her try to give it up. I think her two series so far have been pretty unambiguous about the fact that she's a straight-up villain, that she does evil things because she likes to. Yes, she had a kid that she loved, but she still used that kid as bait to kill witches and twisted that sweet song they made together into something exploitative and destructive. She wasn't a decent person who was driven to do bad, she was just a bad person. Refusing to surrender Billy to Death was probably her first redemptive act ever.
Yep, I have to say she is one of the most straight-up villain in the MCU. Usually the writers try to give the other villains a bit of nuance (Hollywood nuances, mind you). So it's hard to find a main villain-villain (and a mean one at that). It's hard to imagine a Thanos or an early version of Loki doing similar things out of pure pettiness.

I have to say it's refreshing, because people like that do exist. You don't have to find redeeming qualities in every villain that's on screen for more than 5 minutes.
 
By the way, how many witches were there in the Colonies? Considering that he killed 5 at a time? Were they a significant percentage of the population at the time???
 
I dunno, I can certainly see Loki doing things out of pettiness. Thanos not so much.

While I wouldn't disagree that Agatha is a straight up villain, I do still think there's nuance to her evil. She isn't a moustache twirling two dimensional villain by any means
She was a literally serial killer/mass murderer by any definition of the terms. Of course she isn't some cartoonish bad guy, but it's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't one.
 
You know what I find annoying about all these shows where witches exist? It implicitly means that the Inquisition and the Salem trials were right. At most they condemned the wrong people.
 
You know what I find annoying about all these shows where witches exist? It implicitly means that the Inquisition and the Salem trials were right. At most they condemned the wrong people.

Yeah, that bugs me too (particularly since I have ancestors who were on the accusing side in one of the witch trials, though not in Salem). But it doesn't necessarily imply that the Inquisition and witch trials were right, not if the witches are portrayed as a minority being persecuted for their powers or their religion. It does obscure the fact that the witchcraft charges were really just about controlling women and punishing them for asserting control of their sexuality, but it does retain the idea that the trials were unjust persecution, just for a different and more fanciful thing, which can often be an allegory for what it really was.

On the one hand, I can absolutely see the objection to legitimizing the propaganda of the persecutors, but on the other hand, maybe it can be seen as co-opting it and turning it around as a metaphor in defense of the persecuted, the way oppressed groups often co-opt rhetoric created to harm or insult them and turn it into a positive (like how "gay" and "queer" both began as insults but are now embraced with pride). So while I share your dislike for such stories, I think some of them have mitigating factors that let me live with them. In this case, the show seemed to be very much on the witches' side, with Agatha being the only one that lived down to the evil stereotype. Although it's problematical that WandaVision showed her own coven tying her to a stake to execute her, which is really blurring the sides.
 
Yeah, that bugs me too (particularly since I have ancestors who were on the accusing side in one of the witch trials, though not in Salem). But it doesn't necessarily imply that the Inquisition and witch trials were right, not if the witches are portrayed as a minority being persecuted for their powers or their religion. It does obscure the fact that the witchcraft charges were really just about controlling women and punishing them for asserting control of their sexuality, but it does retain the idea that the trials were unjust persecution, just for a different and more fanciful thing, which can often be an allegory for what it really was.

On the one hand, I can absolutely see the objection to legitimizing the propaganda of the persecutors, but on the other hand, maybe it can be seen as co-opting it and turning it around as a metaphor in defense of the persecuted, the way oppressed groups often co-opt rhetoric created to harm or insult them and turn it into a positive (like how "gay" and "queer" both began as insults but are now embraced with pride). So while I share your dislike for such stories, I think some of them have mitigating factors that let me live with them. In this case, the show seemed to be very much on the witches' side, with Agatha being the only one that lived down to the evil stereotype. Although it's problematical that WandaVision showed her own coven tying her to a stake to execute her, which is really blurring the sides.
I wonder if anyone in real life has ever asked these witchburners something like, "Excuse me, but if these women have incredible and arcane powers, how did you manage to capture them? And how are they still your prisoners?"

But I imagine they would have answered something like "Because God is with us!!!" or similar...
 
I wonder if anyone in real life has ever asked these witchburners something like, "Excuse me, but if these women have incredible and arcane powers, how did you manage to capture them? And how are they still your prisoners?"

But I imagine they would have answered something like "Because God is with us!!!" or similar...

Most likely, as with the idea that you can counter a demon or vampire or whatever with Bibles, crosses, and holy water, or with the power of prayer.
 
By the way, how many witches were there in the Colonies? Considering that he killed 5 at a time? Were they a significant percentage of the population at the time???

They came seeking religious freedom, just like the Puritans. It looks like the early witches sought out their own lands to settle on and practice rather than settling with the larger population--but in the Marvel Universe, I believe it was established their were actual witches in Salem.

She was a literally serial killer/mass murderer by any definition of the terms. Of course she isn't some cartoonish bad guy, but it's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't one.

I don't that Starkers is saying she's not an evil villain. She just has depth and personality.

I wonder if anyone in real life has ever asked these witchburners something like, "Excuse me, but if these women have incredible and arcane powers, how did you manage to capture them? And how are they still your prisoners?"

But I imagine they would have answered something like "Because God is with us!!!" or similar...

You've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
 
By the way, how many witches were there in the Colonies? Considering that he killed 5 at a time? Were they a significant percentage of the population at the time???
One can imagine that like many colonists, witches fled to the Americas to avoid persecution in their homelands. So maybe quite a few. Agatha seemed to target witch majority villages at first. Of course in the real word the number was close to zero.
 
Back
Top