Let's say a higher power suddenly appears and offers to take away her psychic powers, but only if she allows it to. Would she say yes or no?
In this version of the Heresy, the Loyalists and Traitors decide to settle their feuds in a fair fight to the death instead of going to war and wasting more lives. They choose a undeveloped planet as a neutral zone and descend to fight for the last time. Both sides discuss strategy beforehand. All Primarchs are at their pre-Heresy levels, so no Daemon Primarchs or Chaos enhancements. Who would win?
Team Loyalists:
Lion El'Jonson
Jaghatai Khan
Leman Russ
Rogal Dorn
Sanguinius
Ferrus Manus
Roboute Guilliman
Vulkan
Corvus Corax
Team Traitor:
Fulgrim
Perturabo
Konrad Curze
Angron
Mortarion
Magnus
Horus
Lorgar
Alpharius Omegon(counted as one person)
See, the thing about Ultron is that he isn't just a rogue AI, he represents Tony Stark's evil: all of his traits(sarcasm, ego, genius)are Tony's traits, only with the redeeming traits of Tony removed and all the bad exaggerated to omnicidal levels.
Which is why it is super fitting that Wanda, perhaps one of Tony Stark's greatest victims(her family killed by his weapons, her brother died because of his creation) is the one who kills Ultron: she is literally the consequences of Tony Stark's sins coming back for revenge. But the problem is, Tony Stark has changed, and he is no longer the man he once was: he actually is now a hero, and thus Pietro(and Wanda's) revenge on him would be meaningless because the Tony Stark they hated died in a cave with a man named Yinsen.
Luckily, the universe provides a substitute for the evil Stark: Ultron Himself, who(as mentioned above) is all of Tony's evil and worse. Everything Ultron does to Wanda and her brother is basically Tony x1000: he destroys Slovakia and steals Wanda's family away from her, but he plans to do the same to the entire planet. Thus, Wanda effectively gets to both get her revenge on Stark and save the world, without actually killing Iron Man.
Speaking of which, I wonder if the quote in the picture was what Wanda fantasized about saying to Stark if she ever met him and got her revenge: it fits pretty well if you think about it.
I think that the community's general opinion is that Disney's Star Wars have been...lackluster, relying on too much fanservice and references to previous shows for you to get the plot. Andor was a exception because it focused on an entirely different part of the Star Wars world: the gritty, dark underbelly of the rebellion that we don't get to see. And while there was still fanservice and references, Andor managed to weave it in seamlessly to actually support the plot, rather than simply be there to grab the fans. I made the post because I just watched Maul: Shadow Lord, and for those of you who haven't watched it, the Andor influence is instantly obvious: same gritty street-level vibe, focusing on tension and character, morally grey conflicts all around. But Shadow Lord and Andor are opposites in a lot of ways: Shadow Lord uses a lot more popular characters and is more mainstream(Maul, Darth Vader, etc.), while Andor focuses on mostly original characters....and both KNOCK IT OUT OF THE PARK in their own independent fields, even though they look so different.
Part of the reason Rogue One, in my opinion was likely the best Disney Star Wars movie was because it managed to balance fanservice with a actual plot. Unfortunately, for some reason Disney never followed up on the examples it set, and thus we got the trashfire that was the Sequels. Andor I think has not only set a new example of "Star Wars", but it also has revived attention to Rogue One as a example, and I hope that the Disney execs can actually see what we want this time around.
The point is, I have been given hope for the future of Disney Star Wars: we can clearly see how even more fanservice-based shows clearly use Andor(And Rogue One) as a inspiration, and they manage to make even the most extreme examples of fanservice(Vader) in a way that helps along the plot instead of hinder it.
I hope this trend continues: we've got two wonderful shows on the opposite side of the fanservice spectrum, Disney just needs to learn what we want and use it to improve.
Title
See, the whole point of the Shrek-verse is that it deconstructs fairy tales and reverses them. In Shrek, the ugly Ogre rescues a Princess from a handsome prince, not the other way around. Goldilocks was raised by the Three Bears. Jack Horner, instead of being that one kid who stuck his thumb into a pie, is a feared crime boss who basically is just pure evil. Pinocchio was taken advantage of by his creator for cheap profit. Even the Wishing Star is deconstructed: everyone who seeks it out either decides they don't need it or dies trying.
Death, on the other hand, seems to be the only bad guy who plays his trope dead straight. There is no fooling around or deconstructed character trait with him, he is just death, straight up. He chases Puss around on his whole journey, and even though Puss manages to beat him, it's quite clear that Death will come for him in the end(plus people "Beating" death is a core trait of fairy tales about the Reaper).
I think this is why Death is a lot more menacing compared to every other bad guy: the original fairy tales were far more scary than the watered-down versions we know as kids, because they were actually told as lessons, not just funny tales. Therefore, Death is effectively a traditional fairy tale character dropped into a world of broken fairy tales, which is why he stands out.
What do you guys think?