WandaVision - Disney+ (***Spoilers***)

Mr.Nice Guy

Foxtrol wrote: »

You seem to live in a very black or white world - the world isn't all good or bad.

People can feel two emotions at once for a character - they can feel sympathy while also acknowledging that they did a horrible thing. It is basically the art of good storytelling - characters that are always good or always bad a just boring.

I agree that specific line is clunky but it is still true - those people she hurt won't know what she actually gave up to release them and even if they know they have a right to not care (just like you and others watching can choose not to care). That however doesn't mean she didn't give something up.

I'd argue that overall Marvel dealt with the whole thing pretty well. They acknowledged throughout and at times in a very visceral way the trauma Wanda was putting the townspeople through, unlike say that WW84 scene. They provided background how she got to a place that this occurred but didn't excuse it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash to what she did to the town is a driver of later shows/movies (just like backlash to damage the Avengers caused drove other movies). I think you're completely ignoring precedent if you believe Wanda's slate hasn't been wiped clean due to a single comment from a new character.

'The world isn't all good or bad' is quite a defence for a character using her own grief to take over the minds of an entire town, including separating children from their parents, traumatising them to a degree many will never get over.

This isn't Wolverine-esque shades of grey here. This was a different level entirely, akin to something a villain would do. Her 'sacrifice' was giving up a fantasy of her own warped making, and she didn't even have the class to apologize or look to make amends for what she did, as she hovered away like a selfish coward.

Awful writing for an awful character.

FunLover18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'The world isn't all good or bad' is quite a defence for a character using her own grief to take over the minds of an entire town, including separating children from their parents, traumatising them to a degree many will never get over.

This isn't Wolverine-esque shades of grey here. This was a different level entirely, akin to something a villain would do. Her 'sacrifice' was giving up a fantasy of her own warped making, and she didn't even have the class to apologize or look to make amends for what she did, as she hovered away like a selfish coward.

Awful writing for an awful character.

I thought it was pretty clear at the end that she hadn't realised how it was affecting people and assumed they were all living idyllic lives like her. It was literally Agatha saying the good guys don't torture people that made her realise what she was doing.

Marvel seem to be addressing these consequences for their characters now what with Bucky going to counselling and trying to make amends for all his assassinations so I wouldn't be surprised if we see Wanda coming to terms with what she did at some point.

I do agree it could have been handled a lot better though but unlike you I like Wanda and I think throught the movies and series so far they've done enough to show that while conflicted she is at heart a good character who has done some horrendous things.

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I get the feeling if some die-hard MCU fans went to a Marvel-themed restaurant and were served a turd on a plate, they would manage to find a way to defend it. Maybe because it 'subverted expectations'.

And some people seem to define themselves by what they don't like and being different to the general consensus. Maybe just enjoy what you enjoy?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Quite extraordinary that they actually managed to convince much of their audience that a protagonist that manipulated and traumatised an entire town for their own personal problems merited sympathy.

Because she didn't know what she was doing and when the reality of what she was doing was presented to her, she stopped doing it.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'They'll never know what you sacrificed for them' - one of the most amazingly inappropriate lines of dialogue I've heard in a long time.

When she was faced with the reality that what she was doing was hurting the townspeople, Wanda stopped the delusion knowing that would kill her children and Vision. Do you have a partner or children? Would you choose random people over them?

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'The world isn't all good or bad' is quite a defence for a character using her own grief to take over the minds of an entire town, including separating children from their parents, traumatising them to a degree many will never get over.

Nobody "uses their own grief" to do anything, that's not how emotions like that work. Grief uses you, makes you do something you wouldn't normally do. In the real world, if you do something illegal out of extreme grief, then you will usually be punished far less because of "crime of passion"-type laws.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When she was faced with the reality that what she was doing was hurting the townspeople, Wanda stopped the delusion knowing that would kill her children and Vision. Do you have a partner or children? Would you choose random people over them?

They weren't her children. Androids can't have children. To suggest this was like someone sacrificing a family is a bit like saying a kid that gives up his/her imaginary friend is the same as a kid that had a best friend die. They aren't remotely comparable.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Nobody "uses their own grief" to do anything, that's not how emotions like that work. Grief uses you, makes you do something you wouldn't normally do. In the real world, if you do something illegal out of extreme grief, then you will usually be punished far less because of "crime of passion"-type laws.

Everybody grieves at some point. Not everybody reacts in the selfish, deranged psycho fashion like Wanda did.

Here's Pitch Meeting's take on it (the part from 6:50 on really nails the absurdity of 'they have no idea what you sacrificed for them'):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRkLLkpL5oY

Insect Overlord

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Everybody grieves at some point. Not everybody reacts in the selfish, deranged psycho fashion like Wanda did.

Consider her backstory again for a moment. War. Losing her parents. Isolation. Genetic experimentation. Manipulation by Ultron. The destruction of her home city. The death of her brother. Finding hope with a new love only to see him die twice fighting in an inter-galactic battle. The consequences of the Blip. Manipulation by Agatha. She's a witch. How exactly do you expect her to just behave like an average young woman?!

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They weren't her children. Androids can't have children. To suggest this was like someone sacrificing a family is a bit like saying a kid that gives up his/her imaginary friend is the same as a kid that had a best friend die. They aren't remotely comparable.

They were her children. She gave birth to them. And Vision is a synthoid, not an android, he is a synthetic human so there is no reason to assume he couldn't have children.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Everybody grieves at some point. Not everybody reacts in the selfish, deranged psycho fashion like Wanda did.

It might not be the most scientific of models, but the middle stage of the 5 stages of grief is bargaining. Most people actually do have very selfish reactions to grief. They want what they lost back, or they want revenge for loosing it.
And someone who barely has a lid on her reality altering powers, having an explosion of emotion leading to a powerful delusion that she herself is happy to believe because it contradicts her grief, that's not surprising at all.

You are going out of your way, ignoring things from the show and how basic human emotions work, in order to pretend there is some huge ethical problem here, just so you can bash the MCU.

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nobody "uses their own grief" to do anything, that's not how emotions like that work. Grief uses you, makes you do something you wouldn't normally do. In the real world, if you do something illegal out of extreme grief, then you will usually be punished far less because of "crime of passion"-type laws.

"illegal" :pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Consider her backstory again for a moment. War. Losing her parents. Isolation. Genetic experimentation. Manipulation by Ultron. The destruction of her home city. The death of her brother. Finding hope with a new love only to see him die twice fighting in an inter-galactic battle. The consequences of the Blip. Manipulation by Agatha. She's a witch. How exactly do you expect her to just behave like an average young woman?!

I expect her to behave like a heroine since that's what she's written to be. She's not the only hero to go through immense trauma. Bruce Wayne loses his own parents in front of him too, sees those that fight alongside him suffer torture, lose their lives, but doesn't decide to take his pain out on Gotham - quite the contrary. And not to mention we've seen her fight with the Avengers before this, so she knows what it's like to fight on the right side. It's really not worth going through mental gymnastics to defend this.

You're also overlooking the fact that the 'they'll never know' line was uttered by Monica, who is supposedly the sane, sensible one. The one who is basically representing the viewer's perspective. It's a bit like Hitchcock at the end of Psycho trying to get the audience to sympathise with Norman, as opposed to the victims of his madness.

And you pointing out she's a witch brings up something that hadn't occurred to me - since she had the power to trap Agatha in a mind prison, shouldn't it be considered likely that she also has the power to make the town she mentally tortured forget their trauma? So not only did she not have the class to apologize, she couldn't even bother her backside to undo the damage she did!

Mark Hamill wrote:

They were her children. She gave birth to them. And Vision is a synthoid, not an android, he is a synthetic human so there is no reason to assume he couldn't have children.

Now you're just being pedantic. From Wikipedia:

In the late 1960s, editor Stan Lee and writer Roy Thomas decided to add a new team member to the superhero-team series The Avengers. Thomas wanted to bring back the Golden Age alien Vision (Aarkus) but Lee was set on introducing an android member. Thomas ultimately compromised by using a new, android Vision.

And here's Paul Bettany on the only scene he contributed:

“I realized [the scene] was missing a trick, which was the [reference], ‘Even the androids can cry,’ which is this famous frame from a VISION [comics run] where he realizes that he's crying,” elaborated Bettany. “I thought, if his journey has always been a journey towards humanity, the realization that he is crying is ‘I'm a real boy.’ Jac loved the idea of it. I realized that if [Wanda] looked [at him] and [they both realized] that there is joy in the ending of him. He has completed his journey, as it were.

Call him what you want - android, synthezoid, the tin man - he can't have children over the space of a 24 hour period or whatever it was.

I'm reminded of The Simpson's gag relating to illogical things in shows like this: 'whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it'. It seems the Marvel die-hard defence from now on is going to be: 'whenever you notice something like that, a witch did it.'

Mark Hamill wrote:

It might not be the most scientific of models, but the middle stage of the 5 stages of grief is bargaining. Most people actually do have very selfish reactions to grief. They want what they lost back, or they want revenge for loosing it.

And someone who barely has a lid on her reality altering powers, having an explosion of emotion leading to a powerful delusion that she herself is happy to believe because it contradicts her grief, that's not surprising at all.

You are going out of your way, ignoring things from the show and how basic human emotions work, in order to pretend there is some huge ethical problem here, just so you can bash the MCU.

I like how you're happy to use scientific models to make a defence for Wanda's mind control, but apparently not when it relates to Vision reproducing!

That she suffered grief is not in dispute. What is being challenged is the idea that because of this grief the audience should forgive her extraordinary cruelty against an entire town who had nothing to do with it. That motivation is fine for a supervillain, but not a hero. You're going out of your way to defend this purely because it has Marvel's prints all over it.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that Marvel are dealing with consequences for characters such as with Bucky's counselling. I'd like to see that tried with Wanda, attending a group therapy discussion for people who tragically lost their children. And after they get done talking about how they lost loved ones to a range of accidents, illnesses, etc. then Wanda can get up and say: 'I know how you all feel. I lost my imaginary boys - who I knew for a whopping fortnight - that I gave birth to with my inhuman husband. We're all the same.' I suspect that wouldn't go down too well because it's insulting.

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Now you're just being pedantic. From Wikipedia:

And here's Paul Bettany on the only scene he contributed:

Call him what you want - android, synthezoid, the tin man - he can't have children over the space of a 24 hour period or whatever it was.

I'm not being pedantic. Vision is not just a mechanical robot in the shape of a human. He was created by Ultron as the next evolutionary step of humanity, so it stands to reason that he would have something analogous to biological human functions. Even in the Bettany quote you gave, he points out that Vision can cry and this is part of his journey to humanity: "I thought, if his journey has always been a journey towards humanity, the realization that he is crying is ‘I'm a real boy.’"

And Wanda is magic, so her pregnancy ending in a day is not going to look so weird to her, especially when she is in a magical delusion of her own desired happiness to be with Vision and have a family with him.

Wanda does not see her children or Vision as anything but real.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

That she suffered grief is not in dispute. What is being challenged is the idea that because of this grief the audience should forgive her extraordinary cruelty against an entire town who had nothing to do with it. That motivation is fine for a supervillain, but not a hero. You're going out of your way to defend this purely because it has Marvel's prints all over it.

Wanda didn't realise the cruelty of what she was doing. And when it was presented to her, she agreed with it being so cruel that she had to stop, even though it would mean loosing her family (Vision and her children who feel as real to her as anyone else's family feels to them).

Mark Hamill

silverharp wrote: »

"illegal" :pac:

Yes, illegal. Are you going to contribute to the discussion?

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, illegal. Are you going to contribute to the discussion?

If a super hero kidnaps 10,000 people and tortures them we're beyond illegal and into war crimes territory. It will be bad writing if this character just gets on with things in some future film.

FunLover18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I expect her to behave like a heroine since that's what she's written to be. She's not the only hero to go through immense trauma. Bruce Wayne loses his own parents in front of him too, sees those that fight alongside him suffer torture, lose their lives, but doesn't decide to take his pain out on Gotham - quite the contrary. And not to mention we've seen her fight with the Avengers before this, so she knows what it's like to fight on the right side. It's really not worth going through mental gymnastics to defend this.

You're also overlooking the fact that the 'they'll never know' line was uttered by Monica, who is supposedly the sane, sensible one. The one who is basically representing the viewer's perspective. It's a bit like Hitchcock at the end of Psycho trying to get the audience to sympathise with Norman, as opposed to the victims of his madness.

And you pointing out she's a witch brings up something that hadn't occurred to me - since she had the power to trap Agatha in a mind prison, shouldn't it be considered likely that she also has the power to make the town she mentally tortured forget their trauma? So not only did she not have the class to apologize, she couldn't even bother her backside to undo the damage she did!



Now you're just being pedantic. From Wikipedia:



And here's Paul Bettany on the only scene he contributed:



Call him what you want - android, synthezoid, the tin man - he can't have children over the space of a 24 hour period or whatever it was.

I'm reminded of The Simpson's gag relating to illogical things in shows like this: 'whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it'. It seems the Marvel die-hard defence from now on is going to be: 'whenever you notice something like that, a witch did it.'



I like how you're happy to use scientific models to make a defence for Wanda's mind control, but apparently not when it relates to Vision reproducing!

That she suffered grief is not in dispute. What is being challenged is the idea that because of this grief the audience should forgive her extraordinary cruelty against an entire town who had nothing to do with it. That motivation is fine for a supervillain, but not a hero. You're going out of your way to defend this purely because it has Marvel's prints all over it.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that Marvel are dealing with consequences for characters such as with Bucky's counselling. I'd like to see that tried with Wanda, attending a group therapy discussion for people who tragically lost their children. And after they get done talking about how they lost loved ones to a range of accidents, illnesses, etc. then Wanda can get up and say: 'I know how you all feel. I lost my imaginary boys - who I knew for a whopping fortnight - that I gave birth to with my inhuman husband. We're all the same.' I suspect that wouldn't go down too well because it's insulting.

Is "Vision is an android and therefore can't have children" really the hill you're choosing to die on in the MCU?

It comes back to what Foxtrol said previously, not everyone is all good or all bad. Yes Wanda is a hero but she is also deeply flawed and that makes for better storytelling. In the post credit scene we clearly see Wanda in self imposed exile and I don't think it's a coincidence how similar it is to Banner at the end of The Incredible Hulk a character who has also done terrible things as a result of letting their emotions take control. I don't think the audience is asked to forgive her, merely empathise.

I think more insulting is suggesting that a mother can't form a bond with her children in a fortnight. The children were not figments of her imagination, they interacted with the world and other characters in the show.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic. Vision is not just a mechanical robot in the shape of a human. He was created by Ultron as the next evolutionary step of humanity, so it stands to reason that he would have something analogous to biological human functions. Even in the Bettany quote you gave, he points out that Vision can cry and this is part of his journey to humanity: "I thought, if his journey has always been a journey towards humanity, the realization that he is crying is ‘I'm a real boy.’"

And Wanda is magic, so her pregnancy ending in a day is not going to look so weird to her, especially when she is in a magical delusion of her own desired happiness to be with Vision and have a family with him.

Wanda does not see her children or Vision as anything but real.

'It stands to reason that he would have something analogous to biological human functions' - seriously? How on earth does that stand to reason? Crying is one thing, creating human life is another thing entirely.

You're trying to have it both ways in defending this bad writing. You're arguing it's okay to give Wanda a pass for the torture of the town because it was a delusion she was experiencing, but yet you defend her feelings for the boys - who were also part of the delusion.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Wanda didn't realise the cruelty of what she was doing. And when it was presented to her, she agreed with it being so cruel that she had to stop, even though it would mean loosing her family (Vision and her children who feel as real to her as anyone else's family feels to them).

Mighty big of her to agree it was cruel to manipulate an entire populace for her own ends, separating parents and children, as part of her own selfish dream world. Your argument though isn't helped by the fact she slunk away like a coward and didn't even try to heal the trauma she put upon the townsfolk.

If you defend the cruelty she did on the basis she was unaware, there is no defending the cruelty she subjected to them after she became aware - leaving them to pick up the pieces of her selfish actions.

And there is no defending the idiocy of Monica indulging Wanda's selfish ego further by telling her that she was the one who sacrificed, as opposed to the townsfolk.

FunLover18 wrote:

Is "Vision is an android and therefore can't have children" really the hill you're choosing to die on in the MCU?

It comes back to what Foxtrol said previously, not everyone is all good or all bad. Yes Wanda is a hero but she is also deeply flawed and that makes for better storytelling. In the post credit scene we clearly see Wanda in self imposed exile and I don't think it's a coincidence how similar it is to Banner at the end of The Incredible Hulk a character who has also done terrible things as a result of letting their emotions take control. I don't think the audience is asked to forgive her, merely empathise.

I think more insulting is suggesting that a mother can't form a bond with her children in a fortnight. The children were not figments of her imagination, they interacted with the world and other characters in the show.

My main hill is the whole 'let's feel sympathy for the selfish sod that tormented an entire town so she could act out her imaginary dream life.'

Big whoop that she is off having a mope somewhere. What about the mothers and the kids in the town that she used for her own selfish ends, and the years of therapy they will likely require to even have a chance at a decent life?

'Not everyone is good or bad' is a lazy excuse for her actions. As I mentioned previously, Bruce Wayne saw his parents killed in front of them and he didn't respond to that by taking out his pain on the innocent citizens of Gotham. That's the difference between a real hero and a psycho pretending to be one.

Mark Hamill

silverharp wrote: »

If a super hero kidnaps 10,000 people and tortures them we're beyond illegal and into war crimes territory. It will be bad writing if this character just gets on with things in some future film.

She didn't kidnap them, she didn't realise what she was doing.

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'It stands to reason that he would have something analogous to biological human functions' - seriously? How on earth does that stand to reason? Crying is one thing, creating human life is another thing entirely.

Vision can go as hard as diamond and then phase through solid matter. I don't see why creating a few spermatozoa, white the help of the most powerful chaos witch in existence, would be beyond him.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You're trying to have it both ways in defending this bad writing. You're arguing it's okay to give Wanda a pass for the torture of the town because it was a delusion she was experiencing, but yet you defend her feelings for the boys - who were also part of the delusion.

How is that "trying to have it both ways"?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Mighty big of her to agree it was cruel to manipulate an entire populace for her own ends, separating parents and children, as part of her own selfish dream world. Your argument though isn't helped by the fact she slunk away like a coward and didn't even try to heal the trauma she put upon the townsfolk.

If you defend the cruelty she did on the basis she was unaware, there is no defending the cruelty she subjected to them after she became aware - leaving them to pick up the pieces of her selfish actions.

And there is no defending the idiocy of Monica indulging Wanda's selfish ego further by telling her that she was the one who sacrificed, as opposed to the townsfolk.

She left because the town hardly seemed like it wanted her to stay around.
And Monica never said the townspeople didn't also suffer, she was one of the people who tried to get Wanda to stop.

In your rush to stand out and go against the grain by disliking the show, you seem to be forgetting that a significant part of the townspeople suffering is them having to feel Wanda's grief. She removed a lot of their suffering by removing the hex.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

My main hill is the whole 'let's feel sympathy for the selfish sod that tormented an entire town so she could act out her imaginary dream life.'

Again, Wanda didn't plan this. You seem to be incapable of seeing this. Wanda was much of a victim of her own grief as anyone else in the town. As has been pointed out already, she is pretty analogous to Banner/The Hulk, except she is more sympathetic because she genuinely thought that she wasn't hurting people.

FunLover18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

My main hill is the whole 'let's feel sympathy for the selfish sod that tormented an entire town so she could act out her imaginary dream life.'

Big whoop that she is off having a mope somewhere. What about the mothers and the kids in the town that she used for her own selfish ends, and the years of therapy they will likely require to even have a chance at a decent life?

'Not everyone is good or bad' is a lazy excuse for her actions. As I mentioned previously, Bruce Wayne saw his parents killed in front of them and he didn't respond to that by taking out his pain on the innocent citizens of Gotham. That's the difference between a real hero and a psycho pretending to be one.

It's not an excuse, it's good storytelling and characterisation and it's something that has been in the MCU since the beginning. Stark was an arms dealer and the casualties of the Avengers' actions is something he has to deal with, we saw him approached by the mother of one such casualty. Banner used to turn into uncontrollable rage monster. Winter Soldier was a brainwashed assassin and is coming to terms with that. Loki literally started out as a villain, how many deaths has he been responsible for and he's been turned into somewhat of an anti-hero and is getting his own show. Gamorra and Nebula worked for Thanos FFS, they literally helped him commit genocide. Kill Monger is widely praised as one of the most sympathetic Marvel villains despite his actions to the point where some have suggested he replace Boseman as Black Panther. People are flawed.

Mr.Nice Guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Vision can go as hard as diamond and then phase through solid matter. I don't see why creating a few spermatozoa, white the help of the most powerful chaos witch in existence, would be beyond him.

I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head reading the above paragraph. Synthezoid sperm + magic = two definitely real kids. I mean we are truly in the realm of 'a wizard witch did it' here.

Mark Hamill wrote:

How is that "trying to have it both ways"?

Your thoughts on Wanda torturing a whole town - it's okay Wanda was deluded.

Your thoughts on Wanda saying a tearful goodbye to her invented offspring - oh how heartbreaking (never mind she was deluded).

Mark Hamill wrote:

She left because the town hardly seemed like it wanted her to stay around.
And Monica never said the townspeople didn't also suffer, she was one of the people who tried to get Wanda to stop.

Of course they didn't want her around - she tortured them! And didn't bother apologizing, or trying to fix what she did afterwards. She was too busy enacting revenge to look for redemption. Monica's words were hopelessly insensitive.

Mark Hamill wrote:

In your rush to stand out and go against the grain by disliking the show, you seem to be forgetting that a significant part of the townspeople suffering is them having to feel Wanda's grief. She removed a lot of their suffering by removing the hex.

In your rush to follow the masses and defend Marvel's bad writing at any cost, you are tying yourself in knots. Did the townsfolk look like they had a lot of their suffering removed at the end? You realise she controlled their minds?

Mark Hamill wrote:

Again, Wanda didn't plan this. You seem to be incapable of seeing this. Wanda was much of a victim of her own grief as anyone else in the town. As has been pointed out already, she is pretty analogous to Banner/The Hulk, except she is more sympathetic because she genuinely thought that she wasn't hurting people.

Again, she didn't own her selfish behaviour. You don't think the townsfolk could have done with her using her powers to make them forget what happened, or at the very least apologize to them? Pretend Marvel didn't make this and, say, RTE did. Would you feel the same way about this hokum? I doubt it.

FunLover18 wrote:

It's not an excuse, it's good storytelling and characterisation and it's something that has been in the MCU since the beginning. Stark was an arms dealer and the casualties of the Avengers' actions is something he has to deal with, we saw him approached by the mother of one such casualty. Banner used to turn into uncontrollable rage monster. Winter Soldier was a brainwashed assassin and is coming to terms with that. Loki literally started out as a villain, how many deaths has he been responsible for and he's been turned into somewhat of an anti-hero and is getting his own show. Gamorra and Nebula worked for Thanos FFS, they literally helped him commit genocide. Kill Monger is widely praised as one of the most sympathetic Marvel villains despite his actions to the point where some have suggested he replace Boseman as Black Panther. People are flawed.

It's not good storytelling when the hero behaves like a supervillain and refuses to take ownership for the sh*tty things they've done. How do you not get this? Banner actually feels bad for the stuff that he does - that's why he doesn't want to transform! Winter Soldier didn't ask Tony Stark for sympathy or to think of how much he had to sacrifice when he murdered his parents. I'm not saying 'shades of grey', and characters having a dark past are always wrong. I'm saying the way Marvel did it with Wanda's characters was the sh*ts. It was laughably bad, to the point where millions of people are trying to make sense of it.

Imagine you were a mother in the town. You've experienced what Wanda went through as regards her grief. But you've also had your infant child separated from you for weeks, if not months. You have been deprived of your own freedom of thought. Your child is terrified of what has happened and you're looking at years of therapy ahead. And when you are finally free of it, you see Wanda dress herself in new red threads, imprison her foe in a mental prison, and then make absolutely NO effort to apologize for what she put your family through and everyone else, nor to try and fix it. Do you feel this is someone worthy of your sympathy? Be honest.

If Marvel want to make this halfway realistic, Wanda should be running away from more lawsuits than Harvey Weinstein. And even he faced the music.

Lithium93_

Lads, some interesting points made, but have you ever thought that WandaVision is just only a small part of a larger story, and that she may yet face the consequences for her actions in WestView? I mean Wanda did acknowledge what Monica said when she explained that Hayward was trying to make her out to be the villain.

It's the first part of an assumed trilogy seeing as the show reaches into Doctor Strange 2 & Spider-Man: No Way Home as well.

Mark Hamill

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head reading the above paragraph. Synthezoid sperm + magic = two definitely real kids. I mean we are truly in the realm of 'a wizard witch did it' here.

They are definitely real to her. Why can't you get this? You keep mockingly saying it's like "a witch did it" when it literally is a witch doing it.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Your thoughts on Wanda torturing a whole town - it's okay Wanda was deluded.

Your thoughts on Wanda saying a tearful goodbye to her invented offspring - oh how heartbreaking (never mind she was deluded).

I never said it was ok that she put the town through torture. She had deluded herself into thinking the town wasn't being tortured and when that part of delusion was removed, she freed the entire town even though it meant loosing her kids and Vision, despite how real they were to her.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Of course they didn't want her around - she tortured them! And didn't bother apologizing, or trying to fix what she did afterwards. She was too busy enacting revenge to look for redemption. Monica's words were hopelessly insensitive.

Enacting revenge against who?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

In your rush to follow the masses and defend Marvel's bad writing at any cost, you are tying yourself in knots. Did the townsfolk look like they had a lot of their suffering removed at the end? You realise she controlled their minds?

Are you saying the townsfolk didn't look better off when Wanda was leaving? When Vision released his co-worker from Wanda's control, in an earlier episode, his co-worker just constantly screamed about the pain he was in. The town is not in a happy place when Wanda leaves, but they aren't suffering anymore.
Even Monica, who was subject to her control, said that Wanda didn't realise what she was doing.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Again, she didn't own her selfish behaviour. You don't think the townsfolk could have done with her using her powers to make them forget what happened, or at the very least apologize to them? Pretend Marvel didn't make this and, say, RTE did. Would you feel the same way about this hokum? I doubt it.

Would making them forget really make things better? Would that not be another massive invasion of their lives and personhood?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not good storytelling when the hero behaves like a supervillain and refuses to take ownership for the sh*tty things they've done. How do you not get this? Banner actually feels bad for the stuff that he does - that's why he doesn't want to transform! Winter Soldier didn't ask Tony Stark for sympathy or to think of how much he had to sacrifice when he murdered his parents. I'm not saying 'shades of grey', and characters having a dark past are always wrong. I'm saying the way Marvel did it with Wanda's characters was the sh*ts. It was laughably bad, to the point where millions of people are trying to make sense of it.

Winter Soldier didn't sacrifice something when he killed Starks parents, so that analogy makes no sense at all.
And Wanda felt so bad for what she did that she stopped doing it of her own accord even though she could have just turned the delusion back on after defeating Agatha. She even went into seclusion (much like Banner), even though it all meant loosing her (real to her) children and husband. You are going to have to stop pretending that that isn't how the show ends, just because it makes a mockery of your arguments.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Imagine you were a mother in the town. You've experienced what Wanda went through as regards her grief. But you've also had your infant child separated from you for weeks, if not months. You have been deprived of your own freedom of thought. Your child is terrified of what has happened and you're looking at years of therapy ahead. And when you are finally free of it, you see Wanda dress herself in new red threads, imprison her foe in a mental prison, and then make absolutely NO effort to apologize for what she put your family through and everyone else, nor to try and fix it. Do you feel this is someone worthy of your sympathy? Be honest.

No-one is arguing that the townsfolk should feel sympathy towards Wanda. Wanda did do something really bad to them. But, we as objective empathetic viewers, see that Wanda did not plan for it to happen, believed she was doing no harm to them and stopped it when she couldn't deny it any longer. Wanda could have continued the delusion if she really didn't care, doing so would have made her the villain. She didn't, so your claim that she is the villain is baseless.

Mark Hamill

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Lads, some interesting points made, but have you ever thought that WandaVision is just only a small part of a larger story, and that she may yet face the consequences for her actions in WestView? I mean Wanda did acknowledge what Monica said when she explained that Hayward was trying to make her out to be the villain.

It's the first part of an assumed trilogy seeing as the show reaches into Doctor Strange 2 & Spider-Man: No Way Home as well.

Oh yes, I hope and expect she will face something about it. And if she doesn't, it will be disappointing. Her actions deserving a bigger consequence does not make her a villain though. Tony Stark's arrogance in Age of Ultron caused deaths in Sokovia and led to Civil War, which had more deaths, and in a way caused the Blip itself (if the Avengers were united, they may have been able to defeat Thanos before he could snap his fingers). Yet, Stark is not a villain.

Lithium93_

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh yes, I hope and expect she will face something about it. And if she doesn't, it will be disappointing. Her actions deserving a bigger consequence does not make her a villain though. Tony Stark's arrogance in Age of Ultron caused deaths in Sokovia and led to Civil War, which had more deaths, and in a way caused the Blip itself (if the Avengers were united, they may have been able to defeat Thanos before he could snap his fingers). Yet, Stark is not a villain.

You'd think and hope that Doctor Strange would have some strong words for her, which I'm guessing the Hex is what's unleashed the greatest evil mentioned in the premise for In The Multiverse Of Madness. I'd also imagine Wanda will have a major part in that sequel/Spider-Man: No Way Home. All the pieces aren't on the board yet.

Tony though, I think he was justified in his fear driven actions (from his POV anyways after Avengers & Wanda showing him what he saw in Age Of Ultron) in trying to stave off something worse in Thanos, and it was Cap who was wrong in not signing the Accords in Civil War, and ultimately was proven right come Infinity War, when the Avengers were broken up and scattered.

Then again, it's easy to say Tony was right looking back after the fact.

FunLover18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not good storytelling when the hero behaves like a supervillain and refuses to take ownership for the sh*tty things they've done. How do you not get this? Banner actually feels bad for the stuff that he does - that's why he doesn't want to transform! Winter Soldier didn't ask Tony Stark for sympathy or to think of how much he had to sacrifice when he murdered his parents. I'm not saying 'shades of grey', and characters having a dark past are always wrong. I'm saying the way Marvel did it with Wanda's characters was the sh*ts. It was laughably bad, to the point where millions of people are trying to make sense of it.

Imagine you were a mother in the town. You've experienced what Wanda went through as regards her grief. But you've also had your infant child separated from you for weeks, if not months. You have been deprived of your own freedom of thought. Your child is terrified of what has happened and you're looking at years of therapy ahead. And when you are finally free of it, you see Wanda dress herself in new red threads, imprison her foe in a mental prison, and then make absolutely NO effort to apologize for what she put your family through and everyone else, nor to try and fix it. Do you feel this is someone worthy of your sympathy? Be honest.

If Marvel want to make this halfway realistic, Wanda should be running away from more lawsuits than Harvey Weinstein. And even he faced the music.

As has been pointed out numerous times she didn't behave this way intentionally. Wanda feels bad, she literally stops the hex, lets everyone go and let's we version of Vision and her children cease to exist because she realises how bad it is. That's why she's in exile at the end learning how to control her powers, so she presumably doesn't do it again. This is also not the end of her story, as Lithium points out there's still at least two films coming up that can address what she did and I hope they do because I do agree that I would have liked her to show more contrition but I don't agree that this automatically makes it a bad show.

Lithium93_

And on another note, Wanda's (very real to her) kids will be back, down the line albeit aged up to their teens.

Mark Hamill

Lithium93_ wrote: »

You'd think and hope that Doctor Strange would have some strong words for her, which I'm guessing the Hex is what's unleashed the greatest evil mentioned in the premise for In The Multiverse Of Madness. I'd also imagine Wanda will have a major part in that sequel/Spider-Man: No Way Home. All the pieces aren't on the board yet.

My guess/hope for Dr Strange 2 is that (speculation for future films)

trapping and depowering Agatha releases the evil (when Agatha is defeated, she says "you don't know what you have done"). Dr Strange will see the evil that is unleashed, track it's release back to Wanda and then to Agatha, who they will have to free in Westview so they can find out how to beat it again. There will be a good opportunity then to have Wanda have to really see the effect of what she did in Westview and give the people there a chance to accost Wanda.

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Tony though, I think he was justified in his fear driven actions (from his POV anyways after Avengers & Wanda showing him what he saw in Age Of Ultron) in trying to stave off something worse in Thanos, and it was Cap who was wrong in not signing the Accords in Civil War, and ultimately was proven right come Infinity War, when the Avengers were broken up and scattered.

Then again, it's easy to say Tony was right looking back after the fact.

Age of Ultron was Tony allowing his emotions (his anxiety) do something completely unknown and dangerous twice, the first time messing up and the second time creating Vision.
Maybe a closer example to Wanda acting on grief is Tony wanting to kill Bucky at the end of Civil War, after hearing he killed his parents. Tony knows that when Bucky is activated, he has no control over his actions (Tony and Bucky had already fought earlier in the movie when Zemo activated him, and Tony still forgave him for that before the end). But Tony's grief at hearing how Bucky was the one to kill his mom, and how Captain America knew but didn't tell him, had him do something which, from an objective POV, was wrong (although, empathetically, you can understand why he reacted that way).

Foxtrol

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Lads, some interesting points made, but have you ever thought that WandaVision is just only a small part of a larger story, and that she may yet face the consequences for her actions in WestView? I mean Wanda did acknowledge what Monica said when she explained that Hayward was trying to make her out to be the villain.

It's the first part of an assumed trilogy seeing as the show reaches into Doctor Strange 2 & Spider-Man: No Way Home as well.

As you and others have pointed out, the idea there will be no repercussions about what happened in Westview is ignoring everything the MCU has done over the last decade. Even if it doesn't have a direct impact on Wanda if she continues to hide out away from people, it'll likely impact other characters and movies - for example it wouldn't be a surprise if something like that was used in anti-mutant sentiment later when they are introduced (presuming the nod during WandaVision to her having powers as a kid were mutant related.

Has there been any confirmation of Wanda and No Way Home? People seem to be making huge jumps regarding her playing a part due to the former Peter Parker actors rumoured involvement. Original release dates pre-COVID were WandaVision to come out around when it did, for Dr Strange 2 to be released this May, and the 3rd Spider-Man for July. If the films were so interconnected I don't see how they could swap orders so smoothly

Foxtrol

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'The world isn't all good or bad' is quite a defence for a character using her own grief to take over the minds of an entire town, including separating children from their parents, traumatising them to a degree many will never get over.

This isn't Wolverine-esque shades of grey here. This was a different level entirely, akin to something a villain would do. Her 'sacrifice' was giving up a fantasy of her own warped making, and she didn't even have the class to apologize or look to make amends for what she did, as she hovered away like a selfish coward.

Awful writing for an awful character.

From this post and others since, you don't seem to get the story at all, so I'm not surprised you think it is awful writing.

One of the key questions hung throughout was whether Wanda was the villain or not - you can't do that without people being hurt in some way. They teased the audience on that - was it Wanda doing it purposefully, was it someone manipulating her (e.g., Agatha), was it Hayward framing her, was it Wanda doing subconsciously - they settled with the latter initially and when she realised the pain she put them through she released them.

As pointed out, it is not too different than the Hulk or the dozens of characters in the comics over the years who have harmed others accidentally with their powers caused by their emotions or trauma.

I also struggle with how you can hold the competing ideas that the Hex was so real that it was a trauma that the townsfolk would never get over but the elements that impact Wanda were just a 'fantasy'. To me her powers either created this world and things there were real to the people involved or they didn't.

Lithium93_

Foxtrol wrote: »

As you and others have pointed out, the idea there will be no repercussions about what happened in Westview is ignoring everything the MCU has done over the last decade. Even if it doesn't have a direct impact on Wanda if she continues to hide out away from people, it'll likely impact other characters and movies - for example it wouldn't be a surprise if something like that was used in anti-mutant sentiment later when they are introduced (presuming the nod during WandaVision to her having powers as a kid were mutant related.

Has there been any confirmation of Wanda and No Way Home? People seem to be making huge jumps regarding her playing a part due to the former Peter Parker actors rumoured involvement. Original release dates pre-COVID were WandaVision to come out around when it did, for Dr Strange 2 to be released this May, and the 3rd Spider-Man for July. If the films were so interconnected I don't see how they could swap orders so smoothly

It's a long game Marvel are playing, and to be absolutely honest, I'm willing to wait and see how it all ties together in the end, their track record quiet frankly, well it speaks for itself. Feige and Co know what their doing.

As for Wanda's actions, I made a point earlier in the thread, how those actions COULD easily be the basis for Anti-Mutant hatred in the MCU whenever the X-Men do debut, there obviously will be ripples going forward, we just don't know what they are. That and the Sokovia Accords are still in play in universe aren't they? So Wanda will likely/probably face some form of censure in some shape.

IDK about Wanda's role in the next Spidey film, I'm just one of many making the wild leap putting 2+2 together, but as WandaVision showed, don't bother with making theories, you'll only end up wrong, just enjoy the ride :pac:

I'm sure someone's overseeing the continuity as to how the 3 link up, and not cause confusion like Spider-Man: Homecoming did :pac:

Potential-Monke

Some good arguments from both sides, but I think there's something missing here. A lot of the audience won't have kids, so may not be able to make the emotional connection between Wanda and her delusion-created-not-real-but-real-to-Wanda-and-those-under-the-Hex kids. I don't have/want/like kids, so that whole part was lost to me, and doesn't take away from the fact that she was, in effect, the villain of her own show. If you change it so that it was all Agatha's doing, there'd be no question. But because it's Wanda's doing, people want to find empathy with her. But she still committed an act that a villain would commit.

Yes, emotional distress, etc, but doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse the fact that she knew she was causing pain and distress to the residents but kept brushing it away, preferring to keep with her delusion. We see it multiple times, she changes reality to suit her when things are not going her way, from the bee-man scene to her 24 hour pregnancy to child birth, to the kids "growing up" instantly to suit the narrative. They were no more real than Vision, and we all know Vision was dead so he too was part of the delusion. She knew this, but still kept doing it, and only when she basically had no other option, she decided to end the delusion and break the hex.

But I do fully expect there to be some serious repercussions later on. They touched on it with other characters, but there's at least one villain coming from that town in the future. I also get the whole thing was because of grief and how she completely wrongly dealt with it, but it's hard to have empathy for her. It really is. Take away the kids and happy life delusion, and everything else was a negative for everyone else involved. If it were a real event, the vast majority would not feel sorry for her. They would rightly want to hold her to account, at the very least. I also don't understand how she could just walk away with all that external agencies involved and waiting for it to end. Maybe I wasn't paying attention enough at the end.

Also, do people really think she was just learning how to control her powers at the post credit scene? That came across way too evil to me. I don't think she's finished with this delusion. And someone mentioned above the kids will be back but as teens, so that's more or less a given if that's the case. At this stage, I think Marvel would be best to turn her into a recurring protagonist, a proper good villain. I just can't see how she can redeem herself to be a "good guy" again. Just like I think Bucky is not a good guy either, so no rush to see that series. I also just don't like him and think Winter Soldier is in the lower end of the MCU films, and I know that's not a popular opinion.

I'm not giving out about the writing, that doesn't usually bother me because I'm not learned enough to poke holes. But if they were going for an empathetic feel sorry for her approach, I didn't get that. I got the opposite.

Mark Hamill

Potential-Monke wrote: »

A lot of the audience won't have kids, so may not be able to make the emotional connection between Wanda and her delusion-created-not-real-but-real-to-Wanda-and-those-under-the-Hex kids. I don't have/want/like kids, so that whole part was lost to me, and doesn't take away from the fact that she was, in effect, the villain of her own show. If you change it so that it was all Agatha's doing, there'd be no question. But because it's Wanda's doing, people want to find empathy with her. But she still committed an act that a villain would commit.

Like how a villain might go a rampage just like the Hulk, and yet we are expected to sympathise with Banner when he does it?
It's not just the kids though, it's loosing Vision as well. That was the whole point of Monica Rambeau's character - someone who could sympathise with Wanda because they also lost someone important to them (specifically not children or a partner, but her mother) and understood the desire to do anything to get them back. Never lost anyone?

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Yes, emotional distress, etc, but doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse the fact that she knew she was causing pain and distress to the residents but kept brushing it away, preferring to keep with her delusion. We see it multiple times, she changes reality to suit her when things are not going her way, from the bee-man scene to her 24 hour pregnancy to child birth, to the kids "growing up" instantly to suit the narrative. They were no more real than Vision, and we all know Vision was dead so he too was part of the delusion. She knew this, but still kept doing it, and only when she basically had no other option, she decided to end the delusion and break the hex.

She didn't know she was causing pain and distress. We only saw Wanda reset the Hex when outside interferences threatened to break it, we never saw people randomly break free and scream at her for what she was doing. It was selfish of her to never consider that she might be hurting those people, but in much the same way that Hulk is selfish when he gets angry and rampages and yet we sympathise with him.
And when she removed the Hex, she actually had another option - she could have not removed it. She could have trapped everyone in it and no-one could have stopped her. But Rambeau got her to look at it objectively, to weigh her happiness against the towns and Wanda did what a good person would do - she accepted that the town had a greater need than her.