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

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.

Foxtrol

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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.

I think what is missing is the bold. No one is asking for the audience to 'excuse it', they didn't make a mistake by making her actions appear villainous - they went out of their way for them to be terrible. People who want to see her as either good or bad are struggling because she doesn't fit neatly into either box. Those who believe they went out of their way to excuse her actions seem to base it nearly all on that Monica line, which as clunky as it is doesn't excuse her actions - it just acknowledges that freeing the townspeople didn't come at a cost for Wanda.

It is questionable whether she has ever truly been a pure 'good guy', before WandaVision she clearly at times tried to be, while still making some very questionable decisions, but this show has made her even more of a grey character - right up until the last scene. We see her isolating herself potentially to avoid hurting others again, while at the same time studying the Darkhold on the astral plane - we don't know whether that is for good or evil (the Darkhold tends to bring out the evil side).

Anyone who tries to force her in a good or evil box is going to be frustrated because it is impossible, her actions simply don't fit into tidily into either box - that isn't a mistake, it is creating a character with some depth.

Lithium93_

Just on the point I made, about Billy and Tommy coming back, albeit aged to their teens. If anyone's looked at what Marvel have planned, it looks like they're setting up the Young Avengers for a Disney+ series.

pixelburp

Finally watched through to the end of this; and my opinion didn't really sway in any strong direction ultimately. Certainly, there's an argument this was one of the more character-focused and emotionally meaningful MCU stories - but for one character really, and by the end, it completely reverted to type; failing to resist the desire to ultimately act as yet another bridge to future stories, and a launchpad for new characters. It just makes it all feel less like a story, and more like a product. It even broke out a Sky Beam during the crash-bang-wallop last acts. It's so, so very lazy as iconography goes, and I'm way past having an appetite for those kind of climaxes. It was admittedly brief, but still. Enough with the Sky Beams.

Those first three episodes truly were a chore to get through, and in the end, didn't really represent any interesting or strange direction the show's promotions had hinted. Were I really harsh I'd almost say this was as cookie-cutter as Ant-Man or any of the other shoulder-shrug, low effort MCU films, just with a clumsy metaphorical veneer. While moments like the Modern Family cutaways, or the contrived traffic stalling felt like the worst kind of padding: certainly, it fueled the feeling this was a feature film script elongated into a 9 episode series. Well, 6 episodes, given those first three were nothing. That perhaps was initially pitched as a MCU cinema-bound film, but with the advent of Disney+ got retrofitted into a series as a headline item for the service. I'd like to see if an enterprising editor could take the 9 episodes and condense this into a 2.5 hour film - without losing the important story or emotional beats.

I can't muster the enthusiasm for the Falcon/Winter Soldier show, being as it is yet another set of characters I care nothing for. Loki's where I'm pinning my hopes now; though he was always best used in small doses, so we'll see. I'm hoping Marvel at least use the apparent alternate universe it's set in, rather than stick riggedly to the MCU format.

silverharp

WandaVision at least has some adult appeal, no offense to anyone who watches shows like the Falcon one but they must be centered on kids and teenagers wanting to watch it?. Films are different, Ill bring my kids to an MCU film that I would have no interest watching as a television show and probably wouldnt go to see independently in a cinema either, and going by my kids and their friends viewing habits pretty similar.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

Finally watched through to the end of this; and my opinion didn't really sway in any strong direction ultimately. Certainly, there's an argument this was one of the more character-focused and emotionally meaningful MCU stories - but for one character really, and by the end, it completely reverted to type; failing to resist the desire to ultimately act as yet another bridge to future stories, and a launchpad for new characters. It just makes it all feel less like a story, and more like a product. It even broke out a Sky Beam during the crash-bang-wallop last acts. It's so, so very lazy as iconography goes, and I'm way past having an appetite for those kind of climaxes. It was admittedly brief, but still. Enough with the Sky Beams.

Those first three episodes truly were a chore to get through, and in the end, didn't really represent any interesting or strange direction the show's promotions had hinted. Were I really harsh I'd almost say this was as cookie-cutter as Ant-Man or any of the other shoulder-shrug, low effort MCU films, just with a clumsy metaphorical veneer. While moments like the Modern Family cutaways, or the contrived traffic stalling felt like the worst kind of padding: certainly, it fueled the feeling this was a feature film script elongated into a 9 episode series. Well, 6 episodes, given those first three were nothing. That perhaps was initially pitched as a MCU cinema-bound film, but with the advent of Disney+ got retrofitted into a series as a headline item for the service. I'd like to see if an enterprising editor could take the 9 episodes and condense this into a 2.5 hour film - without losing the important story or emotional beats.

I can't muster the enthusiasm for the Falcon/Winter Soldier show, being as it is yet another set of characters I care nothing for. Loki's where I'm pinning my hopes now; though he was always best used in small doses, so we'll see. I'm hoping Marvel at least use the apparent alternate universe it's set in, rather than stick riggedly to the MCU format.

Can't the bold be said for practically every sub 6 hour mini-series, even for much longer mini-series? I'd argue out of any mini-series I've seen recently, this would be the toughest to edit into a coherent movie due to the shifting of the decades in look, comedy style etc. It would become a complete mess.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion but a lot of that reads like someone that is completely jaded from the MCU and is now complaining about things that have always been core to it. Complaining about there being a 'crash bang wallop' scene in a comic book movie is like coming out of a western movie and complaining about there being a gun fight. Similarly, complaining that WandaVision sets up other stories is like complaining that a given season of a TV show doesn't set up things for the following one, that the season wasn't 100% self contained with no nods to the future.

You're setting yourself up to be let down if your expectation is that the Loki series wont have at least one big set piece scene and won't set things up for the wider MCU shows/movies. You might as well spend your time elsewhere and quit watching the MCU.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

You're obviously entitled to your opinion but a lot of that reads like someone that is completely jaded from the MCU and is now complaining about things that have always been core to it. Complaining about there being a 'crash bang wallop' scene in a comic book movie is like coming out of a western movie and complaining about there being a gun fight. Similarly, complaining that WandaVision sets up other stories is like complaining that a given season of a TV show doesn't set up things for the following one, that the season wasn't 100% self contained with no nods to the future.

You're setting yourself up to be let down if your expectation is that the Loki series wont have at least one big set piece scene and won't set things up for the wider MCU shows/movies. You might as well spend your time elsewhere and quit watching the MCU.

That's not a fair representation of my overall opinion, and more than a little reductionist What disappointed about the finale was that having set up something visually interesting in its very premise, albeit overcooked in those first 3 episodes, the final fight was basically two sets of CGI people firing coloured lasers at each other with no invention or interesting switches made.

It back-loaded the internal logic with its 11th hour surprise and exposition, which yeah, did land for me although I had suspected it simply by Katherine Hahn's winking performance. And what almost seemed like a neat marriage of action through character with the trip across Wanda's memories, descended into a laser fight that felt like a less arresting version of similar seen with the Harry Potter capper. and yeah, to your point. I don't accept that needs to be the default culminstion of EVERY MCU film. "Lazy action finales" isn't an especially big boast to make of a formula

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served. You can love a thing yet want it to be more, it's not a binary situation. I don't believe action is the MCU strongest arm, and frequently robs good films from being great (to whit: Black Panther, or the Guardians films). It comes from hiring directors without great action chops (and divesting those scenes to the FX department) And having gone out of its way to make Wandavision so strong in its character motivations, a generic finale interchangeable with any other "film" was a disappointment.

Mark Hamill

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served.

I don't actually disagree with Wanda and Agatha's action in the end being disappointingly generic. The idea that Wanda was actually writing the runes with her magic during the fight was good, but the execution was very boring.
But I have to ask, how many of the 25 or so MCU movies actually have a sky beam (and were was the sky beam in Wandavision)?

pixelburp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't actually disagree with Wanda and Agatha's action in the end being disappointingly generic. The idea that Wanda was actually writing the runes with her magic during the fight was good, but the execution was very boring.
But I have to ask, how many of the 25 or so MCU movies actually have a sky beam (and were was the sky beam in Wandavision)?

Honestly, I've never counted though IIRC Avengers, Thor et al used 'em; and it's not just the MCU either, they're everywhere in DC (Man of Steel, Suicide Squad, Justice League etc), as well as blockbuster SciFi in general. It's curiously overused iconography in the genre; the de-factor visual language for "alien or foreign malevolence threatening the city/world)

To be fair, in the case of Wandavision it was brief, but still part of the overall laser show during the finale. As I said, I've heard the MCU films push the action set-pieces away from the directors into the 2nd unit / FX department which might explain thye're often so cookie-cutter and bland.

Mark Hamill

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, I've never counted though IIRC Avengers, Thor et al used 'em; and it's not just the MCU either, they're everywhere in DC (Man of Steel, Suicide Squad, Justice League etc), as well as blockbuster SciFi in general. It's curiously overused iconography in the genre; the de-factor visual language for "alien or foreign malevolence threatening the city/world)

To be fair, in the case of Wandavision it was brief, but still part of the overall laser show during the finale. As I said, I've heard the MCU films push the action set-pieces away from the directors into the 2nd unit / FX department which might explain thye're often so cookie-cutter and bland.

I don't think the MCU have had sky beams be an integral part of the end (i.e. the thing the good guys are trying to stop, as oppose to a beam of energy that happens to shoot up in the sky while shooting in every other direction) since Avengers 1. The DCEU is really bad for it though.

It would be better if they put a little more effort into some fight scenes, but I generally have more of a problem with the editing of their hand to hand fights rather than their CGI fights.

pixelburp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think the MCU have had sky beams be an integral part of the end (i.e. the thing the good guys are trying to stop, as oppose to a beam of energy that happens to shoot up in the sky while shooting in every other direction) since Avengers 1. The DCEU is really bad for it though.

It would be better if they put a little more effort into some fight scenes, but I generally have more of a problem with the editing of their hand to hand fights rather than their CGI fights.

While the MCU makes a mountain of cash equivalent to the one the Joker jumps down in The Dark Knight, I can't imagine Marvel will make any serious changes to their aesthetic of course; but given the toybox they play with, the relative lack of both imagination and crunchiness in the MCU fights has dulled my enjoyment. Rubber CGI floating about while the camera spins madly. It's ... yeah. Dull. The journey is nearly always more enjoyable than the destination with the MCU (not that the DC movies are any less prone to that mind you, but their animated range nearly always shows more heft and smarts with their fight scenes)

It's probably a smart, cost-effective move really: Ryan Coogler nailed the character arcs and personalities of Black Panther to a tee; but as a young, enthusiastic indie director I could absolutely see why Marvel would lean on him not to worry about the fights, something outside his wheelhouse and that another group altogether would deal with that. Action scenes are logistically tricky - and a frequent cause of budget or time overruns.

I'd love to see someone like Christopher McQuarrie get to make a MCU film, his way. Maybe when he's done with the Mission Impossible series? But then you look at the MCU directors stable and were I a cynic, the number of relative unknowns from the indie world - catapulted to a blockbuster after 1 or 2 small films - suggested Marvel don't want auteurs or those with strong visions of their own. James Gunn probably the only holdout at this stage, by dint of the sheer success of Guardians

Mark Hamill

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd love to see someone like Christopher McQuarrie get to make a MCU film, his way. Maybe when he's done with the Mission Impossible series? But then you look at the MCU directors stable and were I a cynic, the number of relative unknowns from the indie world - catapulted to a blockbuster after 1 or 2 small films - suggested Marvel don't want auteurs or those with strong visions of their own. James Gunn probably the only holdout at this stage, by dint of the sheer success of Guardians

I don't think that lack of auteurs is really a problem, at least not since Civil War when Ike Perlmutter got the boot (along with his TV budget sensibilities and his anti-female, anti-non-white character biases).

For better or worse, the MCU has always been about interconnecting movies making an overall story. Someone coming in to do a movie in the middle of the 20-odd movie series and expecting to do whatever they like with whatever characters they like, with no regard to future plans, is kind of a moron. Maybe individual movies would be a little better, but the series as a whole would not be. There are plenty of movies, like Guardians 2, Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, and not to mention Infinity War and Endgame, which have all had distinctive looks and feels and great stories. These show that distinctive directors can make their own distinctive view while working it into the series as a whole.

There are of course things that could be improved a lot, like action as you said. I would agree that McQuarrie could do a really good action based movie. And I'm half dreading the Shang Chi movie because of what you said, it has an indie director with no action background, so the action (likely non-super-powered martial arts) will probably be left to their 2nd unit (and possible cut to ribbons in editing). What would be great would be if the pulled a Harley Quinn/Birds of Prey and got in the action directors of John Wicks movies to do the action (or, even better, get the guys who did The Raid to do it).

They could also try to avoid recycling plots a bit. Too many of the heroes end up fighting evil versions of themselves and I rewatched the series recently and realised that Ant-man 1 and 2 basically recycle the villain plots of Iron Man 1 and 2.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

That's not a fair representation of my overall opinion, and more than a little reductionist What disappointed about the finale was that having set up something visually interesting in its very premise, albeit overcooked in those first 3 episodes, the final fight was basically two sets of CGI people firing coloured lasers at each other with no invention or interesting switches made.

It back-loaded the internal logic with its 11th hour surprise and exposition, which yeah, did land for me although I had suspected it simply by Katherine Hahn's winking performance. And what almost seemed like a neat marriage of action through character with the trip across Wanda's memories, descended into a laser fight that felt like a less arresting version of similar seen with the Harry Potter capper. and yeah, to your point. I don't accept that needs to be the default culminstion of EVERY MCU film. "Lazy action finales" isn't an especially big boast to make of a formula

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served. You can love a thing yet want it to be more, it's not a binary situation. I don't believe action is the MCU strongest arm, and frequently robs good films from being great (to whit: Black Panther, or the Guardians films). It comes from hiring directors without great action chops (and divesting those scenes to the FX department) And having gone out of its way to make Wandavision so strong in its character motivations, a generic finale interchangeable with any other "film" was a disappointment.

There is no way for me to know if that is a misrepresentation of your 'overall opinion', however my post is in line with the opinion you've expressed on this thread (and unless I am confusing you with another poster, opinions you've repeated after other MCU movies). I'm not sure exactly how I am being reductionist, as the elements of your opinion I responded to aren't at all complex.

The part that you doubled down on in your response here, specifically the number of 'sky beams', seems to be at least partially imagined, as has been pointed out by other posters. You're entitled to not enjoy the big CGI scenes but to extend your restaurant analogy, the argument you're making is not complaining about the flavour, instead you're going to your 25th steak house in a row and complaining that there is once again too much steak on the menu. Big CGI scenes are an inherent part of the MCU, and practically every big budget comic book movie/show for that matter. In this case you're not being told to leave the restaurant but I'm asking if you're going to complain about the steak every time you go maybe a different type of restaurant might be better for you.

The same is even more true about the other element you complained about in the OP I responded to - your annoyance that the MCU spends time building out other characters and situations where the ultimate pay-off isn't immediately in that movie/show. This is fundamental to everything they have done with the MCU and what has made it the success it has been. Over the weekend I went back and watched Civil War for the first time since before Infinity War came out and it is incredible the amount of things they put in motion in it while creating a great comic book movie. I really don't understand the argument against it, aside of what I see as the quite elitist view of what cinema 'should be'.