WandaVision

[Mordar]

I don't merely mean speculating on alternatives is pointless, I mean yours specifically are based on things that don't exist in the MCU. Neither SHIELD nor SWORD have any way of disabling her powers short of killing her or rendering her indefinitely comatose, and even those options may not work.

Which is why the drone strike had logic.

"Try to figure it out on her own" and "discover and seek out a higher power" are not mutually exclusive. As Agatha mentioned, there's a whole chapter on her in the Darkhold, so at least seeing what it says is a sensible first step.

No "metaknowledge" is needed. She has routinely risked her life to save the planet without expecting compensation. That's good enough to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't simply decide to enslave a bunch of people on a whim one day, and that's exactly what Monica is (sensibly) doing.

Not mutually exclusive, but when the "her" that just did this horrible thing is the "higher power" it takes a lot of blind hope for in-universe people to count on it working out. Absent anyone else available, however, and having failed the ambush kill shot, it does have a logical appeal.

Part 2 there presumes facts not in evidence. To much of that world she has been on the opposite side of the heroes fighting the good fight. Johannesburg. Helping Ultron. Lagos. Went "rogue" in Civil War fighting the lawful implementation of the accords. Kidnapped and mind-controlled a whole town. Other side of the ledger is fighting Ultron. Fighting Thanos. Fighting Hydra in Lagos.

Monica knows more of the details, it seems, so it is reasonable for her to have a higher order opinion. Most of the other not so much.

What makes a bully a bully is intent to harm, even if they don't know or care about the extent of that harm. A power that acts on its own does not qualify.

I think a lot of people might suggest what makes a bully a bully is an unreasoning response to the strife in their lives and not knowing how to cope with that strife. Thus they lash out at the world around them and try to assert their power where they can instead of at what is actually causing their strife.

As we plainly saw, ejecting Monica for bringing up a traumatic experience != total conscious control.

But it seems to indicate the ability to move things through the barrier, and while that doesn't indicate intent, it does imply some participation in the power holding the barrier in place. A clear link between Wanda and the events unfolding.

- M

[Ramza00]

So it is "bad writting" for it is not clear what happened to instigate the conflict, and this part of the story is told In Medias Res with Age of Ultron and following movies.

No one complained about the reality warper that attacked Sokovia's capital city. Either with an external war with Stark bombs (may or may not included the US), or a civil war. The families that experienced said conflict did not ask for it.

It is interesting where how we center one style of story vs another. One is human action that is so common that Maria Hill treated like it was "nature / natural" like it was merely the weather (even though in reality it is the action with which it is the sum of other human's choices), and with Wanda as the Scarlet Witch and Westview it is "Maleficium" an unnatural act intended to create injury on another human. An evil deed, an evil crime inflicted upon another.

Where is the state of exception? In both witchcraft and in the state of war, everything is the state of exception and there is no war. So why are we fine with war, but we find witchcraft as war by unbearable means?

[Psyren]

Which is why the drone strike had logic.

It really didn't. Even putting aside questions of whether it would have worked on her at all, she is maintaining an anomaly that contains an entire townful of innocents. Hayward has no way of knowing what pulling the plug that abruptly would have done to them. It was heinous, irresponsible, and idiotic. (Say, dDon't you "more consequences" folks claim to care about the townspeople over all else?)

Part 2 there presumes facts not in evidence. *snip*

(1) Those are facts that SWORD has. The general public may not know that she was an Avenger or her involvement with stopping Thanos post-blip, but they certainly do, and it is them that should be giving her the benefit of the doubt before immediately resorting to lethal force. Or at least they would if the guy in charge had a brain.

(2) The fact that Jimmy Woo knew she 1v1-ed Thanos suggests her exploits post-AoU don't require the kind of top government clearance you're implying.

I think a lot of people might suggest what makes a bully a bully is an unreasoning response to the strife in their lives and not knowing how to cope with that strife. Thus they lash out at the world around them and try to assert their power where they can instead of at what is actually causing their strife.

Again, her power lashed out, not her. If you still disagree with that, we'll move on, but that's clearly what the narrative shows me so I'm not budging.

But it seems to indicate the ability to move things through the barrier, and while that doesn't indicate intent, it does imply some participation in the power holding the barrier in place. A clear link between Wanda and the events unfolding.

"You briefly reminded me of the trauma my subconscious mind is doing everything in its power to repress, begone" is not the same as consciously being able to move things outside the barrier.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

At that point didn't they already know that Wanda had some agency in the matter? She had ejected Monica because Monica was meddling, right? Or am I confused on the timeline?

You’ve got the timeline right.

Episode 3 -> Wanda notices the SWORD necklace, ejects Monica.
Episode 4 -> Outside the Hex, Monica tells SWORD “It’s Wanda. It’s all Wanda.”
Episode 5 -> Hayward attempts the drone strike.

[Ramza00]

At that point didn't they already know that Wanda had some agency in the matter? She had ejected Monica because Monica was meddling, right? Or am I confused on the timeline?

You’ve got the timeline right.

Episode 3 -> Wanda notices the SWORD necklace, ejects Monica.
Episode 4 -> Outside the Hex, Monica tells SWORD “It’s Wanda. It’s all Wanda.”
Episode 5 -> Hayward attempts the drone strike.

And that is what is being argued here, the duck-rabbit illusion.

The human brain is not one single layer of cognition, it is not a single consciousness. It is a multi layer thing. Some forms of behavior require less conscious control, you can do them on autopilot, but other tasks require higher arousal states (you have to be awake) and in that higher arousal states you simultaneously have to exercise higher levels of control, to meet the more difficult challenge. For example turning on a coffee pot, or a light switch, can be a task you can do while sleepy without even looking at the object you are manipulating. Other tasks that are more complicated require you to be fully awake, with your full attention, your eyes on the object (with freedom to move), your hands free, etc.

The problem with this duck-rabbit is Wanda's magic throughs those "usual rules" of how humans operate completely out of the windows. Wanda can do extremely complicated things, like create an entire world, without being consciously aware of doing it, much like the subconscious while asleep is creating dreams that "sorta of make sense" but also do not make complete sense for part of the brain has higher activity during dreams and other parts of the brain have lower activity.

Thus people want to say it is a Duck, or it is a Rabbit, when in reality it is neither and also both. We want to assign intent onto Wanda which we can't really do even with the information told in this story. Likewise some people find this the most scary thing of all. How a person subconscious can literally hijack the minds of thousands of people. They need to control it, much like there is another need to create an avenger / defensive focus that can defend humans against foreign space threats, magical devils of Dark Dimension, and so on.

The MCU is a storytelling place where we use monsters to smash against other monsters. There is a reason why we have the twin antagonist with the same power set, for what seperates a monster from another monster in a basic fashion is are they on our side? Now of course this is a simplistic understanding for once we become more familiar with a thing we can assign higher level of meaning to it, like is it on our side or not may be the wrong question. Maybe a better question is to ask for its needs, wants, desires, what sets it off and makes it angry, and so on.

[hungrycrow]

Saving the world that she happens to live on doesn't say anything about whether she'd kidnap or hurt civilians. Everything else paints her as an unstable psychopath. Joining Hydra, helping Ultron, the accident at Lagos and her running away when faced with accountability. If you just read all that, without watching the movies and seeing her emotional struggle, of course you'd believe she'd be willing to hurt innocents. The only point in her favor is that Captain America kept vouching for her.

[Psyren]

Saving the world that she happens to live on doesn't say anything about whether she'd kidnap or hurt civilians. Everything else paints her as an unstable psychopath. Joining Hydra, helping Ultron, the accident at Lagos and her running away when faced with accountability. If you just read all that, without watching the movies and seeing her emotional struggle, of course you'd believe she'd be willing to hurt innocents. The only point in her favor is that Captain America kept vouching for her.

Using "psychopath" in the same breath as what you yourself acknowledge to be an accident doesn't sit right with me.

And are you saying SWORD was correct to immediately appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner? Even without having any way of knowing what impact executing her with the townsfolk still being in the Hex would have on them, or even beyond the town itself? (Hell, we still don't know what would have happened if they had succeeded, and more importantly, neither do they.)

[Kornaki]

Psyren, I think your argument is basically
(1) if you kill her now, the consequences to the townspeople are unknown
(2) if we let her continue doing this thing, the consequences are bounded above by (1)

(2) is clearly false! If you let her live while you gather further information, horrible horrible things can happen that (1) might have prevented. For example, she might expand the hex and take over the world. The people under her control might suffer further irreversible psychological damage from the mind rape.

It's true that killing her might have unknown consequences, but letting her live might also have unknown consequences. You have to make a decision with the information available to you, and I think an assassination at that point was a thing that a reasonable person could conclude was correct. Remember also that it's kind of their job to understand how super hero powers work, so the potential damage her death could cause is better understood by them than by us.

[Ramza00]

You have to make a decision with the information available to you, and I think an assassination at that point was a thing that a reasonable person could conclude was correct.

Reasonable here is doing lots of work. In fact it is a fetish object in philosophy, fetish here being “invested with meaning, a totem” (aka not sex, ironically the etymology of the word literally means charm and sorcery.)

Other philosophers have argued how much “load” that reasonable can be as a load bearing object. I am not going to link them, for they argue against idealism, saying ideal theory with fictional stories of the mind often cover up real world harms, and this forum does not want us to talk about real world history for often it is rancorous, thus we have a rule against that.

————

So I am merely saying “I disagree”, now are you calling me unreasonable?

[Kornaki]

So I am merely saying “I disagree”, now are you calling me unreasonable?

I just said a reasonable person could conclude, not a reasonable person must conclude.

I think this is not that dissimilar to a hostage situation where information is scarce. If you know there are at least 2 people taking a room full of people hostage, and your snipers calls in saying they have a shot on two armed people, do you tell them to take it? If there are only two of them you're a hero, if there's a third person you might be killing the hostages.

The answer might be don't take the shot, it's not worth the risk, but what if you know they're slowly chopping off body parts of the hostages and making the rest of them watch while they do it? What if they're already killing one every ten minutes, and the only reason you haven't rushed in is you think they will kill them all immediately if you do? There's got to be some point where the risk of going for that shot feels like the right decision even if there might be a third person involved. Arguing over what exactly the line is feels silly since none of us really know how to evaluate that kind of situation, and in the mcu case we're even farther separated from understanding the reality.

If a bunch of police and military people come together in that situation and decided in the tv show that killing Wanda was the best thing for the townspeople, I'm inclined to think they could be correct.

Imagine if the show went in a different direction, and when Wanda dropped the hex it turned out her overwhelming mental control had too much of a cumulative stress on the psyche of the townsfolk and half the town was now brain dead. That has to be something that had like, some chance of happening, right? And killing Wanda two days earlier had some chance of saving literally thousands of lives? We have no idea what the chances of killing her being a good vs bad idea are, the people making the decisions probably don't either, but they still need to make a decision.

[Ramza00]

Cuts through the argument.

A FBI officer
The next in life to SWORD if the snap did not happen
And a civilian all thought the acting director made the wrong call.

This is a point of contention!

[Psyren]

Psyren, I think your argument is basically
(1) if you kill her now, the consequences to the townspeople are unknown
(2) if we let her continue doing this thing, the consequences are bounded above by (1)

There are other options besides "murder her immediately" and "abandon the townsfolk to their fate." Monica, Darcy and Jimmy were exploring those options, Hayward was not. Unless the townsfolk are in imminent danger of death, you have time to figure things out. What Hayward did was like disarming a bomb by just cutting wires at random. And shaking it.

Cuts through the argument.

A FBI officer
The next in life to SWORD if the snap did not happen
And a civilian all thought the acting director made the wrong call.

This is a point of contention!

A civilian who happened to be an astrophysicist, and the expert that SWORD themselves called in to understand the phenomenon better, no less. But I guess those characters were put in the show to be unreasonable

[hungrycrow]

There are other options besides "murder her immediately" and "abandon the townsfolk to their fate." Monica, Darcy and Jimmy were exploring those options, Hayward was not. Unless the townsfolk are in imminent danger of death, you have time to figure things out. What Hayward did was like disarming a bomb by just cutting wires at random. And shaking it.

The civilians in the hex were being tortured, and it was so bad that they were begging Wanda to kill them by the finale. Time wasn't really a luxury SWORD had.

We're not saying that it was the correct decision; obviously talking Wanda down is what worked in the show. It's just that Hayward didn't need to be written as generic Evil McBadguy to explain why he would think killing Wanda was a good idea. I can easily imagine a heroic character making that call and still managing to stay a hero.

[Ramza00]

A reminder SWORD did not know the citizens were being tortured. All they knew was they were imprisoned in the hex.

It was Agatha, Vision, and the viewers who knew the citizens were being tortured. This is ^{(and I am going to keep on repeating it till people get it)} called Dramatic Irony.

Now Monica herself experienced the same things as Westview but she did not call it torture, just drowning grief. Likewise Darcy was barely affected by the Hex. This is likely due to the fact Darcy barely spent any time in the Hex before Vision freed her, Monica spent a medium amount of time as Geraldine, and the Westview people spent the most time, several days longer than Monica.

But Hayward did not know the things we the audience knew when he decided to do the drone strike.

[hungrycrow]

A reminder SWORD did not know the citizens were being tortured. All they knew was they were imprisoned in the hex.

It was Agatha, Vision, and the viewers who knew the citizens were being tortured. This is ^{(and I am going to keep on repeating it till people get it)} called Dramatic Irony.

Now Monica herself experienced the same things as Westview but she did not call it torture, just drowning grief. Likewise Darcy was barely affected by the Hex. This is likely due to the fact Darcy barely spent any time in the Hex before Vision freed her, Monica spent a medium amount of time as Geraldine, and the Westview people spent the most time, several days longer than Monica.

But Hayward did not know the things we the audience knew when he decided to do the drone strike.

Monica also called it excruciating, terrifying, and a violation. They knew it would be bad to leave people in the hex for a long period of time.

Please stop assuming we're just too dumb to get your point. We know what dramatic irony is.

[Ramza00]

You are projecting facts not known in evidence. *shrug* this conversation is over for me with you.

[GloatingSwine]

Remember also that it's kind of their job to understand how super hero powers work, so the potential damage her death could cause is better understood by them than by us.

If it's their job to understand how superhero powers work, why was their failure so immediate and abject?

It's clear that they did not, in fact, understand how Wanda's powers worked in the slightest. Attempting an assassination at that point was akin to seeing a wasp's nest, not knowing whether it's occupied, and sticking your **** in to find out.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Unrelated to the discussion at hand: the guy who played Ghost Rider in Agents of SHIELD apologized for not properly securing the Darkhold.

Cuts through the argument.

A FBI officer
The next in life to SWORD if the snap did not happen
And a civilian all thought the acting director made the wrong call.

This is a point of contention!

Three people out of dozens on the base. And Monica at least is in sufficiently bad state of mind even before her “excruciating, terrifying, a violation” experience in the Hex that her first reaction to a strange energy field was “let’s touch it with our bare hands!” And then she ends up with a layer of Stockholm Syndrome after a near-death experience at the hands of her captor? And shows reckless disregard for her own safety (see: Monica’s medical reports, arguments why she shouldn’t go through the Hex a third time) on top of that? Those are not signs of a healthy mind. She should not be making judgement calls, she should be in therapy.

A reminder SWORD did not know the citizens were being tortured. All they knew was they were imprisoned in the hex.

But Hayward did not know the things we the audience knew when he decided to do the drone strike.

Monica’s conversation with Hayward in Episode 5 disagrees with you, as hungrycrow pointed out. Same episode as the drone strike. If anything Hayward knew MORE than the audience, since he’d been withholding things like the fact that he was able to track Westview!Vision inside the Hex.

[Kornaki]

I just want to emphasize again that I said a reasonable person *could* conclude killing Wanda is the right move. A reasonable person also could conclude not killing her is the right move. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject.

[Ramza00]

I just want to emphasize again that I said a reasonable person *could* conclude killing Wanda is the right move. A reasonable person also could conclude not killing her is the right move. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject.

Then why bring reasonable into it?

[Psyren]

The civilians in the hex were being tortured, and it was so bad that they were begging Wanda to kill them by the finale. Time wasn't really a luxury SWORD had.

It's not about "luxury." SWORD has a moral and ethical obligation to understand what's happening before pulling the plug. What if killing her left the Hex standing with no way to stop it? Or killed everyone inside who was linked to her? What if her power reacted to protect her by declaring everyone on the planet to be a threat? What happens to a Chaos Spell when the caster is killed? They don't know, and neither do you. The only person who might know the answer is Agatha, and the best we have from her is that she believes the spell would remain even if Wanda's powers were completely drained, so the prognosis on outright killing her without ending the spell first does not look good.

We're not saying that it was the correct decision; obviously talking Wanda down is what worked in the show. It's just that Hayward didn't need to be written as generic Evil McBadguy to explain why he would think killing Wanda was a good idea. I can easily imagine a heroic character making that call and still managing to stay a hero.

A heroic character would exhaust other options before turning to violence, especially violence that might not even solve the problem. And a smart one would listen to the experts they brought in for the express purpose of discovering those options. Hayward wasn't just evil, he was an idiot, end of story.

Then why bring reasonable into it?

This. It's just a weasel word to try and give his argument more strength than it actually has.

[Mordar]

It really didn't. Even putting aside questions of whether it would have worked on her at all, she is maintaining an anomaly that contains an entire townful of innocents. Hayward has no way of knowing what pulling the plug that abruptly would have done to them. It was heinous, irresponsible, and idiotic. (Say, dDon't you "more consequences" folks claim to care about the townspeople over all else?)

I am really struck by the idea of a, for lack of better term, "dead witch switch" issue. Certainly a component in the decision. Similarly, no way of knowing the lasting impact of the control, whether she is going to let them all leave in 15 minutes or permanently melt them in 15 minutes. Drone strike is at least terrible and shouldn't be lauded, but I believe irresponsible and idiotic are at the very least debatable. Hayward didn't consider any of anything because I believe he is intended as the cardboard cutout villain. My position is that he/SWORD/this could have been written in a more compelling fashion. I am also struck at the moment by the idea of melodrama. Perhaps Hayward as a fuller (even if still outrightly villainous) character detracts from the story they intended to tell and was just a vehicle to achieve two specific goals.

For clarity's sake, I am not and have not been advocating for "more consequences because the townsfolk!" but rather stating that what Wanda has done and is doing would put any "authorities" in a virtually untenable position. Sometimes preventing that position from happening again is the only viable outcome. But most of all, I am saying that the adversarial "authority" could have been handled in a way that would have heightened the drama and set up, for me, a more compelling set of actors. But if melodrama was the intent, then I think the change I would have liked was a charismatic portrayal of Hayward like we got of Agatha.

Again, her power lashed out, not her. If you still disagree with that, we'll move on, but that's clearly what the narrative shows me so I'm not budging.

This is a compelling line of conversation as well. If possible, let's leave Wanda and the Westview situation aside for a moment. Which other characters in MCU could conceivably be said to have powers that could lash out without any conscious control/responsibility/cognizance of the character? Hulk seems a likely choice, and maybe Iron Man/Warmachine (though they would probably be the result of third party action like a virus). Captain Marvel? Dr. Strange?

I have a vague idea of Infinity Stone-granted powers might run amok...but it looks like Wanda will really become Scarlet Witch, and the Mind Stone thing was just coincidence.

- M

[Ramza00]

Hayward would have been a better antagonist if he had a line saying

“I am not a hero, I am a soldier / director / bureaucrat”

Signifying he does not believe in some Kantian like concept, that we have a duty to one another or something.

https://www.vox.com/summer-movies/20...-moral-dilemma

Sidenote I really did not like Infinity War.

[hungrycrow]

It's not about "luxury." SWORD has a moral and ethical obligation to understand what's happening before pulling the plug. What if killing her left the Hex standing with no way to stop it? Or killed everyone inside who was linked to her? What if her power reacted to protect her by declaring everyone on the planet to be a threat? What happens to a Chaos Spell when the caster is killed? They don't know, and neither do you. The only person who might know the answer is Agatha, and the best we have from her is that she believes the spell would remain even if Wanda's powers were completely drained, so the prognosis on outright killing her without ending the spell first does not look good.

What if Wanda stubs her toe, and subconsciously kills someone? What if she decides sitcomland is so awesome that the rest of the Earth should join in? What if being in the Hex for a certain period of time kills you, or fries your brain? Their lack of knowledge adds risk to every option, even taking time to try and learn more. Assuming they have time to do that is just as big and dangerous an assumption as assuming killing Wanda would end the spell.

Personally, I would have tried talking to Wanda too. But I don't think someone would have to be evil or stupid to think attacking was the better option.
Of course in the show, Director Hayward chose to do that because he was stupid and evil. But he didn't have to be written that way, and I think he ended up being a pretty boring villain for it.

[Psyren]

What if Wanda stubs her toe, and subconsciously kills someone? What if she decides sitcomland is so awesome that the rest of the Earth should join in? What if being in the Hex for a certain period of time kills you, or fries your brain? Their lack of knowledge adds risk to every option, even taking time to try and learn more. Assuming they have time to do that is just as big and dangerous an assumption as assuming killing Wanda would end the spell.

Personally, I would have tried talking to Wanda too. But I don't think someone would have to be evil or stupid to think attacking was the better option.
Of course in the show, Director Hayward chose to do that because he was stupid and evil. But he didn't have to be written that way, and I think he ended up being a pretty boring villain for it.

I am really struck by the idea of a, for lack of better term, "dead witch switch" issue. Certainly a component in the decision. Similarly, no way of knowing the lasting impact of the control, whether she is going to let them all leave in 15 minutes or permanently melt them in 15 minutes. Drone strike is at least terrible and shouldn't be lauded, but I believe irresponsible and idiotic are at the very least debatable. Hayward didn't consider any of anything because I believe he is intended as the cardboard cutout villain. My position is that he/SWORD/this could have been written in a more compelling fashion. I am also struck at the moment by the idea of melodrama. Perhaps Hayward as a fuller (even if still outrightly villainous) character detracts from the story they intended to tell and was just a vehicle to achieve two specific goals.

For clarity's sake, I am not and have not been advocating for "more consequences because the townsfolk!" but rather stating that what Wanda has done and is doing would put any "authorities" in a virtually untenable position. Sometimes preventing that position from happening again is the only viable outcome. But most of all, I am saying that the adversarial "authority" could have been handled in a way that would have heightened the drama and set up, for me, a more compelling set of actors. But if melodrama was the intent, then I think the change I would have liked was a charismatic portrayal of Hayward like we got of Agatha.

I'm not saying Hayward is an idiot for considering the possibility that Wanda purposefully enslaved a town, nor even the possibility that time is a factor. I'm saying he's an idiot for (a) immediately dismissing any testimony from his own experts that contradict that theory, and (b) immediately resorting to lethal force as the solution.

Let's revisit the scene immediately before he tries to kill her, where he demonizes Wanda based on her history (the one where Jimmy points out that Wanda became an Avenger and gained their trust - once again, not top-secret). In that scene, Monica - the person who knows more than anyone else in the room about what being inside the "show" feels like - concludes that they do have time to talk her down, and further that she doesn't believe Wanda's actions are "premeditated acts of aggression." Monica even concludes that Wanda, while ejecting her from the Hex, specifically kept her safe. This all runs directly counter to the "she's an imminent danger, get the snipers" theory.

And Hayward's response to this information? He shows doctored footage of Wanda's visit to SWORD. He then lies about Wanda stealing the Vision's corpse. And lastly, he secretly sabotages their communication drone plan by weaponizing it, with no warning to his scientists.

So we have clear evidence that they have time to take things more slowly, Hayward just doesn't care. He is not being reasonable or heroic, he has a clear agenda of removing the person who might (and likely would) interfere with their shiny superweapon down the line from the equation now that there is a handy pretext for doing so. This doesn't make him badly written, just evil and shortsighted.

This is a compelling line of conversation as well. If possible, let's leave Wanda and the Westview situation aside for a moment. Which other characters in MCU could conceivably be said to have powers that could lash out without any conscious control/responsibility/cognizance of the character? Hulk seems a likely choice, and maybe Iron Man/Warmachine (though they would probably be the result of third party action like a virus). Captain Marvel? Dr. Strange?

I have a vague idea of Infinity Stone-granted powers might run amok...but it looks like Wanda will really become Scarlet Witch, and the Mind Stone thing was just coincidence.

Your "in the MCU" qualification is suspect. We only have two prominent magic-users there, one of whom was rigorously trained, and the other didn't even know she was using magic at all until the very end of this series. That other metahuman characters in the setting have powers that lack any kind of reflex or sentience means nothing.

The best possible comparison we have to Scarlet Witch is Dark Phoenix, whose power does stuff without her meaning it to all the time. She's not a MCU character (yet), but she's still a reference that anyone writing this show would know and, more importantly, would expect the majority of the show's audience to know.

[Ramza00]

The best possible comparison we have to Scarlet Witch is Dark Phoenix, whose power does stuff without her meaning it to all the time. She's not a MCU character (yet), but she's still a reference that anyone writing this show would know and, more importantly, would expect the majority of the show's audience to know.

Sigh if you are not familiar (the sigh is me talking about a problematic writer / artist, but he also had a transformative impact on the industry)

... that John Byrne was the artist for Dark Phoenix and was the writer of Wanda from 1989 to 1990 with West Coast Avengers. John Byrne returned to Marvel for he wanted control of Wanda and Vision to tell his own tale, and he wanted to turn her into a villain and thus he did abuse tactics if this was real life people instead of fictional story characters with real life authors. Stuff where you separate people from support systems. Byrne did this to turn Wanda “evil”

In West Coast Avengers 42 to 57 we see Wanda lose her husband and the creation of White Vision, Wanda lose her kids, the Avengers being the worse alienating her from all support systems. This was Byrne’s intention for he wanted to go even darker than Dark Phoenix.

Well in WCA 56 and 57 he has Wanda go evil. He also was promptly fired from said book for he sneaked in stuff, on deadline, that was darker than Watchman and this was a teen book with the Comic Code Authority stamp. I am not going to talk about the details for you can figure it out and Google exists and the original black and white pens are on the internet and articles were written about this.

So Byrne gets fired, they had a different artist change 2 pages for it was on deadline and they were trying to salvage things. They did not have time to do a complete rewrite, thus a quick tone down.

They then created two filler issues with WCA 58 and 59 about different stories. And in West Coast Avengers 60 they concluded the arc of issue 56 and 57 with a new writer and artist and new plot. Now it was Immortus aka Kant the Conqueror all along.

But ever since Byrnes 89 and 90 run, Wanda has never been the same and other authors use her for plot devices and big world shake ups.

——————

So what I am saying here is Dark Phoenix is the closest comparison, and the same artist wanted to go Dark Phoenix ++.

Now while Marvel fired Byrne from WCA book he still worked at Marvel and other editors still liked him. Byrne is also one of the reasons Magneto went evil again in 1991. Claremont hated this but CC was told make it work for editorial liked these ideas from the other authors, so CC tried to thread the needle with Magneto in 89 and 90 prior to X-Men #1 in 1991, even though this contradicts the direction Claremont was doing with Magneto from 81 to 85, and then 85 to 90. And after 3 issues of X-Men 1 to 3 in 1991, Chris Claremont quit for he was just tired of editorial and the other writers.

——————

Sometimes women powers work in a weird way for certain Male authors like a certain style of tropes with women. It was also Byrne who shifted Wanda’s powers from probability alteration to chaos magic 🪄. One of the things 80s books were doing at the time is they wanted to make powers feel differently style wise than 60s and to some extent 70s styles of narration with how powers were described.

[Mordar]

Hayward would have been a better antagonist if he had a line saying

“I am not a hero, I am a soldier / director / bureaucrat”

Signifying he does not believe in some Kantian like concept, that we have a duty to one another or something..

Yes to the first part, and from my very limited understanding, the second as well. I was very much thinking of The Siege in this conversation, where Bruce Willis as General Devereaux says "I beg you not to send me to do this terrible thing", and then when sent, does the very terrible thing because it is his duty.

Probably not surprising, but I really like the Valjean = Javert dynamic for similar reasons. I am fond of the tragic execution of code kinds of conflicts.

So we have clear evidence that they have time to take things more slowly, Hayward just doesn't care. He is not being reasonable or heroic, he has a clear agenda of removing the person who might (and likely would) interfere with their shiny superweapon down the line from the equation now that there is a handy pretext for doing so. This doesn't make him badly written, just evil and shortsighted.

I would add simplistic, and the combination is what makes me use cardboard. From the early interactions between Monica and Hayward I got the impression he was a decent guy once upon a time. The descent from there to cardboard villain (in my opinion) suggests to me "lazy" writing, perhaps, or the melodrama idea.

Your "in the MCU" qualification is suspect. We only have two prominent magic-users there, one of whom was rigorously trained, and the other didn't even know she was using magic at all until the very end of this series. That other metahuman characters in the setting have powers that lack any kind of reflex or sentience means nothing.

The best possible comparison we have to Scarlet Witch is Dark Phoenix, whose power does stuff without her meaning it to all the time. She's not a MCU character (yet), but she's still a reference that anyone writing this show would know and, more importantly, would expect the majority of the show's audience to know.

I'm disappointed you thought there was suspect motivation in the question. I was thinking powers acting out on their own was perhaps Infinity Stone driven, you seem to suggest magic driven. It totally makes sense, but I missed that link. I like the idea of "intelligence" behind the stones like AD&D intelligent magic items/artifacts, and that is what your response triggered, and makes as much sense as magic responding on its own/controlling the user. Considering that Strange (and all the sorcerers we saw in that film) have had to use very hermetic style magic, and Agatha seems to have had some training as well effectively leaves Wanda as the only "wild magic" user we've seen. As such, I think the leap to reactionary/uncontrolled powers linked to something other than magic doesn't seem out of line.

I think Phoenix/Dark Phoenix as written in the books (I was a big fan of the original arc...and even some of the subsequent revisions in the books, but 100% hate the live action on-screen variations) isn't such a great comparison. That to me was always a dual-personality issue where Jean was able to maintain dominance, but once Mastermind tinkered, the Phoenix Force was able to take control and act out, likely flavored by Jean's own id. I don't think you're suggesting anything like that with Wanda, right?

While I would hope the writers would be familiar, at least in passing, I disagree that the majority of the audience would know anything about (Dark) Phoenix other than that it was a movie with Sansa and it got trash reviews. It only made $65M in US/Canada and not much more worldwide, so I don't think the non-comic MCU fan knows much at all there.

- M

[Friv]

I would add simplistic, and the combination is what makes me use cardboard. From the early interactions between Monica and Hayward I got the impression he was a decent guy once upon a time. The descent from there to cardboard villain (in my opinion) suggests to me "lazy" writing, perhaps, or the melodrama idea.

My read is that Hayward is acting as a mirror to Wanda, in a similar way to Agatha but on the other side. When he has his later confrontation with Monica, he snaps at her that she has no idea what t was like during the Blip, with half the world dead and everything falling apart.

Hayward isn't a cartoon villain - he is being driven by trauma, grief, and fear of super powers, and every reasonable and unreasonable thing he does is rooted in that. He wants more heroes, controllable ones. He assumes the worst of uncertain things. He convinces himself that the children aren't real so its okay to shoot them, and that Wanda is dangerous because she's powerful, even though he has evidence that she can be reached.

[Psyren]

I would add simplistic, and the combination is what makes me use cardboard. From the early interactions between Monica and Hayward I got the impression he was a decent guy once upon a time. The descent from there to cardboard villain (in my opinion) suggests to me "lazy" writing, perhaps, or the melodrama idea.

When he met up with Monica he didn't yet have a pet Vision. He wouldn't be the first person on the planet to change (or accelerate) certain priorities upon suddenly getting access to a superweapon.

I'm disappointed you thought there was suspect motivation in the question.

I wasn't questioning your motives per se, just an unconscious bias that seems to be running underneath your arguments. To wit, you seem to be presumptively dismissive of the possibility that her powers can do any of the driving in this situation, and how that might affect her culpability. To that end, you're bringing up other heroes in the MCU whose powers require agency, but none of them use "Chaos Magic."

I was thinking powers acting out on their own was perhaps Infinity Stone driven, you seem to suggest magic driven. It totally makes sense, but I missed that link. I like the idea of "intelligence" behind the stones like AD&D intelligent magic items/artifacts, and that is what your response triggered, and makes as much sense as magic responding on its own/controlling the user. Considering that Strange (and all the sorcerers we saw in that film) have had to use very hermetic style magic, and Agatha seems to have had some training as well effectively leaves Wanda as the only "wild magic" user we've seen. As such, I think the leap to reactionary/uncontrolled powers linked to something other than magic doesn't seem out of line.

I think Phoenix/Dark Phoenix as written in the books (I was a big fan of the original arc...and even some of the subsequent revisions in the books, but 100% hate the live action on-screen variations) isn't such a great comparison. That to me was always a dual-personality issue where Jean was able to maintain dominance, but once Mastermind tinkered, the Phoenix Force was able to take control and act out, likely flavored by Jean's own id. I don't think you're suggesting anything like that with Wanda, right?

While I would hope the writers would be familiar, at least in passing, I disagree that the majority of the audience would know anything about (Dark) Phoenix other than that it was a movie with Sansa and it got trash reviews. It only made $65M in US/Canada and not much more worldwide, so I don't think the non-comic MCU fan knows much at all there.

- M

The concept of powerful magic acting on its own to protect its user and having unintended consequences is not unique to Marvel properties by any stretch of the imagination. Putting Jean and Wanda aside (and even similar characters, like Vanya from Umbrella Academy) we also have examples like Aang subconsciously activating the avatar state to not drown, sealing himself in ice and leaving the Fire Nation unopposed for years. Or Harry Potter's very first use of magic being flying or apparating away from bullies but stranding him on a roof. These things happen to the untrained and it's not a particularly difficult concept for speculative fiction audiences to grasp.

And all that is putting aside the possibility that The Scarlet Witch's magic may be a wholly Sentient Cosmic Force in its own right - not just a set of powers, but possessing intelligence or will.

[hungrycrow]

My read is that Hayward is acting as a mirror to Wanda, in a similar way to Agatha but on the other side. When he has his later confrontation with Monica, he snaps at her that she has no idea what t was like during the Blip, with half the world dead and everything falling apart.

Hayward isn't a cartoon villain - he is being driven by trauma, grief, and fear of super powers, and every reasonable and unreasonable thing he does is rooted in that. He wants more heroes, controllable ones. He assumes the worst of uncertain things. He convinces himself that the children aren't real so its okay to shoot them, and that Wanda is dangerous because she's powerful, even though he has evidence that she can be reached.

This is what i wanted the show to explore, but it never takes time to connect that single line to his other actions.