WandaVision 2: Sitcoms and Superheroes and Spoilers too

[Caligula_K3]

11 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Yeah, exactly. 

It's on Hulu in the US.

Unfortunately not in the US... But Hulu is where I first started watching it when I lived there.

26 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

Someone having a complete mental breakdown due to a huge life trauma coupled with universe bending powers isn't evil. Red Skull fomenting war to achieve control of humanity, that's evil. Alexander Pierce deciding to assassinate non-compliant people to achieve the same end, that's evil. This is a person with suffering a psychotic episode after losing the love of her life and then getting wiped out of existence. It's just that she's a superhuman so the consequences are far more dire than a mere mortal jumping off a bridge or taking a hostage.

There's definitely room for nuance, you're right, but if Wanda is responsible for all this, then these excuses don't go very far. Ok, if she inadvertently created this bubble out of trauma, then she didn't do it on purpose; but she at least seems to now have a role in propagating it and seems aware of what she's doing (if she's responsible). It's clear that the residents are in a constant state of torture (Norm last week, Agnes this week, even little details like the tear rolling down that woman's cheek in the town outskirts).

No comparison is going to work exactly, but if someone were to have a mental break because of trauma, held an entire town hostage and tortured them to recover normality, and eventually realized what they were doing and continued doing it anyway... Well, sure, that's not evil on the scale of "trying to control all of humanity," but I'd probably be comfortable labeling that person evil.

All this will depend on how the end of the season plays out. But the implications of what Wanda (or someone else) is doing are very disturbing... Which is one of the reasons I like the show. And I agree that Wanda is a much stronger character in it than she's been in any of the movies, and so is Vision for that matter. I just also agree with Kalbear that Wanda is not going to be the ultimate culprit because Feige and Disney don't want to go that dark.

[RumHam]

Even if Wanda didn't start it or wasn't the only one involved, the fact that she keeps the children out of it most of the time as a mercy suggests she knows the people are suffering. And then she does use the kids for the Halloween special. That's pretty evil. 

The only out I can see is that Norm didn't name Wanda as the one controlling him, only Agnes did and if she is this Agatha Harkness person she could have been lying. That would feel like a cop out though. 

[Jaxom 1974]

Regardless of where this ends up, the fact that this show seems to telegraph where its going one week, but up end the previous idea the next is what is making it great.  We all think we know where this is going, for the most part, but it's still so unclear about how its going to go there.  Top notch stuff.  

[RumHam]

Disney+’s ‘WandaVision’ Cast Into Top Viewing Spot Worldwide

 

[JGP]

9 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Disney+’s ‘WandaVision’ Cast Into Top Viewing Spot Worldwide

 

This will encourage Marvel to take more risks. Good stuff.

[Vaughn]

It's cool to see a woman get to take a big, weird swing and succeed in the MCU as a show runner.

[RumHam]

3 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

This will encourage Marvel to take more risks. Good stuff.

Yeah. Also like...I don't really think they should do big 3+ hour event movies anymore. There's no reason for it. I'm glad Secret Invasion will be another mini-series. 

[Heartofice]

So I’m kind of guessing the twins are being controlled, or at least represent different forces. Is it too obvious to say one is Dr Strange reaching through the multiverses? 

I agree that i don’t think Wanda is directly responsible for all this, more like she’s being manipulated by someone evil, as mentioned might be Mephisto. I wouldn’t be surprised if this reality is really some mystical battle for Wandas mind. I’ve seen that theme happen across a number of Marvel comics over the years. Maybe at times one force or another is able to communicate through different characters ?

[JGP]

9 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Yeah. Also like...I don't really think they should do big 3+ hour event movies anymore. There's no reason for it. I'm glad Secret Invasion will be another mini-series. 

It could be interesting for sure. There's definitely a cap on subs, but if they pace themselves Disney+ could continue pumping out quality content with respectable budgets for post-- just please avoid the weightless, non-impact action  [talking Wonder Woman II vs Winter Soldier here] I was in VFX back in the day and that shit throws me worse than bad pacing, dialogue, etc.

Keep it going, Marvel-- you're crushing it.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Caligula_K3 said:

There's definitely room for nuance, you're right, but if Wanda is responsible for all this, then these excuses don't go very far. Ok, if she inadvertently created this bubble out of trauma, then she didn't do it on purpose; but she at least seems to now have a role in propagating it and seems aware of what she's doing (if she's responsible). It's clear that the residents are in a constant state of torture (Norm last week, Agnes this week, even little details like the tear rolling down that woman's cheek in the town outskirts).

Are excuses required though.

It's really just an extension of the Sokovia Accords, supers operating under their own authority, international sovereignty, collateral damage, et so on. Is there a substantial difference between the deaths Wanda caused trying to contain Rumlow's detonation, and suppressing the free will of a township to suspend Vision's disbelief? Insofar as compelling storytelling, I don't think so. If Wanda did all of this out of love and grief, and it results in further alienating people from her, including Vision... I'm totally down for that.

The opportunities for personal narrative broaden much further than say, oh it's all ok [handwave] it was actually Belasco so as to broaden his ability to influence our reality and look it's a great opportunity to drop Illyana too or somesuch.

Give me the former, thanks, but guess we'll see. 

 

 

edited for spelling and whatnot

[Caligula_K3]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

Are excuses required though.

It's really just an extension of the Sokovia Accords, supers operating under their own authority, international sovereignty, collateral damage, et so on. Is there a substantial difference between the deaths Wanda caused trying to contain Rumlow's detonation, and suppressing the free will of a township to suspend Vision's disbelief? Insofar as compelling storytelling, I don't think so. If Wanda did all of this out of love and grief, and it results in further alienating people from her, including Vision... I'm totally down for that.

 

 

 

edited for spelling and whatnot

I never got past 30 minutes in Age of Ultron and I haven't seen Civil War since it was in theatres, and the Marvel wikis are disappointingly vague about all this - so correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't what you're describing in the Sokovia Accords situation the equivalent of an unintentional trolley problem? I assume Wanda tries to stop someone's explosion, succeeds in saving many lives, but then inadvertently kills a smaller number of people in the process. Or, at worst, she chooses to kill a smaller number of people to save a greater number in a spur of the moment decision.

If that's the case, that doesn't seem to me at all to be a comparable situation to what's happening here. Here she's not making a difficult choice in a single moment whether to save Vision's life or the town of Westview. If she's responsible for all this, she's opting (with premeditation) to continuously torture an entire town of 3,000 people to keep her ex-husband alive under conditions which he doesn't even understand. That is a different level of moral culpability. Whether it makes for good storytelling or not (I think it does) is a completely seperate question.

[SpaceChampion]

2 hours ago, RumHam said:

Yeah. Also like...I don't really think they should do big 3+ hour event movies anymore. There's no reason for it. I'm glad Secret Invasion will be another mini-series. 

Disney+ won't be earning them a billion dollars over a weekend however.  As long as their 3+ hour movies are driven by story and character I'll continue going to see them -- after getting vaccinated.

[RumHam]

16 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I never got past 30 minutes in Age of Ultron and I haven't seen Civil War since it was in theatres, and the Marvel wikis are disappointingly vague about all this - so correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't what you're describing in the Sokovia Accords situation the equivalent of an unintentional trolley problem? I assume Wanda tries to stop someone's explosion, succeeds in saving many lives, but then inadvertently kills a smaller number of people in the process. Or, at worst, she chooses to kill a smaller number of people to save a greater number in a spur of the moment decision.

If that's the case, that doesn't seem to me at all to be a comparable situation to what's happening here. Here she's not making a difficult choice in a single moment whether to save Vision's life or the town of Westview. If she's responsible for all this, she's opting (with premeditation) to continuously torture an entire town of 3,000 people to keep her ex-husband alive under conditions which he doesn't even understand. That is a different level of moral culpability. Whether it makes for good storytelling or not (I think it does) is a completely seperate question.

You can see the scene in question here:

 

2 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Disney+ won't be earning them a billion dollars over a weekend however.  As long as their 3+ hour movies are driven by story and character I'll continue going to see them -- after getting vaccinated.

True, and I'll keep seeing the movies too. But for big events like Infinity War/Endgame they could do so much more with the extra time a limited series gives them. I'd rather they only do smaller stories on the big screen. Or if they must do a big event on film do a prelude Disney+ show that's not required to understand the movie but covers some of the character stuff that they just can't justify including in a movie. 

[JGP]

39 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

If that's the case, that doesn't seem to me at all to be a comparable situation to what's happening here. Here she's not making a difficult choice in a single moment whether to save Vision's life or the town of Westview. If she's responsible for all this, she's opting (with premeditation) to continuously torture an entire town of 3,000 people to keep her ex-husband alive under conditions which he doesn't even understand. That is a different level of moral culpability. Whether it makes for good storytelling or not (I think it does) is a completely seperate question.

Nah, although I tied one specific Wanda example I was speaking more to the point of the Accords. 

Wanda's treatment [in CW, lockdown with Vis] was a definitive dividing point between Tony and Steve. I mean, Wanda certainly felt bad about the deaths she caused [one kinda despondent scene] but beyond the few shamed looks when Ross was confronted the Avengers with all their collateral, the through line Civil War dipped its toe into [re: the difficulty of parsing intent from consequences] was largely dropped for Cap's complicated relationship with Bucky. 

Tracking back to that particular scene though, the take aways were: 

i. sometimes you unfortunately got to break a few eggs 

ii. can't let mistakes cripple your judgment

iii. autonomy is required to do what's right, etc 

Between the lines, Cap [and I suppose his faction?] seem to contrarily believe in both the greater good and one life is too much arguments; where the autonomy to choose the direction of their moral imperative [consequences being an unfortunate aside] yet personal sacrifice / horse trading is some kind of nebulous abdication of that duty [?] and this almost immediately subsequent to being confronted by the collateral they'd caused [presumably the Hulk and Hulkbuster's battle killed... dozens at least]

Like, I suppose I get everyone wanting their heroes to always be heroic? Thing is, there's larger narratives cutting through the franchise and if these heroes don't make actual mistakes, action orientated or otherwise, Marvel wouldn't be telling stories true to themselves [if you will] and at the end of the day we'd all be losing out. 

That's how I see it.   

     

[Vaughn]

Tony was morally bankrupt (duh) when he threw in to be Ross's underling and I'm glad he died like a chump after 3 hours of whining about his kid.

[RumHam]

18 minutes ago, Leap said:

• Randall Park is the plothole king and the only explanation is that he's under cover as something else, but I forgive this because he's called Jimmy, long for Jim, who he plays in The Office.

It's actually an another way of shortening his full name, Jimothy. 

[SpaceChampion]

3 hours ago, Leap said:

• Randall Park is the plothole king and the only explanation is that he's under cover as something else, but I forgive this because he's called Jimmy, long for Jim, who he plays in The Office.

He's actually playing an old comic book secret agent character from the 1950s before Atlas Comics became Marvel.  Makes me wonder if he'll appear in the Shang-Chi film.

Also fought Godzilla apparently.  If he ever gets to pilot a jaeger, that'd be cool.

If there ends up a secret org called Atlas in the MCU, he's probably part of it.

[DMC]

9 hours ago, RumHam said:

Weren't Woo and Monica driving to meet the aerospace engineer over the ridge when the hex expanded? My read is that they got away, and the ridge guy (who may or may not be Reed Richards) is even further away from the expanded hex. 

8 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Seemed to me that they got away only because they were still driving away to get to the meet up.

I actually do not want it to be Reed Richards.  I prefer the theory that Reed and the rest of the FF is on one of the ships that was referenced in episode 4 that hadn't been located yet post Blip return...

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say - perhaps unclearly as it was late.  I suspect Monica and Woo will meet up with her "guy," and the fact the last time we saw them they were still driving seems to support that.  Be pretty interesting if it was Richards.  Gotta admit my gut is skeptical they're gonna introduce the FF anytime soon.  Any other candidates based on random speculation or otherwise?

5 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

If that's the case, that doesn't seem to me at all to be a comparable situation to what's happening here. Here she's not making a difficult choice in a single moment whether to save Vision's life or the town of Westview. If she's responsible for all this, she's opting (with premeditation) to continuously torture an entire town of 3,000 people to keep her ex-husband alive under conditions which he doesn't even understand. That is a different level of moral culpability. Whether it makes for good storytelling or not (I think it does) is a completely seperate question.

Agreed, I do not this is comparable to the Sokovia Accords, which was prefaced on collateral damage Ross cites in his presentation from NY, DC, Sokovia, and Wanda's mistake.  Ross even states the world owes them a debt, there just needs to be oversight.  If you're saying that storyline is kind of stupid - because in the real world Ross is absolutely right about their lack of accountability - fair enough.  

But if Wanda is doing this all on her own that is fundamentally different.  She knows what she's doing is wrong - she just said so to Pietro (or whoever that is)!  She's not doing it to try save lives in any way like the Sokovia Accords examples, she's doing it for purely selfish reasons.

[JGP]

I swear to god I said as 'an extension of the Sokovia Accords'... That's twice now, imma hop back and check. 

Yeah, I did, and went on further to clarify. Need to think about my failure to communicate here.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I swear to god I said as 'an extension of the Sokovia Accords'... That's twice now, imma hop back and check. 

Well I still think the two aren't really comparable and there's a fundamental difference.  For instance, if this is all just Wanda and she continues to expand her influence, the world is going to have to rely on superpowered heroes/the Avengers to stop her - Sokovia Accords be damned.  Moreover, you asked:

8 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Is there a substantial difference between the deaths Wanda caused trying to contain Rumlow's detonation, and suppressing the free will of a township to suspend Vision's disbelief?

And I'd say yes - certainly!  Wanda accidentally caused deaths trying to save lives in the first example.  That is fundamentally different than her imprisoning and it appears psychologically torturing an entire town due to her own grief.