Foxtrol wrote: » This sums up a certain group of fans during WandaVision, hopefully they're tired out at this stage and will be more subdued come Friday...https://twitter.com/ToureDeTrap/status/1369657773089198089?s=20
pjohnson wrote: » Still at this :rolleyes: Yep. Not much interest from X-Men fans despite supposed legit leaks of mutant characters tonight/this series. Those people just gunna read spoilers instead. I already told you that they have killed the hope of X-Men fans so they are "tired out". It was an interesting tactic :pac:
twinex wrote: » I’ll tell you one thing, Paul Bethany has some set of teeth as the vision! ....and speaking of white, I wonder where the other vision went?...
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I get the feeling if some die-hard MCU fans went to a Marvel-themed restaurant and were served a turd on a plate, they would manage to find a way to defend it. Maybe because it 'subverted expectations'. 'They'll never know what you sacrificed for them' - one of the most amazingly inappropriate lines of dialogue I've heard in a long time.
God everyone is so negative. The Irish are so negative. It was a fantastic show. It's all fictional and based on comics. Come off it guys. Jeez.
Foxtrol wrote: » The poor creatures - 'tired out' after a single red herring... I know X-Men fans are used to Fox consistent attempts at instant gratification for their audience but the MCU journey is nearly always worth it and makes the payoff even better.
pjohnson wrote: » You think X-Men fans were given "instant gratification" by Fox? Have you ever watched a Fox X-Men movie? But your recent posts have cleared up a lot as to just why you loved the Quicksilver troll so much anyway. I guess the payoff being a Bo(h)ner joke was always going to appeal to some. But calling it "worth it" is a strech. X-Men fans actually expected the usual MCU standard and that backfired.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I get the feeling if some die-hard MCU fans went to a Marvel-themed restaurant and were served a turd on a plate, they would manage to find a way to defend it. Maybe because it 'subverted expectations'. Anyway here's the Critical Drinker with his take on this show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh7-HWmJC1A Quite extraordinary that they actually managed to convince much of their audience that a protagonist that manipulated and traumatised an entire town for their own personal problems merited sympathy. 'They'll never know what you sacrificed for them' - one of the most amazingly inappropriate lines of dialogue I've heard in a long time.
Foxtrol wrote: » You seem to live in a very black or white world - the world isn't all good or bad. People can feel two emotions at once for a character - they can feel sympathy while also acknowledging that they did a horrible thing. It is basically the art of good storytelling - characters that are always good or always bad a just boring. I agree that specific line is clunky but it is still true - those people she hurt won't know what she actually gave up to release them and even if they know they have a right to not care (just like you and others watching can choose not to care). That however doesn't mean she didn't give something up. I'd argue that overall Marvel dealt with the whole thing pretty well. They acknowledged throughout and at times in a very visceral way the trauma Wanda was putting the townspeople through, unlike say that WW84 scene. They provided background how she got to a place that this occurred but didn't excuse it. I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash to what she did to the town is a driver of later shows/movies (just like backlash to damage the Avengers caused drove other movies). I think you're completely ignoring precedent if you believe Wanda's slate hasn't been wiped clean due to a single comment from a new character.
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.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I get the feeling if some die-hard MCU fans went to a Marvel-themed restaurant and were served a turd on a plate, they would manage to find a way to defend it. Maybe because it 'subverted expectations'.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » Quite extraordinary that they actually managed to convince much of their audience that a protagonist that manipulated and traumatised an entire town for their own personal problems merited sympathy.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » 'They'll never know what you sacrificed for them' - one of the most amazingly inappropriate lines of dialogue I've heard in a long time.
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.
Mark Hamill wrote: » When she was faced with the reality that what she was doing was hurting the townspeople, Wanda stopped the delusion knowing that would kill her children and Vision. Do you have a partner or children? Would you choose random people over them?
Mark Hamill wrote: Nobody "uses their own grief" to do anything, that's not how emotions like that work. Grief uses you, makes you do something you wouldn't normally do. In the real world, if you do something illegal out of extreme grief, then you will usually be punished far less because of "crime of passion"-type laws.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » Everybody grieves at some point. Not everybody reacts in the selfish, deranged psycho fashion like Wanda did.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » They weren't her children. Androids can't have children. To suggest this was like someone sacrificing a family is a bit like saying a kid that gives up his/her imaginary friend is the same as a kid that had a best friend die. They aren't remotely comparable.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Nobody "uses their own grief" to do anything, that's not how emotions like that work. Grief uses you, makes you do something you wouldn't normally do. In the real world, if you do something illegal out of extreme grief, then you will usually be punished far less because of "crime of passion"-type laws.
Insect Overlord wrote: » Consider her backstory again for a moment. War. Losing her parents. Isolation. Genetic experimentation. Manipulation by Ultron. The destruction of her home city. The death of her brother. Finding hope with a new love only to see him die twice fighting in an inter-galactic battle. The consequences of the Blip. Manipulation by Agatha. She's a witch. How exactly do you expect her to just behave like an average young woman?!
Mark Hamill wrote: They were her children. She gave birth to them. And Vision is a synthoid, not an android, he is a synthetic human so there is no reason to assume he couldn't have children.
In the late 1960s, editor Stan Lee and writer Roy Thomas decided to add a new team member to the superhero-team series The Avengers. Thomas wanted to bring back the Golden Age alien Vision (Aarkus) but Lee was set on introducing an android member. Thomas ultimately compromised by using a new, android Vision.
“I realized [the scene] was missing a trick, which was the [reference], ‘Even the androids can cry,’ which is this famous frame from a VISION [comics run] where he realizes that he's crying,” elaborated Bettany. “I thought, if his journey has always been a journey towards humanity, the realization that he is crying is ‘I'm a real boy.’ Jac loved the idea of it. I realized that if [Wanda] looked [at him] and [they both realized] that there is joy in the ending of him. He has completed his journey, as it were.
Mark Hamill wrote: It might not be the most scientific of models, but the middle stage of the 5 stages of grief is bargaining. Most people actually do have very selfish reactions to grief. They want what they lost back, or they want revenge for loosing it. And someone who barely has a lid on her reality altering powers, having an explosion of emotion leading to a powerful delusion that she herself is happy to believe because it contradicts her grief, that's not surprising at all. You are going out of your way, ignoring things from the show and how basic human emotions work, in order to pretend there is some huge ethical problem here, just so you can bash the MCU.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » Now you're just being pedantic. From Wikipedia: And here's Paul Bettany on the only scene he contributed: Call him what you want - android, synthezoid, the tin man - he can't have children over the space of a 24 hour period or whatever it was.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » That she suffered grief is not in dispute. What is being challenged is the idea that because of this grief the audience should forgive her extraordinary cruelty against an entire town who had nothing to do with it. That motivation is fine for a supervillain, but not a hero. You're going out of your way to defend this purely because it has Marvel's prints all over it.
silverharp wrote: » "illegal" :pac:
Mark Hamill wrote: » Yes, illegal. Are you going to contribute to the discussion?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
Mark Hamill wrote: How is that "trying to have it both ways"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
