Well remember that in this he makes points about Wanda's actions and Monica tries to defend Wanda by saying it wasn't malicious and they don't know she did this on purpose but he shows everyone footage of Monica's personality having been overridden and Wanda taking Vision's body from a S.W.O.R.D. facility. Monica then can't contradict this.
Which are points that the show (and the entry) doesn't make. And are refuted by later episodes.
Monica never denies that what's happening isn't terrible. As you say, she proffers the possibility that a: Wanda might not be acting on premeditated malice and b: she might not be the source of this in the first place.
Neither of which it seems like his presentation really addresses. Again, Monica's personality (and everyone in Westfield... or Westview. I honestly forgot somehow) was overwritten. No one, Monica included, claimed otherwise. She just denied an assumption of malice and goals.
And while Monica doesn't have a direct refutation for Wanda taking Vision's body, the narrative does in the form of Project Cataract, which uses Hayward's infodump damning Wanda to demonstrate his hypocrisy. Even disregarding this fact since it only comes out in future episodes doesn't change the fact that no one was arguing that Wanda be left unchallenged. Not to mention the fact the narrative at this point is wishy-washy on whether this is fully Wanda's fault or not.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Well two things I want to point out. 1. The entry (the first one anyway I didn't add the other) was made with all the information available at the time. So I wasn't to know about Project Cataract. And 2. Putting aside that we're not gonna have proper answers about what exactly caused the Hex, Wanda clearly does have control over the Hex and did make the effort to take Vision's body. The phrase two wrongs don't make a right is in play.
For now just leave it off. By March 5th everything will hopefully be cast in iron regarding what's an intentional feature and what's actually not what they were going for.
I deleted these for now:
- Intercontinuity Crossover: Peter Maximoff (the Quicksilver from the Fox X-Men film series played by Evan Peters) shows up at the end, in a first for the MCU.
- Wham Shot: Pietro Maximoff, now played by Evan Peters (from Fox's X-Men film series) visiting Wanda at the end of the episode.
I consider them Speculative Troping given what has been shown on the show so far. We do not definitively know that he IS Fox's Quicksilver or just a truly epic Casting Gag. Note that this same episode confirmed that everyone in Westview is forced to play a part (so he could just be some guy forced to act this — note how the X-Men movies don't have a "Wanda", so he would have to recognize her somehow). There's otherwise no confirmation yet that the multiverse is at all involved; at best it is an Ambiguous Situation (see that entry).
Hide / Show Replies
I think the wham shot example is ok as there's clearly some in universe significance to Pietro's recasting since Darcy comments on it. Agree on the intercontinuity crossover.
Well, Wham Shot was just re-added... okay, upon rewatching I'm fine with keeping it with that logic.
Wham Shot certainly applies. It would apply whether it's the original actor, the X-Men actor, or someone new entirely. It would be whammy enough that he's Back from the Dead, but the fact he's been recast (in-universe) is a double whammy, even if Evan Peter is just an innocent Casting Gag.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Deleting this for the same reason:
- Wham Episode: An actor from a different film continuity playing his character there (which had an established version in this continuity) appears in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, strongly implying that characters from previous Marvel properties could appear as well.
I agree it's whammy that it shows up at all, but this is too speculative.
From 'Ell's 'eart Oi stab at ye!
Do we actually know that S.W.O.R.D. was experimenting on Vision, using him to make weapons or otherwise doing something shady? Asking because I've seen on other pages that some people seem to be assuming they were and if not, we should correct them or tell them to wait for further clarity.
Edited by MinisterOfSinister
So.
So initially, my issue was that it seemed like the second bullet is natter refuting the first, but I'm not sure if it's that or saying that she's also a Jerkass with a point.
But the larger issue is that Hayward's "point" seems to be a YMMV reaction as the narrative treats him as being in the wrong and he's making a straw argument as it's not like anyone is saying "oh yeah, just let Wanda continue unchallenged." They just (rightfully so) realize that "shooting a missile at her would make it worse" and are entertaining the idea that there might be larger implications here.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them. Hide / Show Replies