Discussion Series / WandaVision

Jump Scare is not a YMMV trope so the example can't just be listed there it would have to be removed as an example.

The trope is about the creator's intention and this scene feels more like an abrupt, dramatic shock than a forced Jump Scare especially since the scene is a flashback of an event that the MCU audience is already suspecting to be tragic events of the Maximoff dinner described in "Age of Ultron".

I would vote that the entry just be removed as it's not really a traditional Jump Scare.

I could see it. It does seem like he's made, especially in the later episodes, to have a lot of deliberately unlikeable traits. But I could also just be saying that because I really don't like him, haha.

He is a Well-Intentioned Extremist. He is motivated by a distrust of superpowered beings and is trying to protect humanity from being victimized by them. He is resurecting Vision because he thinks that humanity needs a weapon like that to protect itself. We have to remember that in this story Wanda is acting essentially as a Grade A supervillain.

The way he acts in the flashback where Wanda views Vision's body is pretty hate sinky. Even if you think everything he's doing is justified and necessary, he goes out of his way to antagonize her about it.

Hayward is a Jerkass who is shown to be manipulative, deceptive, and unforgiving in pursuit of his objective to protect Earth as Director of S.W.O.R.D. Until episode 9 has him grabbing the Villain Ball and acting like an idiot, he's shown throughout the series as a dick... but a dick who has justifiable reasons for doing what he's doing.

I don't think the character was developed as well as he could have been, hence the numerous discussions here about him being a Draco in Leather Pants, Designated Villain, Rooting for the Empire, etc. It shows that he could have been better written but I don't feel he was originally created to be a Hate Sink.

Was he justifiable though? He made everyone operate on the assumption that Wanda disrespected Vision's wishes and revived him, when he was the one that did that. Not to mention telling Monica it was a good thing she wasn't there when her mother died.

Take a step back and look at Hayward's position. He helped Maria Rambeau start SWORD and keep it going throughout a horrific period in Earth's history (the Snap). Now he's having to shepherd SWORD through another cataclysmic event (the Blip) which happened just weeks before the Westview Anomaly.

Unless the Avengers immediately issued a Worldwide press release explaining everything to everybody, in the chaos, Hayward would have to assume the possibility of some kind of off-world involvement in this event and do whatever he could to make sure Earth was defended.

When Wanda comes to claim Vision's body she tells him at SWORD headquarters that she can't revive Vision then a short time later the Westview Anomaly appears and once they get intel from inside, Vision is seen alive and well and fully functional. Now Hayward can't trust Wanda.

As I said, Hayward is a Jerkass who is shown to be manipulative, deceptive, and unforgiving. I don't by any means condone what he's done in the series, but I can see how easily he can justify it to himself and others.

As I rewatch the series, I see that Hayward was intended to be disliked and an antagonist to both Wanda and Monica. I just don't get that he was created to be a Hate Sink.

I'm not even convinced the writers fully intended him to be a villain until episode nine when he shoots the kids so that by the end of the series someone gets arrested... cause it wasn't going to be Wanda or Agatha.

My reasoning for the change came from their definitions. Power Incontinence is defined as "Their power seems to go off at random or they can't stop using their powers, even if they want to." whereas Psychoactive Powers are those where "the effectiveness of the power or device depends on the mental stability and/or confidence of the user." Note that it says "effectiveness" not "can use their powers only when affected by certain emotions".

We need to acknowledge that Wanda's powerset is increasing. For most of the MCU, her powers were telekinesis and telepathically induced visions (usually of the nightmare variety) and she always seemed to have a pretty firm grasp of these powers.

The Lagos incident was an emergency situation. Wanda enclosed the bomb-laden Crossbones in a red force bubble to save Captain America's life, then tried to levitate him up out of harm's way as quickly as possible while still containing the explosion. Although you can see her struggling to hold on the entire time, the situation ended up overtaxing her ability and the explosion burst from her bubble before it cleared the nearby building, taking out multiple floors.

I never saw that as she couldn't control her powers but the situation was too much for her. She wasn't strong enough. (it should be noted that if she did nothing, there still would have been considerable loss of life and collateral damage, only then the blame would be solely on Crossbones).

Now we see a new magic-based powerset emerging that involves transmutation, matter creation, animating a memory, creating children, and mind-control many of which can even run on auto-pilot. Agatha even points out that Wanda is not limited by power but by knowledge. Her magic is affected by how well she can focus and for this series, much of Wanda's focus is overwhelmed by grief.

Thus I see it as her effectiveness depends on her mental/emotional stability (Psychoactive Powers) not that they go off at random or she can't stop using them (Power Incontinence).

I don't think it does.

... jesus, I thought it was going to be a rehashed version of the Reality Ensues discussion but jesus. That's nonsensical.

Cutting.

Even if they could, I doubt Protagonist-Centered Morality counts. The restrictions are treated as annoying but necessary in universe, and Monica was never even pretending to attack anyone when she unloaded her gun on the bullet proof clothes that no one was wearing. And Darcy had to resort to hacking after she was unfairly kicked out of the facility and she found that Haywood was lying to them.

Two questions:

Is it reasonable to grab a weapon out of the holster of a law enforcement officer without warning?

Why is Darcy entitled to know the full details of the operation, aside from being a protagonist?

1: Monica is a trained agent as well, so she has just as much authority as Jimmy does.

2: Because Haywood lied for malicious purposes.

She's the one who discovered the sitcom world. I think she has a right to know.

@Satoshi Bakura - That's not how either of those things work - at all. Apologies for being blunt, but I don't see another way to say it.

I really don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye on this. With that in mind, I'd like to ask for additional community feedback.

@emeriin - she's a scientist who discovered something of use to an ongoing security operation. She has 0 right to know the full details of said operation, implied to be highly classified. S.W.O.R.D. looks to be on the level of CIA/FBI/SHIELD etc. - I guarantee you that information inside those agencies (real and fictional) is highly compartmentalized - for good reason.

Trouble is the series is still ongoing. We're not gonna get an answer on who's truly good, who's truly bad and who's just kinda along for the ride for another three weeks, give or take a couple days.

It's worth noting that Monica's IDGAF attitude hasn't exactly neen endorsed by anyone except Monica, Woo and Darcy just seem to understand they can't talk her out of it. Hayward's more and more of a jerk, but maybe being forced to eat crow leads him to be nicer in the last three episodes. Maybe Wanda ends the series in jail getting the help she desperately needs. We're just not gonna know the answers until March 5th.

Therefore I think we should wait until we're certain of the total stances the creators want us to take on each character.

@Minister Of Sinister - Overall, I agree with your take of wait and see.

I would quibble about the endorsement angle: Monica's attitude is validated and accepted without question by the characters the audience is expected to sympathize with. The only people who challenge her on any level are the characters the audience is expected to dislike.

The whole "pulling Woo's gun out of his holster to fire off live rounds in an enclosed environment without permission, warning or ear protection to test a theory that could have been easily tested in a different way" thing was one of many glaring opportunities for one of those sympathetic characters to push back.

You are absolutely correct in saying that we, the audience, won't know who's "truly good" until the conclusion of the season, or maybe not even then. The show however, has already "chosen" its side. Protagonist-Centered Morality seemed to be the best fit for this, but it could be that I missed a better suited trope.

One additional wrinkle - I fully expect that in the near future, Monica, Darcy, and Woo will succeed in unearthing some deep, lurking Evil at SWORD. The show will use that to retroactively justify all of their actions. The real problem is that they, and most of the characters they interact with, are acting like they themselves fully expect this too - which is insane given the information they have. This behavior, this level of genre and character awareness, would make more sense for people trapped in Wanda's fantasy.

Which of course could be what the writers are trying to go for - but I'm skeptical.

This went long - thanks for reading if you made it to the end!

Regarding Protagonist-Centered Morality: Monica is allowed to grab Jimmy's gun not because she's the protagonist, but because she's someone working with Jimmy. That's not PCM, that's "being familiar with the person you're working with."

The thing is that the only reason Hayward isn't a protagonist is because he's actively causing harm, or at least actively retarding progress right now. Antagonizing Wanda, ignoring any point of view but his own (incorrect) one, dismissing experts, it's not good stuff.

The trio aren't right because they're the protagonists. They're the protagonists because they're right.

Like if we get to the last episode and Monica's actions have negative consequences that no-one calls her out on there might be grounds for a Moral Dissonance entry just because Wanda and Hayward ARE, but that's an "if", and we won't have an answer until March 5th. Let's just wait it out.

@Larkman I'm going to guess you have never worked in an environment that involved people carrying firearms.

I'm going to further guess that you've never had much hands-on experience with firearms period.

Please, don't take my word for it - go to a specialized discussion board, or better yet, talk to someone you may know who carries a weapon as part of their official duties. A federal officer would be best, military or FBI, but a cop may do in a pinch. Hell, call up your local gun range.

Ask them what they would think of "a person they are familiar with" or a coworker even, if that person decided to grab their sidearm out of their holster without any warning and squeezed off a couple of live rounds in an enclosed environment with other people in close proximity, all to test a hunch.

For extra hard difficulty, mention that they've known that person for a grand total of a few days, and that person has recently undergone extremely traumatic events (note: you won't get to this part before your conversation partner starts laughing).

Please remember that this is fiction.

@emeriin That comment, if played straight, may be used to undermine half of the trope entries on this site.

They haven't really done anything to be marked as PCM have they? Refusing to be taken away from a tense situation where the Guy in charge seems to be suffering PSTD and acting irrationally in the hopes of fixing the situation before it gets worse seems more on the rational and needed side.

I wouldn't even call them protagonists; that'd be Wanda and Vision. These guys are more like Hero Antagonists because they're working against Wanda even if they're not dicks about it. And while I agree Monica has baggage and issues I haven't seen anything that couldn't be added in a cautious way by fleshing out the relevant subheading of the Grey-and-Gray Morality entry. Anything more than that will have to wait until we get a better picture.

First, the entry spends more time snarking than actually explaining what they're doing wrong. Second, the explanation is extremely vague when it has got to be specific. Third, from what I can tell you are describing, they literally do the things that you are saying they don't do. Fourth, what you are describing doesn't affect the plot whatsoever. Sixth, using This Troper is extremely bad form.

So yeah, that entry needs to go.

Detailed response below, point by point:

1. Happy to cut down on the snark, and provide specific examples. My intent was to not take up too much room with details.

2. Same as point 1.

3. Same as point 1.

4. Strongly disagree on this point. Without getting wrapped up in emotional character discussions, consider this: the last episode saw SWORD's entire base Wanda-fied because they decided to build it right next to the perimeter of the HEX instead of a mile or two down the road.

5/6? Happy to get rid of This Troper.

What you have described fits more under What An Idiot. In fact, there is already an entry for that. Idiot Ball is a momentary drop in intelligence from a usually smart character to move the plot along, which this doesn't really fit at all.

I'm certainly not picky about What An Idiot! vs Idiot Ball.

SWORD as an organization has consistently shown abysmal levels of competence, so them going under What An Idiot! is fitting.

Hayward was presented initially as a Reasonable Authority Figure-type, then swiftly declined.

PS. For a Hayward specific example, consider this: if he is losing confidence in Monica's reliability/loyalty, why in the world did he ask her to pilot the armed drone? He removes her from the controls as soon as the drone arrives at the target location. There's not even a chance for her to refuse an order to shoot - he already knows she won't do it!

If he wasn't holding an Idiot Ball (or being What An Idiot!) she wouldn't have been in the same room.

That’s not an idiotic moment that affects the plot in any way. The only stupid thing here is targeting Wanda at all, which fits under Too Dumb to Live, which it is already under. Hayward letting Monica fly the drone until he hijacks is not an Idiot Ball moment or a What An Idiot moment because nothing comes of it.

Idiot Ball is defined by a character making dumber decisions than usual to advance the plot. So far, none of what you presented falls under that.

They seem to be valid inclusions.

Mind control doesn't exist in real life for one so it can't really be used for Reality Ensues as Thats supposed to be when a surprisingly realistic outcome occurs.

There is argument about what this trope really should be about. I always took it to mean that even if the situation is fantastical, the consequences will be presented fairly realistic based on what the consequences for the closest non-fantastical equivalent would be.

For the four examples: -people returning from the dead is not realistic but a hospital being overwhelmed due to an extraordinary event is realistic -a government agency being very security conscious is realistic and any employees that appear "compromised" would have their security access restricted -an organization being shattered because many of its members died in a single incident is very realistic -we do not know what the effects of mind control on people really is so we cannot project realistic consequences of it. bad example

I don't think these count; I agree with the commenters on ATT.

In addition to the premise being too fantastic for us to really know what a "realistic" consequence would be, note that the trope is now Surprisingly Realistic Outcome. Emphasis on surprising. The result is not what the characters/audience expected.

Reality Ensues requires there to be an expectation that reality wont ensue. Otherwise it's just Like Reality, Unless Noted. It's not Reality Ensues if it's something the work doesn't imply one way or another wouldn't be the case. For example, "Darcy hits the switch on the TV. It turns on" is technically reality ensuing but we have no reason to think it won't.

Of the examples, only the Blip one seems to count, since the only post-Blip works write it off for awesomeness and humor.

• The keycard example is less Reality Ensues and more Like Reality, Unless Noted. Do we have a reason to think her keycard would still work?
• The astronaut example explicitly cites an earlier work for how this has precedent. Endgame took an exceptional amount of time to show how devastating the Snap would be, so going "... and people wouldn't like the effects of the Snap" is just continuing the trend.
• I agree it's just too fantastical an example to really say what reality would possibly ensue here.

Even if we put the fantastical elements aside, I still don't think any of these examples should fit. My understanding of Reality Ensues is that an unrealistic trope must be set up first or expected by one of the characters, only for a more realistic outcome to occur. Things happening realistically on it's own, I don't think is enough to be a trope. That's basically just People Sit on Chairs. For these examples, I don't think there is any reason to expect the events to play out unrealistically, so it shouldn't be considered surprising that they do, even if we are calling it that.

I agree, FAS. Reality Ensues shouldn't be used about things where there's no reason to expect something different. The keycard example is the most egregious one. That's just "things working the way things work."

For my part, unreal situations could count for Reality Ensues IF they were such an established trope that applying a strand of realism to them is surprising or unusual. e.g. In ParaNorman with how they handled the Zombies. I still concede that these were bad examples.

I agree with FurAndStone and MichaelKatsuro. I believe this is Not an Example.

To add to that. I took time reading the Reality Ensues page, and this is what is written on it:

Note that, when we say "reality", we mean reality as in Real Life. We have "X happens" and "Y happens as a consequence of X"; the Y must not involve the fantastic in-story aspects of the work's own universe.

So there is nothing to discuss here for now. Though a trope could be always redefined in TRS, or course.

Asherinka: Please note that it's "the Y," that is, the consequence, that mustn't include fantastic elements. This means that it's fine if the cause is fantastical, but the consequence is realistic. Though like I said above, it's still not a valid example.

Might be an Iconic Item and/or a Chekhov's Gun.

Chekhov's Gun only applies if it turns out to be important. Iconic Item for "always wearing it", but I would wait and see to avoid speculation.

See, at first I was watching the fifth episode and I was like "Welp, looks like we have an answer", but the then the episode ended and I was like, "Nope, fuck my brain, this show is that doing. It's fucking my brain. Right up the ass with a vacuum cleaner."

Adding Heartwarming and Tearjerker subpages is probably going to happen at some point. Although since we're only two episodes in and know basically nothing about the overarching plot, I don't think we should be in a huge rush to create those just yet.