Discussion YMMV / WandaVision

As much as I would be in support for this, I have a feeling that higher-up tropers would be foaming at the mouth at any reference to COVID-19. I remember adding two examples related to COVID to Avengers: Endgame, and both of them were deleted because "real-life event isn't equivalent to what happened in movie", and the other turned out to be fake news. So yeah.

Hindsight cleanup. Almost no COVID-19 examples are considered valid; you can ask there if you have questions.

Really the biggest problem with COVID-19 examples is that they tend to be misuse. Tropers will often make anything connection between a contagious disease in fiction and the real life pandemic, forgetting that many pandemic-related aspects (social distancing, quarantining (even on national scales), cancellation of events, basic hygiene, or even people being sick in general) have existed pretty much for as long as there have been pandemics. And it's mostly because very few people have actually been through such a world-shattering pandemic, considering the last one we had on the scale of COVID-19 was in 1918-ish, so it's naturally still fresh on everyone's minds and people will start making those mental connections - it's more or less kneejerk reactions based on cognitive bias, methinks.

Regarding your example, I'm inclined to say no, just because hospitals being overrun due to a disease or disaster isn't exactly anything new. I know there's the trope page example of the 9/11 Twin Towers crash, even though terrorism has always existed, but I think the difference is that the Twin Towers example refers to a specific building in a specific location coming down, so if it was just a generic "terrorism" example, it wouldn't be valid. If there is something more in your example that more specifically connects the example in Wandavision to the COVID-19 situation, feel free to elaborate.

It’s there to explain what’s she’s been doing (transplanted in Wanda’s brain) and to cement that she’s a Large Ham.

Not to mention it's pretty much in-theme with the show itself. If the show, you know, hadn't been doing the sitcom schtick with theme songs and breaking the fourth wall I might consider it out of place but... it really isn't out of place at all given what the show's been doing since minute one.

Hmm. Fair point.

I don't really like these examples either.

I always took Alternative Character Interpretation to mean that the way a character is presented in a story is open to interpretation.

There is a way that most of the audience would perceive the character (and is usually the creator's main intention) but given the way the story is presented there is some ambiguity present such that character could be interpreted differently and nothing in the story contradicts that other interpretation.

These two examples seem to be more focused on "degree of culpability" and "justification of actions", which to me, isn't the point of the trope.

The second example doesn't even seem to be open to debate. "By going into self-imposed exile, is Wanda escaping consequences for her actions?" Yes... Yes she is. The example is now posing the question "Does what Wanda is doing with her free time justify her fleeing the authorities and going on the run?" which is an interesting ethical question, but again not really an Alternative Character Interpretation.

Yeah like I said, these read more like the topics of a Broken Base entry or two with only one side getting to present its argument.

If no one has any objwctions they should be deleted.

Yeah I agree. The entry fits more under Broken Base.

I see that Broken Base is being bandied about a lot in these discussions which is fine. Just keep in mind that Broken Base is one of the most improperly applied YMMV tropes.

It's not about a small but vocal minority that complains, it's not even a big disagreement among the fanbase, it's about a CIVIL WAR AMONG THE FANS of a particular franchise.

As a result, the trope definition calls for 4 criteria that have to be met to qualify as a broken base example, The disagreement has to be sustained, vicious, large, and divisive (see the trope page for more details, but sustained means it has to be continuously on-going for 6 months or more).

When it comes time to add a Broken Base example, remember that it must show how all 4 criteria are being met.

Personally, my experience here at tvtropes is that many disagreements can be quite fever-pitch after the work concludes but few actually persevere over time to become an actual Broken Base.

Well that's what the thread is for. Nobody's going to add entries that don't count — not without getting them deleted anyway.

The only reason I bring Broken Base up is because as someone on the Wanda Vision reddit we HAVE been debating it, and if the conversation doesn't calm down it could count in about six months, and if there is a point to those bullets it belongs somewhere else.

1: Again, Hayward is not a case of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character. He has to actually lack screen time. Those are the rules of the trope.

2: The series doesn’t attempt to make Agatha sympathetic at all. It gives her good points at times, but she’s not meant to be sympathetic. The line doesn’t count as Narm either. It actually has to be overly cheesy and unintionally funny, which this line is neither.

33 Unintentionally Unsympathetic has specific criteria. Monica may be overly sympathetic to Wanda, but she herself doesn’t actually do anything unsympathetic.

4:Magneto and Jimmy aren’t Designated Villains. They are not even listed. And the narrative doesn’t really portray Hayward as a villain until after he launches the missile.

1) Except he actually lacks screentime. He appears in 6 episodes and in most of them he shows up just long enough to insult one of the side characters. His screentime in the last episode is probably below 10 minutes

2) Definition of Narm: "Narm can be subjective, as different audience members may find different things unintentionally funny. It can stem from a failed attempt to pull off an awesome, heartwarming (if it comes across as sappy) or heartbreaking moment (if the audience fails to be sad)."

I believe Agatha's line fits in the "Heartbreaking" category. Also the series portayed her as if she had a point

3) The line herself makes her unsympathetic, because she seems to dismiss all the suffering Westview's residents went trought. By being overly sympathetic to Wanda, she seems to deliberately ignore the events that led to said sacrifice.

4)Jimmy is a Designated Villain in the ymmv page of the Extraordinary Gentlemen page. Magneto is an example of Strawman Has a Point (specifically his incarnation from X-Men Evolution). And we both know the narrative went out of its way to portray him as a villain, with the various character constantly bringing up he was cruel and wanted to hurt Wanda for his own reasons.

Also what about Rooting for the Empire? Why was it taken down when it is directly connected to Draco in Leather Pants?

1: But, he doesn’t lack screen time? He has enough to get his character across well. 10 minutes in a forty minute episode is a lot of screen time.

2: Narm has to be unintentionally funny in a cheesy way. Your example is not unintentionally funny or cheesy, it’s just a moment that you don’t like.

3: A single line can’t be unsympathetic. Monica would have to show a pattern of callousness of apathy to count. The most she does is show too much sympathy towards Wanda.

4: The characters only start calling him a villain when he actually starts acting like one. And I’m not going to respond to the “what about” arguments, we are focusing on this one. And by definition Hayward doesn’t count. Strawman Has a Point doesn’t apply either as once Hayward becomes the villain, he stops having any points, just low blows.

I personally don’t mind a Rooting for the Empire entry, but the entry itself tries to paint Hayward as completely in the right when he’s not.

If notice that a lot of my arguments are “that’s not the definition”, it’s meant to keep out complaining. It doesn’t matter if the opinions are subjective, the definitions are objective. I didn’t make these rules.

^^ About you last point. Probably because unlike the Rft E example the Di LP entry doesn't try to paint Hayward as a reasonable leader who only did what everyone else would do (untrue, Hayward was deliberately trying to escalate the situation, so that he could justify killing Wanda and then frame her for Project Cataract and prioritized that over the safety of the people in Westview) while also downplaying the bad stuff he did. The Rft E example was also contradicting the Di LP example, since it said that Hayward's fans actually didn't give Hayward the Di LP treatment.

Also with Monica (and the Agatha line) is people need to remember just because something is said, doesn’t mean the show is actively agreeing with them. Monica has gone through a lot of trauma, her mom and she didn’t exactly know that bullets would go through her, and Wanda even tells her she’s wrong to say that. Agatha is 1) hammy 2) evil and 3) she tried to spare her mother but was refused.

Part of the issue is that many of these are, to some extent, mutually exclusive. DILP and Designated Villain, for example, are predicated on "acts villainous in canon" and "doesn't act villainous in canon" respectively. The deleted entry even complained about the fact that he was acting too villainous by the end. So... that doesn't make sense.

Rooting for the Empire, similarly, doesn't jive with Draco in Leather Pants because the former is about cheering for the villain despite their villainous status while the former is about pretending they're not villainous.

That said, I do think Monica's line could qualify for Unintentionally Unsympathetic. Wanda's dismissal (and overall gray morality of the episode) may mean that she's not right, but it doesn't change the fact that we're supposed to be sympathetic to Monica's POV at that point even if she's wrong.

Ok, so if the problem with Rooting for the Empire is the way i paraphrased it, so what do you suggest?

By the way my issues with the Draco in Leather Pants are:

A) It seems to completely ignore why some people are arguing in his favor

B) It seems to ignore that plenty of fans simply aren't ignoring his crimes

C) All in all it seems more focused on putting these fans in an extremly negative light rather than covering the issue in a objective way.

A) Because many fans aren't making good points.

B) Because many fans are simply ignoring his crimes.

C) Because the trope is about the subsect of fans who are unreasonably on his side. It's not about how all "Hayward fans" are, it's about how the extreme subsect of them act.

So you have simply decided to ignore all the sources i added to my post? You know the ones proving my point?

Also, regarding the Rooting for the Empire entry, I'd suggest something along the lines of:

• Rooting for the Empire: Hayward received a surprising amount of support from some fans, who felt he was less at fault than Wanda over the Westview situation and believed he was making sound arguments for her arrest. At least early on, before we find out his callous refusal to let her bury Vision so he could weaponise his remains is what drove her to the breaking point in the first place. This is despite the fact even before we find this out, he was deliberately misrepresenting Wanda as a far more simplistic villain than she was, and his tactics in dealing with the Hex situation would have gotten him courtmartialed in real life.

To be blunt, the original writing was giving him the Draco in Leather Pants treatment, even as it denied doing so. RFTE shouldn't be worded in a way that agrees with the people rooting for it; it's basically just self-aware DILP (IE, "people know they're bad agree with them anyway", not "the villain was actually right"). The fact some entries are written as Villain Has a Point is really something that raises the issue that the trope might need some clean-up.

What I would suggest as a compromise is adding a They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot about it. Hayward's character wasn't wasted, but I can see how people may feel the show would have been stronger if we had a Reasonable Authority Figure or He Who Fights Monsters character oppose her (though I feel Hex!Vision actually serves as the former; once he becomes aware of what's going on he calls out Wanda, opposes her, slips away to investigate and isn't on her side; he only rejoins her in the end when she's decided to end the Hex and free everyone).

No I've not, but what I'm saying is those sources don't detract from the fact there are people who are unreasonably defending Hayward and are obsessed with the idea he should be seen as the hero.

@iamnoone So by that logic, shouldn't Rooting for the Empire be re-added? Draco in Leather Pants can summarize the people you have described, while Rooting for the Empire can summarize the arguments @Damian Wayne cited. That way it won't be contradictory, because the two entries will be describing two different groups.

Again, I don't disagree with adding Rooting for the Empire, but the way it was worded was straight-up in denial of the fact he was getting Draco in Leather Pants treatment and began giving him it. That's why I posted my own suggestion of how it should be worded.

The trope isn't about praising the villain, which is what the wording of the original entry did. It's about acknowledging that there are people who are rooting for him anyway, but rather than downplaying or ignoring their negative actions, they agree with the villain and support their villainy. I agree that there are clearly people doing that, Damian Wayne cited evidence of it, but the trope entry shouldn't be worded in a way that acts as if they're right to do so.

Okay, but your writing of Rooting for the Empire is the exact opposite, you're saying that these arguments are wrong. That's not what that trope is used for either. Your version is basically an alternate version of Draco in Leather Pants.

There are plenty of Rooting for the Empire entries that are given real justifications, the trope doesn't exist to shoot down these opinions. There are rational and irrational reasons for them.

If the entry is re-added, it shouldn't be biased towards either your opinion or @Damian Wayne's.

While I get that, I do feel that the reason for rooting for Hayward do cross into 'irrational'. As I've argued across this page and in my entry, the actions that people think he was 'right' in involved committing what would be considered a war crime (opening fire during a negotation), and was putting people at risk simply to kill Wanda.

The problem is the trope is often used by people who are irrationally Rooting for the Empire and does basically involve Draco in Leather Pants. Just looking through several of the entries, they're doing a bad job of remaining neutral and in some cases are committing some gross levels of whitewashing.

But, if you think it should be just left neutral, I'd suggest then:

• Rootingfor The Empire: Hayward received a surprising amount of support from some fans, who felt he was making sound arguments for his actions.

Less condemnation of the viewpoint, just noting that it exists. However, I think we should also have an extra noted out bit below warning editors to not add justifying edits to emphasise how he's right, or a Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement note at the end.

Yeah that wording works better. I suggest adding something like "See Draco in Leather Pants for the more extreme end of this", or something like that.

Maybe the Rooting for the Empire page should be reviewed.

However, you decide to word it, do NOT add a (see xxxx for more ...) reference.

Each example in Tvtropes needs to stand by itself without referencing other tropes that may disappear or become recategorized over time.

True true, that's fair

Maybe it could work as an example of Broken Base, since there are a lot of people who really dislike the line for the reasons you mentioned above, but also a lot who think it's fine and think others are blowing it out of proportion.

However Broken Base has a 6 months waiting time, so it would be while before you could add it.

Yeah that makes sense.

We can wait until then to add that.

Also, I was wondering if Ralph/Pietro counts as Unintentionally Sympathetic. Not that he's portrayed as unsympathetic, but his trauma in being mind-controlled by Agatha isn't treated as seriously as the other people in Westview. He's just kinda used as a joke and then we never see him again.

I put it in the recap YMMV for that episode, but do you think it's a big enough example for the main YMMV page?

Regarding the first, specifically the criticism "Monica is still a main protagonist and someone we are most certainly supposed to sympathize with."

That doesn't mean everything she does is supposed to be sympathised with. The fact the narrative has her be disagreed with, by Wanda, makes it clear that the narrative doesn't think we should agree with Monica. I think this is really just an extension of a flaw Monica demonstrates repeatedly in the show, she's too idealistic and, due to her own grief, has latched onto championing Wanda's to the point of over-sympathising with her. This is clearly an intentional thing, since both Wanda and Hayward separately call her on it (Hayward's case being Villain Has a Point, of course).

Regarding the second, no because he doesn't do anything that's meant to be unsympathetic. Look up the Trope's laconic, he doesn't fit it because he's not a Jerkass, just a guy.

1) I already agreed that the line will be reserved for Broken Base.

2) It's not clearly intentional, that's just your interpretation. If it was clearly intentional, this debate wouldn't exist. I also pointed out that one unsympathetic line doesn't make her wholly unsympathetic, it's just a moment that a lot of people questioned (the fact that this is one of Monica's last lines just made it stand out more). A character can have an Unintentionally Unsympathetic moment while still being heroic overall (Just look at the entries for Game of Thrones).

3) A character doesn't necessarily have to be a jerk to be Unintentionally Sympathetic. There are plenty of examples of characters who were just not given the proper treatment. For example, a victim of Double Standard Rape: Female on Male doesn't have to be a Jerkass to be considered Unintentionally Sympathetic.

1) I'm not disagreeing with the Broken Base idea.

2) OK, wording it as 'clearly intentional' is probably bad form on my part, I apologise, but I do think that the narrative intended for her to not be agreed with here. As said, Monica does demonstrate a pattern of latching onto Wanda because of their shared feelings of grief (in fact, I suspect the only reason they killed her mother was to give them Not So Different status). This all makes it seem the intentions were deliberate.

3) Then those entries are trope misuse. The point of the trope is when a character is intended to be actively *unsympathetic*. Merely not having their trauma explored doesn't make it that trope.

Okay, all fair points.

Maybe the Pietro issue can be added to They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character.

It's more They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character, which is what it's been labelled under.

I'm still not sure why some folk expect characters from the Foxverse to show up. Isn't it more likely that when the X-Men show up in the MCU will be the new MCU versions of them?

You know you’re not actually meant to believe Agatha when she says that right? It’s like villainous characters can be selfish and myopic or something

Really? Because the series clearly plays it straight without any hint of irony or criticism. Seriously she says the line while Hayward's men are arriving to stop them and the narration clearly tries to frame in the same light of the many persecutions against women in world history.

Also it is still an example of Narm for how much ridicolous it sounds.

BTW what about the Fridge Horror part?

It really isn't a ridiculous line? They're witches, witches have historically been hunted, the usual depiction of which in media is "torches and pitchforks". Agatha is making a joke, it's meant to be kinda silly since Agatha is a Laughably Evil sort of villain.

Yeah, Wanda trapping Agatha in a Mind Rape state seems pretty cruel and unheroic, especially when the story spent so long presenting it as something awful, and attempts to justify it under Agatha being an Asshole Victim. Would this be a case of Moral Dissonance, where something presented as objectively wrong is all of a sudden treated as okay because of who the victim is?

But it's not treated as okay. Wanda knows it's Cruel Mercy, and she exiles herself to learn more about her Apocalypse Maiden powers.

@emeriin

Really? I didn't get that impression, I got the impression that the show was treating it as Agatha deserving it, even if it was cruel.

In that case it's Kick The Son Of A Bitch, mixed with Sealed Evil Within A Can and I Did What I Had to Do.

Agatha is powerful, sadistic, and smart. Wanda knows that no conventional prison can hold her; she's only stopped her at the time because of the rune trap within the Hex, but she's also planning to drop the Hex. She can't pacify Agatha once that's done, so the only way to keep her from escaping, attacking again, or doing anything is to disable her for the time being, and trapping her in the 'Agness' identity is the only way Wanda currently knows how.

I mean wasn't the Raft capable of holding Wanda, and didn't Wanda demonstrate with the Runes that she could simply create a prison that takes away Agatha's magic?

The Raft held Wanda when she was much weaker and had zero experience using her powers to cast genuine spells. Agatha is much more powerful than Wanda was at-the-time, and actually knows how to use her powers. It's unlikely something that could hold a rookie Wanda would be able to hold Agatha.

As for 'Wanda can just make a prison with runes', Agatha can always escape, never mind that the runes might run out (remember, Wanda is new to spells). Assuming the prison is a "real" prison, IE an actual jail and Agatha is given an actual trial, Wanda would have to be present for it and Agatha-proof everything, something I doubt she'd be able to do since she herself is wanted, and she's probably got a bigger target on her head than 'this scary lady that Wanda insists was also evil' (the fact Agatha has arguably not committed any crimes they can prove, with Wanda herself as the only witness who knows what she saw, also doesn't help).

Basically, putting Agatha in a conventional prison is a non-starter, and Wanda can't spend all her time dealing with holding her herself (she currently only knows two prisoning spells, the runes and the mind re-write). Her only option was to take her out of the picture, and killing her when she was defenceless would hardly be seen as any more heroic.

I originally suggested Unintionally Unsimpathetic, but i didn't get the approval

How about Informed Wrongness: Agatha treats SWORD coming after them as being similar the witch-hunts of past centuries. But the two are not the same as witch-hunts of the past were based on discrimination based on intolerance and superstition. In this case, an entire town is being/has been held hostage for weeks by a person with superpowers, who is now in the middle of a super-powered battle with another super-powered individual.

Would this work?

No, because Agatha is not a good guy who's view of things we're meant to agree with. She's not seriously condemning SWORD, if anything she's taunting SWORD because it's foolish of them to think they can come after someone as powerful as her.

The impression I got that was that, while she was indeed taunting them, it was simultaneously a case of Villain Has a Point about fear leading people to be quick to judge and condemn.

While that's possible, it doesn't seem to be how the narrative portrays it. SWORD aren't after Wanda out of fear, they're doing it because their boss is an opportunist vulture, and the people who "condemn" Wanda, the people of Westview, Wanda believes are completely justified to hate her, and she even argues against Monica's attempts to sympathise with her. If it is Villain Has a Point, it's clearly not one the narrative is trying to present.

I mean there was only a person who shot it down. There is also the fact it is merely an extension of Draco in Leather Pants, explaining why some fans were rooting for Hayward.

Are people really rooting for Hayward though? I kinda thought that stopped after Episode 7 at the least. People were rooting for Hayward when they didn't have all the information yet (like Hayward lying about Wanda stealing Vision), but I don't really see that happening anymore.

It seems to have transformed from 'rooting for Hayward' to 'complaining that Hayward wasn't presented as noble and reasonable, and believing he was derailed to make Wanda look better'. It's still just more Draco in Leather Pants.

Which again is weird as the dude is a caricature. What did people expect ?

I also vote for removing the RFTE entry.

I'm not sure it's rooting "for" Hayward (especially if you're someone like me who doesn't gloss over his actions) so much as rooting AGAINST Wanda and/or Monica. Seems like there are people who aren't happy with how the show ended who wish it hadn't ended like that. (And also find it annoying that Hayward was written as a Flat Character Hate Sink but that's a separate issue for the most part.)

I'd argue that falls into Draco in Leather Pants. It's a similar issue that plagued Marvel's first big TV entry, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. where the show had a firm Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse plot with one of the central villains, but fans spent years complaining that he should have been given a redemption arc and considered his Redemption Rejection and false-redemptions to be bad writing instead of a realistic deconstruction of how abusers gaslight their victims with "I've changed".

Essentially, while it's less "I think this character was great" and more "I think this character *should* have been better, and the writing is bad for not doing what I wanted." Wanda herself maybe goes into Unintentionally Unsympathetic territory, since evidently there are people who think she fully deserved to be shot in episode 5, when the narrative was pushing a 'sympathetic hostage taker' story.

I don't remember if there's a trope for "my headcanon ended up being jossed so I'm mad about it" (which really seems like something that should be a trope, based on my experience with the MCU fandom, CW fandom, RWBY fandom, and others), but it probably falls into that too.

@iamnoone

Oh yeah, I remember that. Fun days, arguing with people about it.

Anyway, I guess you could add Rooting for the Empire with the following: Despite Hayward being a villain with extremely corrupt intentions, Wanda **is** absolutely the cause of the Hex, thus holding several people while Mind Raping them, and the Monica, Darcy, and Woo seem more concerned with Wanda's well-being and helping her out rather than the citizens of Westview themselves.

How does this sound?

It's good, but I think it should be added on the end "This is despite the fact Hayward is directly the cause for Wanda's breakdown in the first place, and that he demonstratively doesn't care for the people in the Hex himself." Since, as worded, the first part doesn't stress the fact Hayward is not someone that should be rooted with.

Seems good. At least until we find something better.

Are you referring to Jeremy's observation that our definition of who is a hero vs who is a villain is guided by the narrative surrounding them? How we hate Director Dick as a villain even though Wanda did a lot more damage?

If so, it is a fantastic observation. However, I'd be concerned that it involves a level of subtlety that may be outside of tvtropes charter. Heck it's probably outside of 80% of the internet's charter.

Therefore I don't know if it would lead to productive discussions or not.

I'm not sure. Could you explain how it relates to Cancel Culture? I personally don't really see it, but maybe I'm missing something here.

What about Accidental Aesop? It wasn't the intented message, but it can be applied to the series anyway

Yeah Accidental Aesop could work, but it's less of a lesson and more of an idea. Here's the link if you all want more clarity, it's kinda hard to paraphrase. https://youtu.be/m6gAm7O9vWs

Also I think the quarantine comparisons for episode 9 could also work for Applicability, as it's definitely not something the show planned, but a lot of people have brought it up.

I mean episode 7, where Wanda is stuck at home. Sorry

Eh , honestly i think both can be used. Honestly i prefer Accidental Aesop, as the idea / teaching that can be obtained from the series clearly wasn't intended by the writers. Obviously the choice is yours in any case

Okay thanks.

Personally I think that Cancel Culture thing is reaching; putting aside one's feelings on Cancel Culture, the reading that we only see Hayward as the villain because of the narrative is kinda bogus, when he does a lot of stuff to warrant his villain cred, and that the narrative actively doesn't portray Wanda's actions as "good".

I don't see how that relates to "A lot of people on the internet decides to stop supporting the work of someone because they did something bad." At best, one could maybe make a link to how people are more complex than hero/villain and Wanda switching between the two designations over the course of her character arc in the MCU is demonstrative of that, but that doesn't seem to be what the OP/Jeremy Jahns are both implying.

Maybe I just used the wrong word for it, but I liked Jeremy's observation that the way people on Twitter place people in the bubbles of "heroes" and "villains" influences our perception of those people in ways we might not notice.

Also I don't agree with his statement that Wanda is worse than Hayward, but I do agree with him saying that the people of Westview will probably remember him more favourably.

And I liked the idea that we as audience members are more willing to forgive fictional characters than real people because we're seeing things from their point of view. I think that relates to a lot of shows and not just this one.

She's not even intended to be sympathetic for that, she's Cruel Mercy to someone who has been emotionally torturing her for ages.

I mean the point still stands. We have already seen how painful her mind control is and the fact she mimd rapes Agatha after the other residents made it perfectly clear it was an horryfing experience really doesn't help.

Also i feel like it was presented as a case of Karmic punishment for Agatha's actions in the series (including the fake Pietro) rather than a case of Cruel Mercy. Nobody questions Wanda's decision and it is presented as the classic scene where the hero defeats the villain.

Also maybe i got it wrong, but i fell like Monica consoling Wanda , saying that the Westview residents hate her because they don't know what she had sacrificed feels rather hollow, considering she was the one who trapped them and put them in danger in the first place.

By all accounts Agatha simply used the Hex to her advantage , she has no role in its creation or the brainwashing of its inabithants.

Neither of them said the residents were in any wrong to hate her, just that they didn't know the Sympathetic P.O.V. she had, and it wouldn't matter probably anyhow.

I didn't say they believed the residents were wrong. I am just saying that Monica's words seemed to ignore that Wanda was the one who kickstarted the whole situation who forced her to sacrifice her family.

She openly stated that the residents'anger was partially motivated by the fact they didn't know about Wanda's decision to sacrifice her family to save them. Even if it is clear this wouldn't change their opinion of Wanda,it is still a bit jarring Monica seemed to ignore that the sacrifice was necessary to solve a situation that Wanda herself created.

However, it was a situation Wanda created by accident, and as Monica argues, anyone with her power, having lost what she lost, would do what she did. What Wanda did was wrong, but it's the kind of wrongful action that any one of them would have done in her situation, and the fact Wanda chose to stop it when she realised what she was doing, at great personal cost, is admirable.

It's also clear that Wanda disagrees with Monica, so it's more than anything Monica is trying to make her feel better so she doesn't have any more trauma-induced breakdowns.

So do i put Monica under the Unintentionally Unsympathetic trope, for what she said?

Also can i add the part about Wanda trapping Agatha into the Agnes persona as an example of this?

Actually should i put the fact Monica most of the time seems more concerned with helping Wanda over freeing Westview inhabitants as an example of this?

She both calls her out and tries to help her. It’s a foil thing.

Ok, what about the "trapping Agatha into Agnes' personality" part?

However i fell like this review correctly points out the issue with this scene: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/05/973989043/wandavision-wraps-a-season-that-was-never-what-it-seemed?t=1615034295781

From the article:

The framing of the final conversation between Wanda and Monica was odd, to say the least. After Wanda finally released the people of Westview from the spell that had allowed her to control their minds and bodies — which release also required her to give up her magic family — she walked through town and found that the people there were, you know, angry. And Monica said, "They'll never know what you sacrificed for them." And Wanda said, "It wouldn't change how they see me."

And I must say: No, it probably wouldn't. If there's a hole in the emotional honesty of the finale, it's that by arranging this scene in this way, it reframes Wanda as a person whose self-sacrifice will go unrecognized, rather than as a person who committed grave violations of the bodies and minds of lot of people for her own purposes. The people of Westview didn't see her as a monster because they weren't fully informed; they saw her as a monster because she traumatized them, and it's not clear that she would have ever stopped traumatizing them, except that other forces intervened. There have been Marvel movies in the past that have reckoned with the damage done by heroes (Wanda included); this moment, while the stunned residents of Westview were still standing in the street trying to figure out what happened, seemed a little bit soon for a conversation that suggested Wanda looked bad because they didn't know the truth. Wanda's problem, after all, is not that her sacrifice wouldn't change how she's seen, but that it wouldn't change what she did.

I do personally think that Monica is Unintentionally Unsympathetic. While I understand that a theme of the show is empathy, her devotion to saving Wanda comes off as Protagonist-Centered Morality. The way she brushes off what Wanda did to the people of Westview, and how she praises her for sacrificing her family for them, negates the fact that she was holding them hostage and Mind Raping them. There's a good reason why it's called mind-rape on this site, because that's exactly what it is: a violation of someone's mind and body. The fact that she didn't mean to start it doesn't change the fact that she didn't immediately undo it. But at least Wanda knows this, as she accepts that the people of Westview probably won't forgive her. Monica just doesn't care as much.

Also, in any other show, Mind Rape is almost always treated as a Moral Event Horizon. For example: Slade in Teen Titans, The Purple Man from Jessica Jones, the Borg from Star Trek. But in this show, it isn't. I feel like this might be a problem with the MCU in general, because even in Age of Ultron, her brainwashing of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner was Easily Forgiven.

This is kinda leading to an issue with the Mind Rape trope, where it's been greatly weakened from "metaphor for sexual assault" to "any psychic attacks" (which is why I had previously suggested Trope Renaming for it, that and the rather casual use of tossing around the word 'rape').

Treating any use of psychic combat as the same as Kilgrave's actions is disingenuous, there's a big difference between what Kilgrave did and any of Wanda's actions. It also ignores situations like this, where Wanda's psychic attack was accidental, the result of not having nearly enough training for someone of her power level.

There needs to be a better understanding of why those instances were Moral Event Horizon level events. Intent is the damning thing, not just the action itself.

But she was fully aware that she was in control of everyone. Yes, she started it accidentally, but she never tries to stop until the end. And she's doing this to an entire town, not just one or a few people. And she threatened to do the same to Vision when he said she couldn't control him like the others. You can't say that Wanda didn't know what she was doing. And if you're going to make the argument that intent is what matters, you're just starting a completely different argument about morality in general. Wanda's intent doesn't change the fact that the people of Westview are going to have PTSD the rest of their lives due to at least a week of constant torture because of Wanda.

@iamnoone and @ovskii

I think you both have a point. Wanda's actions cannot be compared to Kilgrave's on the grounds that, one, Kilgrave's actions were, from the very beginning of Jessica Jones, always shown to be something he was in full control of in the show. Wanda, however, started the Hex by accident. So yes, as iamnoone said, intent does matter, therefore she hasn't crossed the Moral Event Horizon in those instances because, she, at that point doesn't know what she is doing.

That being said, it is later shown that, even when Wanda did realize she was controlling people, she didn't actually release them until Agatha called her out on it (granted, for her own purposes in messing with Wanda, not genuine altruism). Also, good point ovskii, I forgot that Wanda threatened to do the same to Vision. You could argue this is a part of her crossing the Moral Event Horizon and becoming Unintentionally Unsympathetic.

But based on what we see, Wanda wasn't actively controlling people. People were acting independant of her, even acted in ways that were negative to her delusion. It's also apparent that even once she's made aware of what she did, she's in denial about it. If she was in control, she wasn't consciously doing it, even after being made aware of it.

Also, re: Threatens Vision. That's not what she did. The point of that bit was a throwback to 80s sitcom humour about 'wives controlling their husband', IE denying sex. She was still trying to pretend they were a simple sitcom couple.

And, yeah, she traumatised them, but that doesn't mean her intent (which there was none; again, she had no idea of what she did until long after it happened) isn't something to raise when discussing if she crossed the Moral Event Horizon. There's plenty of situations where events without bad intent can lead to trauma. While it doesn't change what she did, the fact she didn't intend to do it does make her different from Kilgrave.

This entry does ignore some negative things Hayworth does like:

1. Experimenting on Visions body, which goes against his will.
2. Hiding crucial information from his team.
3. Shooting a missile at Wanda while her 10 year old sons are right next to her.
4. Insulting Monica by bringing up her dead mom (especially since Monica only found out three weeks ago)

Edit: I also disagree with the point about Monica, Jimmy and Darcy. They brought up reasonable concerns like that the hex may not end when Wanda dies and that it may be better to negoitiate. Hayworth responds by throwing them out, which does not seem very reasonable.

Also, Strange Dog, you edit warred. If you wanted to add this back, you should have waited for discussion to conclude.

Happy to hold off on adding back in until discussion is done, no worries there.

Out of curiosity, is the initial removal also an act of Edit War?

@Unoriginalusername 3:

1. I can't recall how much detail the show provided on what was being done with Vision's body, and how much responsibility Hayward bears for it. As for overriding Vision's will - the morality of that may not be that straightforward.

2. He is an Acting Director of a massive agency. His team is not entitled to know everything he knows - if they were not protagonists.

3. Her "sons" are 3-4 day old manifestations of her powers. If she is not able to resurrect Vision, I doubt she can become pregnant by him.

4. Absolutely fair point - dick move on his part. Again, for my money, the writers handed the man an Idiot Ball and sent him on a long walk down a short hallway after Episode 1.

5. They brought up reasonable concerns. They do not have the authority to make the tough call - for better or worse, Hayward does.

PS. My overall point is not that Hayward is a misunderstood Boyscout out to save kittens from trees. The situation is complex - but rather than exploring that complexity, the show clearly designates one side as "bad", the other as "good"

Hence - Designated Villain

^^ 5. They do not have the authority to make the call, but Hayward should listen to their reasonable concerns. Instead he has them thrown out just for disaagreeing with him, despite the fact that Jimmy is their FBI contact, Darcy is one of the best scientists present and Monica is the only one with actaul experience inside the hex.

Also Hayward did nothing when Vision was dying. He just mocked him (he really does want out, doesn't he?) and even stopped Darcy from helping him.

Besides that he also seems really biased against Wanda. He brought up some good genuine points (that she is dangerous and that she used to work for Ultron and Hydra), but was completely unwilling to listen to anything positive about her (turning against Ultron, joining the Avengers, fighting Thanos) and paints her as an evil monster that can't be reasoned with.

It is also implied that Hayworth has ulterior motives with him tracking Vision and the experiments on his body, but I guess we can't really comment on that until it is revealed what it is.

To answer your question—no, the initial removal doesn't count as an edit war.

@Unoriginalusername 3:

Some advice from Data that may be relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMKtKNZw4Bo

Vision wasn't dying - Vision is dead, as Pietro so eloquently reminded us. Whatever was going on, Darcy, Hayward - anyone other than Wanda really - had no chance to help him in any way. Please note that the "mockery" is your read of the situation, not a factual event.

Hayward is absolutely biased against Wanda. The show takes pains to show that, repeatedly. But "bias" doesn't equal "bad" or "wrong". The narrative brushes aside or minimizes any suggestion that that bias is reasonable.

Compare that to the way it treats Monica's clear bias in favor of Wanda. Look at the the situation around Wanda's emergence from the Hex post drone attack.

An unstable, erratic super-powered individual acknowledges that she is mind-controlling thousands of innocent people, and states she has no intention of setting them free. When threatened, she casually mind-controls another dozen armed individuals, confirming her power to control people outside of the Hex.

A mid-level agent of the organization tasked with monitoring/dealing with this threat steps forward and proudly declares herself to be an "ally" of this super-powered individual. A day or two earlier, this same agent was under the same mind control as the trapped civilians. Her medical scans showed major brain abnormalities after her extraction. She refused to comply with medical follow ups. She has been openly questioning the actions of her superiors.

Her bias is absolutely fine, and cannot be questioned - she's the protagonist.

(Extra bonus note: a decade or so earlier, SHIELD was brought to its knees by a few mind-controlled agents)

Let me be very clear - I absolutely expect that in another couple of episodes, Monica and the gang will find some deep dark secret at SWORD. They will be retroactively justified in all of their subterfuge, etc. The problem is that the show is asking the viewer to pretend like that has already happened.

@Michael Katsuro

To clarify:

Initial entry made - no edit war

Entry completely rewritten/heavily edited - no edit war

Original entry restored - edit war begins

Got it, thank you!

Maybe this should be reserved for Base-Breaking Character. Both sides of this discussion have a point and I think both should be shown on the YMMV page. Also, I would disagree with @Michael Katsuro on the point that the first removal was not an act of Edit Warring. The user gave no reason or justification for the removal/revision. I feel this is just an area of the show that the fans are split on, but that doesn't mean one side has to be accused of leather pantsing. There can be some nuance to this issue.

^^^ Monica, Jimmy and Darcy concerns are completely justified though. They don't know if killing Wanda will end the hex, trying to reason with Wanda first seems like a much smarter idea then just immediately shooting her. Jimmy is right that Hayworth's description of Wanda is biased and Monica is right that Wanda isn't a terrorist.

But Hayworth just dismisses their reasonable concerns and refuses to listen to them. He also pretends to respect Monica, but also keeps secrets from her and doesn't listen to what she has to say. When Monica keeps disagreeing with him, he starts insulting her and then just throws her, Darcy and Jimmy out. He throws them out for bringing up perfectly reasonable points. After that it's not strange that Monica, Jimmy and Darcy would disobey his orders and find out if he is hiding something or has ulterior motives (which he does).

@ovski: The entry was removed without a stated reason, yes, and that's bad, but it's still not an edit war. TV Tropes has a clear definition of "edit war," and removing something without a stated reason is not what edit warring is.

Removing the same entry twice is edit warring. Adding the same entry twice is also edit warring.

@Michael Katsru @ovskii - tackling the Edit War issue first off, just to hopefully put that to bed.

I fully acknowledge that I made an error in adding the edited entry back in before the discussion is over.

As evidence that my intentions were not confrontational, or "war-oriented" I direct you to my first post in this chain. You'll note that I instinctively followed some of the procedures that are provided on the Administrative page dealing with Edit Wars, even though I was not aware of this term or issue. Note that I also did not touch the entry created by the other editor - in my mind both of them are fully capable of coexisting on the YMMV page.

To be honest, this whole thing, and especially the idea of an Edit War is beginning to smack of Serious Business TM - and I am not here for that.

I was confused by the unexplained removal of the original entry, asked the community for guidance, but erred in making the extra step of prematurely adding the entry back in.

@ovskii - I agree with you that there is a well-founded difference of opinion here.

Of course, at this time, I think that my arguments are more valid (otherwise, I wouldn't be making them!) - but that alone doesn't mean I'm right. The users I'm discussing with have a different opinion, and that's fine - my read is that is explicitly what the YMMV page is for.

If I had my way, my original entry (or some edited/improved version of it) would be up there right along side the new Draco in Leather Pants section - readers can make up their own mind. Their mileage may vary.

I'd hesitate to "escalate" to Base-Breaking Character - so far, I appear to be a broken base of one account.

@Unoriginalusername 3:

I apologize for pointing this out bluntly, but you are beginning to repeat your arguments (Darcy/Monica/Woo have reasonable objections that Hayward dismisses) without engaging with the counter-points I'm bringing up in response.

I provided my reasoning for why I do not find that line of argument wholly sufficient. I acknowledged your point of Hayward's bias, and addressed that extensively in my previous message.

If I made an error, please point it out by engaging with what I'm writing before restating your point - otherwise, we're typing past each other.

One more thing to consider - as you and others have pointed out, Hayward is operating with more information than Monica and the others. To put it another way, he is better informed than them - as he should be, given his position.

So why are his decisions, based on more complete information, so unpalatable? Why is there a default assumption that the information he is not sharing is somehow supportive of Monica's case?

Please note, if your answer runs along the lines of "he's the bad guy, so he has to be hiding something" or "he wants to kill Wanda, and she's good" we're right back where we started - Designating a Villain.

The real core issue here is not that you or other viewers reject Hayward's reasoning or suspect his motives. The show is begging you in a hundred different ways to do exactly that. As I said above, I fully expect your (really, our) suspicions to be fully justified in a few episodes at most.

The problem is the protagonists are also acting as if that is a given. There are a dozens of potential in-universe reasons for why Hayward is not sharing every bit of intel with his subordinates that don't involve him being a mustache-twirling villain. But the protagonists are not interested in that - they want a villain to overcome, and so they immediately start acting out in a manner not remotely consistent with the in-universe information they have on hand.

In-show, they are already operating on the logic of "he's the bad guy, so he has to be hiding something". Their reactions and reasoning come off more artificial than Wanda's fake reality.

The reason I repeated my points about Jimmy, Monica and Darcy was because you said this: "Let me be very clear - I absolutely expect that in another couple of episodes, Monica and the gang will find some deep dark secret at SWORD. They will be retroactively justified in all of their subterfuge, etc. The problem is that the show is asking the viewer to pretend like that has already happened."

In my opininion they were completely justified in disobeying Hayward, because he was acting very suspicious, throwing them out for no reason. And they were right because they immediately find more suspicious stuff, like him tracking Vision.

Monica knows Hayward as a reasonable man, who she has a pretty friendly relationship and mutual respect with. Then suddenly he starts acting super biased, immediately tries to kill Wanda (which was extremely counterproductive), refuses to even consider the option of negoitiating, refuses to listen to Monica even though she is the only one with experience inside the hex and then throws her and Jimmy (the FBI contact) and Darcy (the scientist who managed to find the broadcast) out for not agreeing with his course of action (which is clearly not working). That is suspicious as hell. It is understandable that they then snoop around a bit to find out if he is hiding something (which he is).

Maybe we need some opinions from other people. At this point I doubt one if us will be able to convince the other. We could ask in the Wanda Vision forum thread?

@Unoriginalusername 3

Please note that you again did not address a large chunk of my previous posts - the information asymmetry between Hayward and Monica/Woo/Darcy, how Monica's flaunting of protocol immediately after a mind-control event would make her extremely suspicious to any reasonable in-universe person, etc.

Also note that many of your comments more or less fall into one of the broad categories I outlined above - i.e. Hayward is after Wanda, and that makes him evil/suspicious.

As far as your specific comments here, let's go vaguely from the bottom up.

"Hayward doesn't listen to Monica/Darcy/Woo" - I've addressed this several times already, so to be brief - he doesn't have to. Again, consider the dissonance between "Hayward knows more than them and is hiding something!" and "Hayward doesn't follow their suggested actions and that makes him bad!"

You are brushing aside the possibility that Hayward knows more than them, and that extra knowledge justifies his actions (at least to him). Again - that is absolutely fine for you, the viewer, to do based on the information and cues you have. The problem is that the in-show characters are using the exact same logic, but they are not operating with the same information you are.

"Shooting at Wanda was not working/extremely counterproductive" - the drone attack provoked Wanda into confronting SWORD outside of the hex. That one single confrontation provided them with more intelligence, insight into her mindset and capabilities, and physical evidence (drone) than the entirety of their efforts prior to that point. There's a reason why that scene comes up often in fan discussions - that's where a lot of of our information also comes from.

"...they were right because they immediately find more suspicious stuff, like him tracking Vision." That in itself is suspicious to you, the viewer, because you sympathize with the protagonists. Guy concealing information from trio of heroes - suspicious! But why do they act like they know they are protagonists?

Incidentally, dear Mr. Hayward is so blindly incompetent that I can guarantee you that if one of the three Musketeers stuck their hand into a random drawer of his desk, they'd come away with scores of incriminating clues.

Finally, please ask yourself this:

How do you, the viewer, know that Monica is not still under Wanda's mind control?

The answer's pretty obvious to us - the cues, the framing, the music, etc.

Now ask yourself:

How would Hayward know that?

Since a lot of people overlook the discussion pages, I asked for some more opininions in the forum thread here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16107505280A84247900&page=36#comment-889

So the thing is that the entry is predicated on misrepresenting Darcy, Jimmy, and Monica (Maria? I forget). Basically Hayward does have plenty of reasonable positions... which are also shared with them. They also do consider Wanda dangerous. They're, if anything, more cautious than he is, yet this writeup makes it sound like they're taking risky actions based on nothing and acts like entertaining the idea that "hey, maybe Wanda is the symptom, not the cause" is an unreasonable position.

And praising the drone strike for the outcome of "they got valuable intel" is a blatant after-the-fact justification. Because the thing is, were Wanda truly the malicious figure he thinks she is (and as powerful as they suspect) then he would simply be dead. The drone strike only makes sense if Wanda were A: Less powerful than feared or B: Less malicious than feared. It's an attack that the only way it can't backfire is if Wanda were more friendly than he believes her to be.

Because at the end of the day, every reasonable position Hayward has is shared by the main trio. The only place he diverges is where he's objectively and idiotically wrong.

Is it frustrating that he's as flat as he is? Absolutely. But that doesn't justify misrepresenting the show to make him seem better.

Why is it "suspicious" that Hayward was tracking Vision? Tracking him and all relevant people should be a must in an operation like that. Kudos to Darcy for finding the "TV signal" and see what was going on, but they can't rely just on that. Specially as, as they had already confirmed, Wanda controls the narrative and delete the parts that she does not like.

So, should we just remove the Draco in Leather Pants entry until the show is over? We still don't have enough information to confirm that Haywards' intentions are malicious or not. He's an extremist, yes, but we still don't know the whole story. Maybe the show will end with Hayward as the true villain, or maybe it will be an example of subverting expectations where things are more complicated then they seem.

Remember that happened in Stranger Things season 2 with the new director of Hawkins Lab, where he's introduced as being just like Brenner (Complete Monster), but then turns out to be a decent guy.

Yes, so far Hayward looks like the bad guy, and he was completely in the wrong for trying to kill Wanda without warning and insulting Monica woth the memory of her mother, but he's only been in three episodes. So maybe this should be replaced with Alternative Character Interpretation until we know everything. Otherwise, I don't think this debate is going to end until the show ends.

I agree that we should just wait with Designated Villain and Draco in the Leather Pants until we find out Hayward's true motives. We should probably wait with Unintentionally Unsympathetic too. I'm not sure about Alternative Character Interpatation.

Okay, cool. We can wait until things are confirmed before adding these entries.

I'm not touching anything to avoid setting off Edit War 2

Are we in agreement that Draco in Leather Pants should be removed for the time being? Because I don't want to remove anything unless we're all cool with it.

I think we should probably remove it, not because I'm unambiguously on Hayward's side but because there's still so much about him we don't know. Maybe we're being set up to view him as a scumbag just so they can swerve us. Until we have all the answers I'm not really comfortable with declaring him a lost cause.

I don't think he's a Designated Villain either though. Just keep Unintentionally Sympathetic for now and if it turns out he's meant to be sympathetic we can remove it, or if he's outed as a complete scumbag and people are STILL defending him we can put Draco in Leather Pants back.

Alright, sounds good.

Entry removed. Depending on how the show progresses, it will either stay removed or re-added. Unintentionally Sympathetic will also be removed if it turns out the entry does not apply for Hayward.

Hey everyone, sorry I am so late to participate in the discussion. Anyway, I've been following the Hayward motivation, and I am kinda worried over the possibility that, if Hayward turns out to be a bad guy (which is very likely), that many of the reasonable points he made during his arguments with Monica will be immediately dismissed. As such, should we label Hayward's argument with Monica as a partial case of informed wrongness, as, even though he was a jerkass, he still made several good points that the story treats him as being wrong for?

He manipulated the footage to make Wanda look like the bad guy and just wanted Vision as a weapon. Monica and Vision (the two people who have got through to her) know she's doing a bad thing despite the many justified reasons. Why are we still listening to Hayward?

In order for him to have a "point" you would basically have to operate at a very selective amount of information. Specifically, you have to be operating at a level without the audience's familiarity with the characters, without Hayward's knowledge of his motivations and Wanda's actions, and actively not want to know more.

By and large it's less that he's a strawman with a point and more that "some people were convinced by his lies designed to convince people."

It's kind of impressive, really. His deception worked at a meta-level more than within the show itself.

@emeriin The thing is, why that is true, Monica at the time did not know that. She is supporting Wanda merely because she's and Avenger and she sympathizes with her, not because she knows any of the things Hayward did. The story treats Monica's justifications as being enough to place her (and by extension Woo and Darcy) as being correct, and Hayward's counterarguments (which while later shown to be false) as being wrong, even if his counterarguments, when taken on just a statement point of view, make sense.

@Larkmarn I'm not sure what you mean, so if my reply is missing the point, I apologize. Are you saying that Hayward is wrong because for the audience to agree, we (the audience) have to ignore a lot of things? If that's the case, then what you described is Fourth Wall Myopia. I'm not saying that Hayward is correct. I am saying that Monica's reasoning for going against Haywards arguments are wrong. She is siding with Wanda out of sympathy, not because she actually "knows" Wanda isn't evil or that Hayward is hiding something. Yet the story immediately treats her as being in the right and Hayward as being in the wrong based on exactly that.

Monica's showing compassion and also calling her out for stuff, like (fake) Vision. For a story about grief, that's not a bad Aesop to have, and I don't know why Hayward sympathisers are so obsessed with Informed Wrongness.

I agree that it is great to show compassion and that Monica does call out Wanda on (fake) Vision. What I am saying is that, on a argumentative-basis, the arguments Hayward made during his argument with Monica after she came out of the Hex actually made sense (even if he does have ulterior motives), yet the arguments he makes are treated as being wrong and Monica is treated as being right simply because she disagrees with them.

The thing is, his arguments... aren't?

We don't know what the solution to the Hex is. But we do know that Hayward's approach is incorrect. Hayward's plan... isn't a plan. It's actively avoiding one. He's shutting down discussion, avoiding valuable intel, and as of the briefing his plan seems to be "outmuscle the woman who made Thanos panic and whose powers have increased dramatically." Monica's argument isn't "oh, Wanda's blameless and we'll just leave her be." It's that they should try to understand why this is happening and try to figure out what to do. Hayward actively undermines this, which we come to realize was due to malevolence rather than stupidity.

Yes, we, the audience, realize this. But Monica doesn't yet her arguments against and mistrust of Hayward are presented as being sensible based only on what she knows, while Hayward's arguments, at face-value, are presented as being non-sensible from an in-universe perspective.

That's... actual nonsense. The "Wanda went toe-to-toe with Thanos and her powers have grown exponentially" things are things that we, the audience, only know from Monica and company. If we, the audience, only listened to Hayward then Wanda's life stopped when she jointed up with Ultron after being empowered.

From the trio's POV, Hayward's jumping the gun because they don't know the situation.

From Hayward's POV, he's scheming to get his weapon.

From the narrative's POV, he's being dismissive of several sympathetic characters.

So what is this mystical perspective where he's being reasonable?

For my money Hayward seemed reasonable at least when episodes 4 & 5 were released and before Episode 6+ undermined that with their subsequent reveals.

With Episode 9 on the horizon, I want everyone to pay attention to what happens and be open to any surprise reveals that either finally cements Hayward as a dingus among dinguses or Actually a Doombot or a demon in human form or whatever. Until then, let's keep this from escalating any further.

Edit: Accidental double post ignore.

@Larkman The perspective being that, while it is obvious that Hayward is scheming to the audience (which it turns out he is), not only does Monica not know that, but the arguments (not the true motivations, but the arguments alone) that Hayward presented are reasonable. Monica has a history of working with HYDRA and Ultron, based on the footage that Monica saw at the time believed that Wanda broke into SWORD compound to steal Vision's body (yes, Hayward manipulated the footage, but trio doesn't know that), and is currently holding an entire town hostage against their will. Furthermore, like Strange Dog said, Monica just came out of a state of, not only brainwashing, but is has shown that her cells are abnormal and undergoing mutations, so it would be reasonable to conclude that perhaps Monica is compromised, or at least not thinking straight. Those arguments actually make sense, even if they are coming from someone who is clearly scheming something.

Regarding his arguments:

• Wanda had defected to the Avengers and actively saved people, then went and helped stop Thanos. This is public knowledge, and Jimmy points it out. Wanda's done more good than bad in her life, so the point of her past mistakes is irrelevant.
• (They are told) She stole the body of the man she loved, who SWORD were holding for very sketchy reasons. (of course we later learn she didn't steal it, but still) The fact Hayword had Vision's body is something that actively undermines his point, because he shouldn't have. Vision had no ties to SWORD and SWORD had no legitimate reason to acquire his body.
• None of them are ignoring that she's holding hostages. However, Monica, who had experienced it first hand, knows that Wanda isn't doing this maliciously, since she's seen that Wanda's thoughts are full of grief, sadness, and desperation. Furthermore, they don't know what will happen to the hostages if they kill her. To them, Wanda's pretty much a scared woman wired to explosives, holding a town hostage while having a mental breakdown; a sensible person would try to talk her down, an idiot would try to shoot her.

Hayword's arguments were never reasonable. He ignored information, was deliberately misrepresenting Wanda, was keeping information that painted SWORD in a bad light, and he tried to shoot first without thinking of the consequences for the people she's holding.

He was, in their eyes, at best incompetent, at worst malicious and corrupt. Turned out he was the latter, and a bit of the former.

@iamnoone

Reply to your arguments:

- The fact that Wanda defected to the Avengers doesn't change her prior history as a terrorist. For all anyone knows, Wanda could have gone back to her old ways. Saying that Wanda's past mistakes and actions as a terrorist are irrelevant would be like arguing that Patty Hearst or the D.C. Sniper are incapable of doing bad at the present because they have been model citizens who haven't committed crimes ever since their last terrorist act.

- Remind me again if the trio knew about Vision's will at the moment they were shown the footage by Hayward. If yes, then you are correct. If not, then it falls into the area of information that the trio didn't know, therefore had no impact on their actions or motivations.

- Yes, keyword here being **Monica** knows. It would not be out of reason for any person to suspect that Monica, who was completely brainwashed less than a few hours, if not minutes ago, to still be emotionally or even psychologically compromised as a result of the Hex, especially since, as Darcy later revealed, Monica's cells are undergoing a shift in cellular activity. If her cells are undergoing mutation (pun-intended), then there's no guarantee that her brain-activity, reasoning, and cognitive abilities aren't also affected. Yes, Wanda is a woman undergoing a breakdown and there is no telling what might happen to the hostages if Wanda is killed. That part is true. But there is no reason as to why the average person would have to automatically **believe** Monica when she says that Wanda is having simply sad and grieving and that she just needs someone to talk to, given they don't know what Hayward, the trio, or even the audience does.

Hayward was corrupt, yes. But the arguments made, were, at least partially, sensical to the average human being.

...I give up on humanity.

• Designated Villain: Hayward. The audience is asked to sympathize with Wanda after she enslaved and tortured a small town, but to antagonize Director Hayward for building a robot to free said town from what is in effect a powerful supervillain. He is later framed as evil for attempting to kill the twins after they attack his men but Wanda herself lets them be destroyed as the price of saving the town, implying his course of action was neccesary.

Did these people just tune out at all her guilt and grief (not to mention the Angst Nuke) when she realises what she's done?

@NEX 7

• But Wanda wasn't just a model citizen, she was an active superhero who had helped save countless lives, and that included her stopping Ultron, the very terrorist that Hayward cites her working with, and had repeatedly expressed regret for the hurt she caused. The issue isn't that her "terrorist background" isn't relevant, it's that he's not bringing up her "heroic background" either, which is equally relevant. If the D.C. Sniper spent years actively helping people and repeatedly expressed regret over their past actions, then it would be suspect for them to suddenly go and take a bank hostage without issuing any demands.
• They did because it was them who explained Vision's will. Jimmy was the one who specifically said Vision didn't want to be turned into a weapon.
• Even ignoring Monica's 'compromised' testimony, they know the details of what Wanda's gone through recently (specifically, losing Vision, who she loved, and the very traumatic way she lost him). "She's grieving and in pain, and having a mental health episode" is the most logical explanation behind Wanda's behaviour, not that she's suddenly turned inexplicably evil.
  • And, even still, killing her while the Hex is active is a very dumb decision. They are hopelessly outgunned by Wanda, talking her down is the safest option for all involved. If Hayward succeeded, killed Wanda, and in doing so caused the deaths of the hostages (which given how we see things go in Episode 9, is likely), Hayward would be fired and courtmartialed for incompetence.

The issue at heart is Hayward is both A) Actively refusing to understand who/what he's dealing with, and B) Isn't thinking about the risk to the hostages. He is being unreasonable.

@iamnoone

- No, Wanda helping save lives now doesn't change the fact that, at one point in her life, she still sided with a terrorist organization (HYDRA) and assisted a homicidal robot, during which course she unleashed the Hulk upon a civilian population. Her heroic background may be relevant, but it isn't **as relevant"" as her criminal/terrorist background because, currently, she is holding a town hostage. It would not be a stretch *at all* to assume she simply reverted back to her old ways. Yes, some people may ask what is going on with the D.C. Sniper, but a lot of people would not be wrong for simply assuming she simply went back to being evil.

- Ok, but was this before or after Hayward had his argument with Wanda after she came out of the Hex the first time?

- Again, it's exactly because Monica's compromised that they can't take anything Monica is saying at face-value. For all anyone there knows, Monica could very well still be brainwashed or cognitively unsound, and be saying things she doesn't really mean, possibly still being under Wanda's influence. Yes, her explanation makes sense, but "She's an Avenger, she's just confused" doesn't really a good rebuttal when she's holding an entire town hostage. That being said, yes, the decision to simply eliminate Wanda without understanding the situation is stupid and risky. But there is also, again, not a stretch, considering that there are possibly dozens, if not hundreds (I don't know the population of Westview) are being held hostage and eliminating Wanda *may* (although not guaranteed, yes, as Monica does indeed point out), stop the Hex.

Hayward never uses that reasoning to kick Monica out though. The closest reasoning he gives is that she’s too soft before making a low blow about her mother’s death. And again, Hayward refuses to listen to Monica at all and doesn’t even bother consulting her before taking aggressive action.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how Hayward can count as a Designated Villain at all, and I’m surprised that so many people think he does.

@Satoshi Bakura

I don't think Hayward counts as a Designated Villain either, his intentions are clearly less than noble. I'm simply saying that, in the moment when he brings up Wanda's terrorist past, his arguments are immediately portrayed in a bad light by narrative because "Wanda's an Avenger now", even though they all think she is responsible for the Hex.

Re: NEX 7

• But this isn't even the same kind of 'evil'. Previously, she joined forces with people who told her they would "change the world", which she believed needed changing, and the focus of that was "Fuck Tony Stark". Now, she's taking a town hostage with no demands. This isn't terrorism, it's a psychotic break. She hasn't 'gone back to her old ways', this is a completely new direction for her to go down, and so her recent experiences are the important ones.
  • There's also the fact that, as you said, "some people might wonder what is going on"...yeah, those people would be SWORD here. They're not supposed to just go "awe shucks, I guess she's evil now", they're supposed to figure out what, why, and how. Understanding motivation is a big part of criminal investigation, and simply going "they were once a bad person, must be bad again" is bad investigative work.
• They did. It was right at the beginning of the episode before they start strategising what to do, and it's conveyed as an As You Know, so Vision's will is apparently public knowledge for people in their line of work.
• And again, ignore Monica then. That doesn't change the fact they know Wanda has (to her) recently experienced a huge, traumatic loss (Darcy exposits it a bit later, so it's public knowledge what happened to Wanda). It's not as simple as "we should give her the BOTD because she's an Avenger", it's "we know she just suffered a huge loss, she's clearly not thinking straight, let's figure out what's going on in her head."
  • And even still, "it may stop the Hex to kill her" is a dumb decision that would get him courtmartialed, even if it worked. In a real life hostage situation you would *never* just shoot the hostage taker if you didn't have full details on what was going on, because for all you know doing so could trigger explosives (dead man triggers), or the hostages could be in a location only they know, or there's some trap that only they know how to disable, etc. "It may stop them" is tactically too stupid to justify, and in a hostage situation, that would never be seen as justifiable reason to shoot them mid-negotiating.

The narrative isn't painting his arguments in a bad light "because she's an Avenger now", it does so because he tries something that is tactically stupid and is deliberately mis-representing Wanda. He's demonstratively being a bad authority figure in that scene, and while one can argue that the Power Trio are being too idealistic, they're completely right to find Hayward's actions suspiciously corrupt and idiotic.

That fits Ron the Death Eater better.

Wait I think I misunderstood who this was about

I'm not sure. Ron the Death Eater is when fans portray the character as being more villainous then they are, by downplaying their positives or inventing negatives. Unintentionally Unsympathetic is when a character is perceived by people to be less sympathetic then the narrative intended, due to the belief their actions rob them of sympathy.

In this case, people aren't denying Wanda's suffered severe mental trauma and they're not inventing negatives about her. They're just not believing that her trauma justifies the amount of sympathy she gets in the face of what she does. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think it's coming from a place of bias and misrepresentation.

Honestly, it may just be me, but I really do not feel this being a case of UU. Mostly because Wanda acted unintentionally out of grief and was horrified to realize the consequences of her actions. The series still paints what she did as unambiguously wrong, even if she didn’t mean to.

Perhaps take it here: [1]

I'm starting to think it might actually be intentional that Wanda is both sympathetic to some and unsympathetic to others. So maybe this is an example of Alternative Character Interpretation. I watched Jeremy Jahns talk about this recently (https://youtu.be/m6gAm7O9vWs) and it kinda opened me up to the idea that there is no clear answer to whether Wanda can be forgiven or not, and how we as audience members are much more willing to forgive a fictional character than a real person.

I should be clear that I don't *agree* with the UU view, but this is YMMV. I don't agree with it but clearly, based on how many people keep lionising the guy who opposed Wanda despite his idiotic and corrupt behaviour simply because they want someone to be opposed to her, there are people who think Wanda shouldn't be Easily Forgiven for her actions here.

I don't really think so. I think maybe an Unintentionally Sympathetic for some of his earlier appearances but once it becomes clear he's a butthole I do think his fandom has dried up. Shit, you can't even be assed to remember his name and you're the one proposing this.

What might count that you're describing is Draco in Leather Pants, where people don't care that he's objectively been terrible from the word go but instead try to pretend that he wasn't.

But nobody is defending his actions, unlike other examples of Draco in Leather Pants. As i have already pointed out a common criticism towards his character is that the series seemed extremly focused on putting him in a bad light no matter what.

Indeed i don't think he lost any fan honestly.

Did i come across as rude? It wasn't my intention

Could this be a case of Straw Man Has A Point, where his points about Wanda's terrorist past and crimes, as well as her being responsible for the Hex, are immediately brushed off for the sake of painting him in a bad light?

Satoshi deleted it, the discussion is all over this page. (IDGI either)

Ah, okay. Must’ve been deleted as I was typing this.

Aaaaaaand it's back up again. Can we label this under an edit war now?

Yeah, dealing with it on Ask The Tropers.

Hope this doesn't count as edit warring but I decided to dumb down the trope for now. If the person just re-adds it again, I'm staying out of it until the mods take care of it.

I'm generally on the Hayward's argument agreement side, but I have to agree with Sugarp1e 1 on this one. Designated Villain doesn't count for Hayward. He is very much a villain once his true motives are revealed.

I mean, I agree that Informed Wrongness doesn't apply here, but Monica saying she would do the same to bring back her mom if she had Wanda's powers is basically the show saying that anyone would've done what Wanda did in her position, which is kinda weird. I get that what Wanda did is an allegory for not dealing with grief in a healthy way, but that comparison doesn't really justify what she did.

^^ One more thing: Wanda created the Hex (including Vision) by accident. She saw the foundation of the house where she and Vision were to spend the rest of their lives together, realized that dream will never be a reality, and had an emotional breakdown so big, she subconsciously created a sitcom reality within Westview.

With the way that entry is written, you'd think Wanda just showed up to Westview one day and decided to create her ideal life there, willfully brainwashing the residents to conform to her sitcom reality for her own selfish desires. Sure, Wanda learned she had at least some control over said reality, but that's about it.

Hell, one of the plot points of the show is that Wanda doesn't even remember creating the Hex in the first place. We're led to suspect that she's just lying, but Episode 8 shows that she really didn’t intend to create the Hex and Episode 9 shows how horrified she is to learn that she's been torturing all of these people.

^ The entry was talking about the "They'll never know what you sacrificed for them" line. Not the "I would’ve done the same thing if I had your powers" line.

Ignoring that, I don't think Monica's line was supposed to imply that Wanda creating the Hex was justified. It was just to reassure Wanda that she isn't the only person on Earth who would jump at the chance to live a better life than what they ended up with.

Was she right for doing so at the expense of other people? No. Were her reasons still sympathetic? Yes.

And again, Wanda didn’t intend to create the Hex, let alone brainwash all of these people. On top of that, all Monica said was that she would bring her mother back, not create an alternate reality where everyone's brainwashed into doing what you want them to do.

I know it was an accident that started it, but she never tried to undo it until she was basically forced to. I get that she was grieving terribly, but she also ignored all of Vision's attempts to tell her about how the people of Westview were suffering, and then puts Agatha under the same mind-raping spell at the end (which I get is a Karmic Punishment, but still). I'm not ignoring Wanda's reasons for starting the Hex, or that she forgot how it started, I'm saying that those reasons don't justify it.

Wasn't that the point of Agatha waking everyone up to surround her? Wanda was so desperate to believe she was doing the right thing that she convinced herself this was better, and she had to learn the lesson that she fucked up beyond repair.

Nobody's justifying anything. All Monica said was that Wanda had her reasons despite ultimately being wrong, not that Wanda's reasons suddenly made holding Westview hostage okay.

There's a difference between having a reason and having an excuse. What Wanda had was reasons not excuses, and Monica's saying Wanda had her reasons not her excuses.

I think the entry was right. It's not about Wanda herself, but about the citizens having a grudge over her. Monica says "they are wrong because they do not understand your background", but then again, why should they?

• Are they responsible in any way for Wanda's suffering? No. The wars in Sokovia, the robot that killed Pietro, the alien that killed Vision, the secret government organization that kept Vision and tried to turn him into a weapon, etc; none of that can be traced back to the people of Westville. Not even in the usual parable of the X-Men ("your Fantastic Racism led to the Sentinels that caused all this misery").
• Should they be forgiving because it was an accident? No. It started as an accident, right, but several characters kept telling her that the people were suffering. Hayward, Monica, Vision. Her attitude was a flat rejection each and every time. "It was an accident" is only a valid excuse if, once you realize what happened and/or have the means to undo it, you fix the accident right away.
• As for Wanda using her powers to revive Vision (and Monica claiming that she would have done the same for her mother), nobody had a problem with that. Their problem was with being turned into collateral damage of Vision's resurrection.
• In fact, Monica's argument can easily be turned around. Wanda is not the only person in the world who has suffered loss, but most people cope with loss by themselves and do not drag uninvolved others into their own crises.

Yes, but Monica never said the townsfolk were "wrong" for not forgiving Wanda; just that they don't know what she had to lose to free them, which is factually correct regardless of if they would’ve forgiven her if they did know. And even if Monica is saying that the townsfolk are wrong for not forgiving Wanda, that doesn't mean the audience is supposed to agree with her.

The entry doesn't mention how Wanda herself told Monica that the townsfolk's opinion of her wouldn’t have changed even if they did know, further implying that the story wants the audience to agree with Monica. If we are meant to agree with Monica, then why would they show Wanda, who was horrified to learn that she had been torturing the townsfolk for days on end, disagreeing with her and evidently being rather accepting of the fact that she will most likely never be forgiven?

On top of that, the entry also implies that Wanda made the conscious decision to create the Hex when she didn't. Even if the entry is about the townsfolk and not Wanda, leaving out that detail makes the situation (and by extension, Wanda) look even worse than what was actually portrayed.

If the entry should be re-added, I would at least suggest a re-wording since, as it is now, I think it reads more like somebody giving Wanda the Ron the Death Eater treatment than an explanation as to why the Informed Wrongness trope applies. Here's how I think the entry should go:

• Informed Wrongness: When Wanda leaves the people of Westview, they all give her a collective Death Glare. Monica tells her, "They don't know what you sacrificed for them." While that may be true, think about it from their perspective. They're living their normal (if less-than-ideal) lives in Westview when a random woman suddenly comes into town and takes away their free will, brainwashing them all into conforming to a sitcom reality where everyone has a set role to play. All while being fully aware of what is happening to them. Granted, Wanda never intended to create the Hex and is horrified to learn what she has been doing to the townspeople, but as Wanda herself points out, them knowing this wouldn’t change a thing. They would still hate Wanda for what she has done (accidentally or otherwise) and have every right to.

I actually like that wording a lot more.

Her husband and children were painfully disintegrating in front of her, and she'd just been confronted with how much suffering she'd caused. I wouldn't be thinking logically either.

Not at that moment. She closed the Hex during the fight with Harkness and they started to disappear, so she raised it again. I mean the later point, after she has defeated her, and decided to close the Hex for good. At that moment, she was not caught in the heat of the battle and was aware enough to understand the thing she was about to do... and she could have perfectly had a moment of "hey! I can have it both ways, just make a hex around the house!"

Oh! I think it's more of the aesop "let go of your grief" than her being an idiot though? I think the show would have been wrecked online if they'd just had continuing in her delusion, even if confined.

I discussed this with a friend actually, and this really isn't a What An Idiot moment.

• Wanda doesn't actually know much about her powers, nor does she have fine enough control over it to safely try this 'shrink it to house-size' idea. If she tried, she might not be able to stop it, or prevent it from growing further.
• Though they have full autonomy, Vision and the kids aren't real. They're a figment of Wanda's psyche and her desire to have a Happy Ending with Vision, and if not for her power they would have just been hallucinations. They entire point of the show was how this life Wanda built is just her escaping her grief rather than dealing with it, and it's not healthy. She needed to drop the hex to move on with her life.
• Wanda...imprisoned and tortured people. She is super wanted now. Like, even if Hayward is jailed for his actions, legit law enforcers are going to come after her. We don't know if she can move the Hex and, frankly, neither does Wanda. They'd be a sitting duck asking to be bothered when what Wanda wants and needs right now is peace.
• Lastly, isolating them to just their house would have been highly damaging to everyone's mental state, which the show has stressed is something that shouldn't be ignored. We've seen this in real life after just a year, aging normally; imagine what it would be like for two boys who can age rapidly, especially if their mom is then neglecting them so she can study a magic tomb to find a spell to free them.
  • On that note, we genuinely don't know if Wanda could free them from the hex. 'Make it a house' would have basically risked spending months, maybe years trying to fix a problem with no solution, whereas 'shut it down, rest, recover, then recreate them outside the hex' is probably a much more viable strategy.

I'm not sure about Wanda, but I don't think Vision was ever really disliked/hated. Most people seemed indifferent/mildly positive about him. His popularity has definitely gone up, but I just don't think he was ever a scrappy.

Yeah I don't think Vision was ever disliked, at least not widely.

As for Wanda though, maybe. I remember a lot of reviews of Age of Ultron that didn't like her, but I think more people started to like her after Civil War. Then again, Elisabeth Olson's performance has been widely acclaimed for this show, and Wanda's become more popular also. So yeah I think that works

Thank you everyone! I’ll write something up.

Removed it before I saw the discussion (sorry), but yeah, Wanda was never The Scrappy. As was covered below regarding Darcy, Wanda was, at worst, a Base-Breaking Character, and as demonstrated with the Hayward stanning, there are viewers who found Wanda's actions too unforgivable, even despite them being accidental.

Tl;dr, she was never unpopular enough to be The Scrappy, and her popularity hasn't improved enough to be rescued from it.

Fair enough!

^^ And yeah, again, sorry I didn't clear it here first (I really should have given this page's history with Edit War postings; we might need to see about a Jessica Jones (2015) type lock on this page).

Base-Breaking Character is still six months wait I think

Yeah I know, that's why I said "reserve" him. In the meantime, I added a Hayward entry to They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character, because honestly, him turning out to be a stereotypical government baddie is boring. I'd rather have a complex Anti-Villain than a Card-Carrying Villain any day.

Yeah, i agree with your points.

I fell like his characterisation was the weakest part of the series

They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character is misuse. The character has to be wasted, not misused.

But he got wasted. As the OP pointed out the series missed a lot of narrative possibilities by writing as a generic douchebag

That trope is for underused characters. Hawyward's point in the plot is as a Hate Sink asshole. He has already served it.

And I don't see how everything after the mention of Grey-and-Grey Morality has to do with Hayward being a Base-Breaking Character. It just sounds like talking about how the show went into a different direction than what the audience was originally led to believe.

If that's the case, I think it would fall under Broken Base more since it refers to the story itself and not a specific character. Hayward may be at the center of it, but the debate is about the writing itself and wether it was "lazy" for making Hayward an unambiguous villain instead of going for a Hero Antagonist approach or something to that effect, or some of the audience is just disappointed that it went into a different direction than what they expected or wanted, regardless of any subjective opinion about the quality of the writing.

In response to what was claimed about Hayward, as was mentioned here numerous times, Hayward still revived Vision and made him into a weapon against his wishes and used the Hex as an excuse to do so. Not to mention how it can be argued that the show expected people to turn against Hayward as early as Episode 5, when he was stupid enough to not only arm a drone without telling Monica but to expect said drone to kill a Reality Warper capable of brainwashing an entire town.

So I don't agree with the notion that the show did a "180" to make Hayward evil. The way I see it, there was Foreshadowing (or at the very least a reason to hate/disagree with Hayward) as early back as Episode 5.

I'd argue if anything, the show was never pushing a Both Sides Have a Point Grey And Gray Narrative, nor is it's final solution lazy writing.

Hayward had...what, one episode where he was seemingly an OK guy? And even that was just him being cordial with Monica, nothing that made him explicitly a saint. As soon as they find out Wanda is the cause of the Hex, he then begins deliberately presenting her in the most villainous way possible, and he also reveals, casually, that he knew Wanda stole the Vision's body (before we learn he's lying about that), which makes it clear to the viewer that he knew far more about what was going on then he was letting on. Foreshadowing from the beginning he wasn't a reasonable guy.

His actions to deal with her are also blatantly not at all protocol. If Wanda was a "normal" hostage taker, shooting her without negotiating first would be something that would get Hayward courtmartialed and possibly arrested, especially if it risked the hostages first, especially as he hides what he's doing from the "negotiator".

Monica is putting more focus on Wanda's mental health than the people, but that's actually what a negotiator is supposed to do in this situation. The safest thing for the hostages is they talk Wanda down. If they antagonise her, they risk her harming the hostages.

It's honestly baffling to me that people keep pushing the idea Hayward was some Reasonable Authority Figure that was derailed by bad writing. If he hadn't been secretly corrupt, it would be a baffling case of Artistic License – Military for him to get away with the stunts he was pulling.

Monica isn’t doing amazingly on grief either, though better than Wanda (cos no shit), and knows how to get through to her by empathy/compassion. You can say it’s an anvilly Aesop, but the whole point is that they were foils.

^`^ Yeah If Hayward wasnt a badguy. Then he'd be a damn moron as everything he did here escalated things.

So is this more of an example of Anvilicious and Broken Base? Also, I'm not in any way saying that I wanted Hayward to be a Hero Antagonist, I just said that what they were setting up was more complicated than what we got. I'm also not saying I personally agree with his methods, or ignoring his lying and scheming. In my opinion, this whole argument started in episode 5 with the debate between Hawkins and Monica. A lot of people were on Monica and Jimmy's side, but just as many were on Haywards' side because both sides had decent points. The narrative justifies Monica's opinion by revealing Haywards' ulterior motives. And I know this is a contentious issue, but just because Wanda was grieving and didn't mean to start the Hex, that doesn't excuse her actions throughout the show. People on her side were grasping at straws to find someone else to blame for the Hex, but as Episode 8 revealed, Wanda was the one who enslaved Westview. It's also weird that the only people who call her out (besides Vision) are the villains. Why is Wanda given props by Monica for setting the people of Westview free when she was the one who Mind Raped them in the first place? Why did Monica say she would do the same if she had Wanda's powers? The narrative is justifying Wanda's actions, and I think the people who were disappointed by Haywards' character are supporting his points because they don't like this.

Monica calls her out too, just empathises with her. Monica's also called out by Jimmy and iirc Darcy, for being reckless after she learns her mother is dead. Both she and Wanda say it wouldn't make much difference if Westview knew what happened, and Wanda deserves the hate from them. I feel like it's morally complicated but still ultimately heroic foils vs a complete dickhead, and people would rather vote for the dickhead.

You can say Jerk Ass Has A Point without being on the jerk's side. I just think it's weird that the show focuses on empathizing with Wanda more than the people she hurt througout the show. Also, is Vision's boss still alive? I know that might be a casting issue, but I don't think he shows up in the finale.

I'm pretty sure he's alive. Episode 1 ends with Vision saving his life after Wanda tells him to do so. It wouldn't make much sense for him to then just die offscreen.

I removed the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character entry. The trope only applies when the general audience agrees that a character should’ve gotten more screen-time or played a larger role than what they were given, not when a main character is executed in a way some members of the audience didn't like or want.

Okay, no prob

Wait, was bee-guy there at the end? I didn't notice

I agree with your evaluation. A fan familiar with both the X-Men and MCU universes would get an extra bonus seeing Evan Peters playing "fake Pietro". Someone only familiar with the MCU would see an unknown face claiming to be Pietro and then Wanda accepting it. They might be a little confused as to why she accepts it so easily but they aren't "locked out" of the story. It's a Casting Gag that's fanservice for the Marvel fans that watch ALL the Marvel output.

I'd also argue, if anything, knowing Evan Peters' history as "Peter Maximoff" ended up being a severe disadvantage in 'understanding the story', as it caused people to endlessly speculate how he might actually genuinely be Peter Maximoff, when in actuality he was just some guy, something that someone who doesn't get the joke wouldn't have done. It's almost inverting Continuity Lockout, more Continuity Red Herring.

Agreed. I mentioned the X-Men link under Continuity Lockout on the MCU franchise page because the reference to an outside franchise is notable (and it seems like Marvel expected or even wanted fans to make the connection and theorize), but explicitly said it was a subversion since it muddied the waters instead of clarifying anything.

Jerkass Has a Point: Wayward's decision to fire a missile to Wanda is presented as him as crossing the Moral Event Horizon, but some fans pointed out that he had good reasons to do so. From his point of view Wanda has taken hostage an entire city and one of the SWORD's agents, showing a level of power never seen before in the Marvel Universe. He has no reasons to believe Wanda won't simply expand her camp of action outside Westview. Likewise him being suspicious of Wanda as result of her past makes perfect sense when you consider she is possibly putting the entire US, if not the entire planet, in danger.

Also this is the part i wanted to add. Please correct me if there are issues with the language

It's on the relevant Recap and Character pages.

Also, it's not a YMMV trope.

Oh i am sorry, i thought it was. Thank you for your correction

That would be Strawman Has a Point, and is for cases where a party meant to be wrong has the better argument. This is clearly intentional so its Jerkass-.

How about unintentionally unsympathetic since Hayward did arm the craft without Monica;s knowledge and re at her and disregarding her points about Wanda should be the solution since they don’t know what outright killing her will do especially since it could just cause a blast that would outright kill the residents that Hayward supposedly wants to rescue

I don't know what you're saying. Your grammar needs work.

Sorry

I would put it back. Any votes against?

Yeah I don't see an issue. Put it back.

Restored

It got split of into a seperate page (WandaVision), so we should either delete that page (if people think it's not enough examles for a seperate page) or delete the examples from this page.

Honestly that should have been explained in the edit reason.

Yeah I dunno if there are enough memes yet for a whole separate page, but it looks like someone else removed the entry again already.

There are 11 entries. That's not nothing but I don't think it's enough for its own page. At most that goes on the MCU's Memetic Mutation page if it has one.

Well that could be Critical Dissonance, right? Critics loved Iron Man 3 but the fans were fiercely divided on it.

Maybe? I'm asking if fans really do think she's rescued. I could see those who already are on board with her being happy that they're not wasting her but I'd be surprised if this turns haters into fans.

Well she's only appeared in one episode so far. And given this is a sitcom rather than a movie, her quirkiness may actually work better for people now that she's not in a 1-2 hour single-sitthrough movie experience but a slow-burn ongoing episodic TV series. I think it might be a good idea to not subscribe to Reviews Are the Gospel or Fan Myopia regarding this issue and instead trust but verify. We can, and this is my proposal, leave it there unless we get a clear indication that she is either still an equally Base-Breaking Character or downgraded back to The Scrappy, with tropers keeping an eye on how people discuss her on sites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc. and of course forums to see how it develops.

I find your response to be kinda... weird? "We don't have a lot of information on it, so let's assume it's true even though what little information has been presented was against it." The "wait and see but assume true until then" is an odd conclusion to reach for me.

Also your strange focus that I mentioned reviewers is... odd. I also included my own opinion along with the fact it strikes me as illogical that Darcy's portrayal thus far would change anyone's mind.

I'm not averse to including her at all as I've made very clear, I just want literally any indication it's true. Your arguments haven't helped in the slightest since all I want to hear is someone to say "oh yeah, she's now popular with the fanbase" and rewrite the entry to be more fitting but the fact you're dodging that very simple statement is suspect.

I agree with your reasoning of waiting in your final sentence as honestly it does seem difficult to know if a character is saved in a single episode (both because it's hard to gauge the audience's reaction in such a short amount of time as well as the fact we don't know what's going to happen with her) which is precisely why your suggestion of "so leave it anyway" is a bit mind-boggling.

I apologise, I'm not trying to be confusing.

It's just that almost everything I've seen about WandaVision has been NOT about Darcy even tangentially, but instead discussing the plot, the tie-in moments, the Mythology Gags and Easter Eggs, plus a lot of theorising about things like "Is Agnes really Agatha Harkness?" or "Is her husband Ralph meant to be the Devil/Mephisto?" or "Is Wanda in control, or is she being controlled by somebody else?" and stuff like that. When Darcy DOES come up it's usually glib remarks on how making her and Jimmy Woo an Audience Surrogate duo who watch a superhero show and end up speculating and pouring over its episodes for details and clues about what will happen next and what's really going on was an inspired creative choice. She just showed up three days ago; I guess the Internet is still deciding how to feel about her.

Also there are 5 episodes left, the first of which (and the 5th overall) arrives this Friday. That means we won't see the last one until 4 1/2 weeks' time on the 5th of March. Which also means it'll take that long to see the whole picture of Darcy's involvement on the show, and how the fans reacted to it so we can make a definitive choice. And if we add on waiting for the Broken Base and Scrappy Cleanup threads to make their judgements, that'll take even longer, depending on whether they want to wait 6 months after the first episode's debut or the last episode's debut.

And if we're not leaving it, then we either delete it (and have to keep vigil for someone adding it back without permission until we have an answer) or we percentage it out w/ a %% (which leaves a majorly visible gap in the page that's very hard to ignore, similar to having a tooth missing) and I don't really like either of those. Like I said it was just an idea.

Tl;dr — I am not trying to be confusing, I just don't have the answers and don't think we can get them without waiting for the season finale.

I'm for commenting it out saying we're waiting until the season is done to determine if she's been rescued or not is reason; if done correctly it'll only be noticeable by editors so I think that's a fair compromise.

Maybe we should get more people's input, either moderators or other tropers. Maybe message an admin or take it to Ask the Tropers.

I was reminded of this discussion, where it was concluded that a Base-Breaking Character cannot be a Creator's Pet, since that requires that the character be a Scrappy.

Following that logic, since Darcy was never The Scrappy (I agree she's a BBC at worst) she can't have been Rescued from the Scrappy Heap.

Yeah, I brought it up in the WandaVision thread twice now and it overwhelmingly voted to remove the entry on the grounds that she either didn't need to be rescued, and/or what's happened wouldn't change her Base-Breaking Character status. And especially since we're not allowed to add a BBC entry until six months after the work, it would stand to reason that we wouldn't be allowed to remove one before then as well, yes?

Removed the entry.