So, Wandavision?

[hopeless]

Could also throw in Wanda's reaction to his project, which wouldn't be hard to explain her subsequent breakdown.
That could also make it appear he sent White Vision to kill her to prevent what he did coming out as that would bite him in the backside as I understand the footage of her entering that facility was deliberately doctored?

 

[ART!]

From what I've read and heard that's just one of the problems with this series.

Another is the fact Wanda is the villain and instead of using Agnes to reveal she was responsible for Wanda's meltdown using her as the focus of the hex she planned but lacked the raw power for.
I still think they should have revealed Agatha kept the sorceror supreme and co from turning up as she was dealing with the situation.
Thus when she doesn't report back and they go looking for her that would be the reason Dr Strange gets involved.

It sounded like a good series just needed better writing and someone who understood they're setting Wanda up as the new Thanos and as it stands there's no reason to arrest that idiot unless he was actually disobeying orders when he unleashed White Vision.

Saying Wanda is the villain is a very coarse way of looking at it, when the portrayal itself is very nuanced. She's the protagonist, but not the hero. (If anyone is the hero of the piece, I'd say it's Vision.)

I think all the stuff with Wanda and Vision is excellent, Kathryn Hahn is great as Agnes but dull as Agatha, and most of the expository stuff is clunky.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Could also throw in Wanda's reaction to his project, which wouldn't be hard to explain her subsequent breakdown.
That could also make it appear he sent White Vision to kill her to prevent what he did coming out as that would bite him in the backside as I understand the footage of her entering that facility was deliberately doctored?

Yep, he faked the footage to make it look like Wanda took Vision's body, so he could cover his own theft of the body.

 

[Rune]

How did Agatha end up in Westview? It's implied she was a citizen of the town when Wanda went there. Coincidence, stalking Wanda, or did she just magically insert herself there somehow? Did she arrive in Westview before or after Wanda's mental break?

She said she wanted to find out who was using so much power. Also, we see from Ralph’s utility bill (in his name) that he had been living in her house for months. Conclussion: Agatha took over the residence when she moved in and magicked Ralph into her servant (eyes and ears, she calls him).

Hayward's character was very disappointing. Oh, the leader of the powerful organization who originally acts like he's helping is actually an antagonist? Yawn. Done to death in the MCU. Not to mention, his role as antagonist only serves to take time and drama away from conflict with Agatha.

Gotta disagree here. The show presents Hayward as an obvious villain to misdirect us from the other (insidious) villain of the show, Agatha. It’s a kind of magic trick, you see.

Also, I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I don't think Hayward should have been arrested at the end. He's the leader of SWORD. Everything he did seems within the power of that organization, and the US government clearly let SWORD take over the operation. He may not have been moral, but I don't think he did anything prosecutable.

On the other hand, Darcy Lewis should obviously be arrested for assaulting Hayward. He was retreating/fleeing when she came from nowhere and rammed him with a truck. That was clearly attempted murder for revenge, zero chance for a self defense claim.

By the point at which Hayward was arrested (and also by the point he got rammed by Darcy), he had already attempted to murder two children (whom he may defensibly believe to be less than real) and then continued to attempt to murder one very real SWORD agent who had positioned herself to defend them. He did not stop firing. That’s illegal.

Add to that the fact that Darcy had already emailed Woo with evidence of what he’s been up to with Operation Cataract (specifically, the files he had hidden behind a firewall), if anything he had been doing was illegal or in violation of the Sokovia Accords (likely?), Woo, and, hence, the FBI, knows it by the time Woo gets detained.

 

[Deset Gled]

The specific thing violating the Sokovia Accords was "resurrecting Vision" per Jimmy in an earlier episode. Since the US signed and presumably ratified the Accords it is in fact US Federal law which means the FBI has jurisdiction plus Hayward admitted to Jimmy that he did it.

He violated Vision's Will. He did the whole White Vision thing as his personal side project, breaking who knows how many laws and government protocols and rules to do so. Using government resources for a private project means embezzling or stealing those resources to rebuild Vision. All this was in those files that Darcy "illegally" hacked from Hayward's computer and emailed to Jimmy. So there is proof of all this for an arrest and trial.

I can accept this, but I have to admit I got none of it while watching the show. A lot of these things sound sound like long court battles to decide, where prematurely arresting him would actually hurt the case. On a related note, if the evidence against him is just from Darcy's illegally hacked computer and the testimony of someone who was arrested for trespassing, they're going to have a tough time taking him out in court. Unless they get some underlings to flip on him, I guess.

Also, is SWORD private, government, or government funded? They seem to have authority above the FBI to take over the site. What's the difference between something being Hayward's "personal side project" and it being, y'know, a thing that the organization is just doing? I understand nothing about how that organization works from the show. That's part of what makes it hard to understand what he's being arrested for.

By the point at which Hayward was arrested (and also by the point he got rammed by Darcy), he had already attempted to murder two children (whom he may defensibly believe to be less than real) and then continued to attempt to murder one very real SWORD agent who had positioned herself to defend them. He did not stop firing. That’s illegal.

For starters, I'm not sure it's illegal. They weren't real kids, and he could argue that he was acting either in self defense (or that they were acting against the Sokovia Accords, maybe?). And he only shot Rambeau because she ran in front of the bullets (with super human speed). Furthermore, Darcy wasn't actually present to see any of that.

But none of that discussion actually matters. Darcy still had absolutely no right to attack Hayward when she did. At the time she rammed him, he was clearly retreating. There was absolutely no threat to herself or anyone else. She was not acting in defense of herself or others. She made a premeditated attack with a deadly weapon against someone who had removed themselves from combat. There is no place in the US where you are allowed to hunt down and murder someone just because they did something wrong to your friends a little while ago.

 

[ART!]

I can accept this, but I have to admit I got none of it while watching the show. A lot of these things sound sound like long court battles to decide, where prematurely arresting him would actually hurt the case. On a related note, if the evidence against him is just from Darcy's illegally hacked computer and the testimony of someone who was arrested for trespassing, they're going to have a tough time taking him out in court. Unless they get some underlings to flip on him, I guess.

Also, is SWORD private, government, or government funded? They seem to have authority above the FBI to take over the site. What's the difference between something being Hayward's "personal side project" and it being, y'know, a thing that the organization is just doing? I understand nothing about how that organization works from the show. That's part of what makes it hard to understand what he's being arrested for.



For starters, I'm not sure it's illegal. They weren't real kids, and he could argue that he was acting either in self defense (or that they were acting against the Sokovia Accords, maybe?). And he only shot Rambeau because she ran in front of the bullets (with super human speed). Furthermore, Darcy wasn't actually present to see any of that.

But none of that discussion actually matters. Darcy still had absolutely no right to attack Hayward when she did. At the time she rammed him, he was clearly retreating. There was absolutely no threat to herself or anyone else. She was not acting in defense of herself or others. She made a premeditated attack with a deadly weapon against someone who had removed themselves from combat. There is no place in the US where you are allowed to hunt down and murder someone just because they did something wrong to your friends a little while ago.

The law in movies and tv shows is ruled by drama, whereas law in reality is ruled by very detailed laws and statutes and whatever else. WandaVision operates very firmly in the former, not the latter.

 

[Rune]

I can accept this, but I have to admit I got none of it while watching the show. A lot of these things sound sound like long court battles to decide, where prematurely arresting him would actually hurt the case. On a related note, if the evidence against him is just from Darcy's illegally hacked computer and the testimony of someone who was arrested for trespassing, they're going to have a tough time taking him out in court. Unless they get some underlings to flip on him, I guess.

Also, is SWORD private, government, or government funded? They seem to have authority above the FBI to take over the site. What's the difference between something being Hayward's "personal side project" and it being, y'know, a thing that the organization is just doing? I understand nothing about how that organization works from the show. That's part of what makes it hard to understand what he's being arrested for.



For starters, I'm not sure it's illegal. They weren't real kids, and he could argue that he was acting either in self defense (or that they were acting against the Sokovia Accords, maybe?). And he only shot Rambeau because she ran in front of the bullets (with super human speed).

The kids are irrelevant. Hayward continued to shoot at (an unarmed) Monica after she had moved to protect them. He had time to stop shooting. He chose not to.

He only stops because his gun is empty. Which we know because he pulls the trigger twice more while aiming at Monica. In real-time.

That’s attempted murder. Although, I’m sure he’d argue otherwise in court.

Furthermore, Darcy wasn't actually present to see any of that.

We don’t know that. All we know is that we didn’t see her.

But none of that discussion actually matters. Darcy still had absolutely no right to attack Hayward when she did. At the time she rammed him, he was clearly retreating. There was absolutely no threat to herself or anyone else. She was not acting in defense of herself or others. She made a premeditated attack with a deadly weapon against someone who had removed themselves from combat. There is no place in the US where you are allowed to hunt down and murder someone just because they did something wrong to your friends a little while ago.

Maybe. He’s in an armored vehicle and obviously unhurt (unless pain merely annoys him).

But also, ya know? Comic books. Characters deal out all kinds of physical punishment that would cause injury or death in the real world. Generally without consequence. This has been true in pretty much every MCU thing so far. Why hold this one to a different standard?

 

[Arilyn]

The law in movies and tv shows is ruled by drama, whereas law in reality is ruled by very detailed laws and statutes and whatever else. WandaVision operates very firmly in the former, not the latter.

Yep. Law and police dramas don't follow real world procedures, let alone a comic mini series.

 

[Deset Gled]

The law in movies and tv shows is ruled by drama, whereas law in reality is ruled by very detailed laws and statutes and whatever else. WandaVision operates very firmly in the former, not the latter.

WandaVision also operates within the jurisdiction of nerd law, which is ruled by annoying details and arguments on the internet.

Maybe. He’s in an armored vehicle and obviously unhurt (unless pain merely annoys him).

This is the type of thing that destroys self defense claims in court. The risk of death is inherent in any high speed collision. If Darcy claims to have taken time to consider the armor level of his vehicle vs the mass of her truck, it's only proof that her actions were premeditated against an unarmed opponent, not that she didn't mean to kill him.

But also, ya know? Comic books. Characters deal out all kinds of physical punishment that would cause injury or death in the real world. Generally without consequence. This has been true in pretty much every MCU thing so far. Why hold this one to a different standard?

First, see above nerd law jurisdictional claim.

Second, for me it's about proximity to other plot points. Say your vampires get set on fire by sunlight. You can bend the rules and have a vampire get singed by indirect sunlight in one episode, but catch on flames from nearly the same amount of light in the next. It's not ideal, but you can use your literary license when needed. But you can't have two identical vampires standing next to each other, get exposed to the same sunlight, and have one just cover his eyes while the other bursts into flame. That's bad writing.

There is a significant amount of plot in the MCU dedicated to the legalities of superheroes. There's hours of screentime dedicated to the Sokovia Accords, and morality and consequences for actions. In the scene we're discussing, one character is villianized for breaking an imaginary law, and shown on screen being arrested for it. Yet right next to him is another character that purposefully broke a very major real life law, and there are literally no consequences.

On a personal level, it really drove home to me how the writers had blatantly designated heroes and villians in the story. These guys are good, so they things they do must be good. These guys are bad, so the things they do must be bad. To me, that's just bad writing.

 

[Older Beholder]

In the scene we're discussing, one character is villianized for breaking an imaginary law, and shown on screen being arrested for it. Yet right next to him is another character that purposefully broke a very major real life law, and there are literally no consequences.

On a personal level, it really drove home to me how the writers had blatantly designated heroes and villians in the story. These guys are good, so they things they do must be good. These guys are bad, so the things they do must be bad. To me, that's just bad writing.

The guy doctored footage in order to steal a multi- billion dollar war machine while framing Wanda for it.
I thought it was pretty grey whether Wanda was the hero or the villain throughout the show.