Dr Strange 2: In the Multiverse of Madness (Spoilers)

[Thomas Shey]

Except that Vision is actually not a person, and thus, has no next of kin, nor would his marriage even remotely be recognized in the United States (or any other country for that matter).

This whole argument is predicated on something that has never once been suggested in universe - that Vision was considered legally a person.

It might be icky. We might not like it. But, there is absolutely no suggestion that Vision was considered a person.

I think there's every sign that all the other Avengers considered him one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd point out too that villain doesn't mean that you're evil. That terrible storm that wrecks the ships in a man vs nature story is still the villain. That's what a villain is - the thing that drives the plot and is opposed by the protagonist. Maybe if we use Antagonist instead of villain, people would be happier?

Yes. There's an enormous semantic difference between the two.

 

[billd91]

Except that Vision is actually not a person, and thus, has no next of kin, nor would his marriage even remotely be recognized in the United States (or any other country for that matter).

This whole argument is predicated on something that has never once been suggested in universe - that Vision was considered legally a person.

It might be icky. We might not like it. But, there is absolutely no suggestion that Vision was considered a person.

That may be the legalistic, bureaucratic justification that SWORD would have been leaning on. But it is supposed to be massive transgression to Wanda and to us, the viewers. And it is. And that event, plus the reactions of Jimmy Woo and Darcy Lewis, serve to indicate what sort of organization SWORD is.

 

[Eric V]

Again, because for much of it she wasn't in her right mind.

Does this kind of thinking apply to the Joker?

 

[billd91]

I'd point out too that villain doesn't mean that you're evil. That terrible storm that wrecks the ships in a man vs nature story is still the villain. That's what a villain is - the thing that drives the plot and is opposed by the protagonist. Maybe if we use Antagonist instead of villain, people would be happier?

Not really, no. She's the protagonist of the story. SWORD and Agatha are obviously her antagonists.

 

[billd91]

Does this kind of thinking apply to the Joker?

In the comics, nobody ever kills the Joker - except in the Kingdom Come miniseries, where it was considered a big turning point that sets up later tragedy.
Joker gets put into Arkham Asylum.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not really, no. She's the protagonist of the story. SWORD and Agatha are obviously her antagonists.

In Wandavision Wanda is the protagonist, and an antagonist. She has to overcome her own delusions, and Agatha.

SWORD is a secondary antagonist, largely in opposition to secondary protagonists Monica and Darcy.

The meaning of antagonist and villain are quite different. It's quite possible to have a villain protagonist with a heroic antagonist. And that's before you get to anti-heroes and anti-villains.

 

[Eric V]

In the comics, nobody ever kills the Joker - except in the Kingdom Come miniseries, where it was considered a big turning point that sets up later tragedy.
Joker gets put into Arkham Asylum.

So, is Joker not a villain, then?

 

[Stalker0]

""You Know What They Call A Hero Who Doesn't Listen To Anyone, Doctor Strange.""

Except a major factor of the movie is.... Dr Strange does start to listen, and to change. He relies on others instead of "always holding the scalpel". He relies on Christine to help with the Darkhold, because ultimately, he knows its corrupting and knows he won't make it on his own, he needs someone to keep him tethered.

He overcomes some of his arrogance in finally bowing to Wong as the Sorceror Supreme.

And of course....he doesn't kill scores of people to get what he personally wants. If Strange was truly a parallel to Wanda for example, he would be using his magic to force Christine to be with him instead of letting her go.

Strange is not the most heroic character, but there is no comparison to him and wanda in this movie, she is far far more villainous.

 

[RangerWickett]

So, is Joker not a villain, then?

Are we using the term in the colloquial comics sense of "person who does a great deal of harm," or in the literary sense of "person who opposes the main character"?

I think that, even as we're enjoying some light popcorn cinema, we should be attentive to the fact that morality isn't black and white, and that categorizing people into good and bad is a simplistic mindset that has led to many people permitting great harm to others.

Now, in nearly every story of the Joker, he's got a twisted sense of how the world should work, but he knows what he's doing is hurting people, and he almost never cares. He can be both ill from mental trauma and be intentional and callous in the harm he causes.

Wanda, at least in the MCU, had been presented in a different light. She's also been traumatized, but she never revels in hurting people. In Wanadavision she does, yes, seem to be in denial that what she's doing is hurting people, and tries to rationalize what she's doing.

She just wants to be left alone to be happy, and she's willfully oblivious to the harm she's causing. It honestly could have been tweaked a bit into a metaphor for consumerism selling a happy lie of a good life while ignoring the harm to society and the environment. But I digress.

She nearly snaps out of it when Vision confronts her about it in the 80s episode, and she seems to be trying to parse the cognitive dissonance, but then Agatha sends Ralph to draw her back into a comforting delusion.

And eventually she does acknowledge she needs to free the people in the hex, and she makes what I saw as a heroic sacrifice to do the right thing, albeit horribly late.

. . .

And then the next time we meet her, she's not struggling at all. She's not in denial. There's no glimmer that her original mind is somehow being controlled by the Darkhold.

Instead, Wanda has gone full, exultant villain.

The writers didn't do the work to make that transition compelling.