[TV] WandaVision

[Jester Joe]

She tried to get Wanda to give up her power peacefully, multiple times.

Even at the end, she's still only absorbing the energies that Wanda is actively using to attack her, directly. If Wanda wasn't blasting her, she wouldn't be absorbing anything.

No, she was trying to gaslight Wanda into accepting death basically.

Like, they clearly showed that Agatha kills people by taking their power.
Otherwise, if she truly didn't want to kill her mother, she could have taken the power without killing her.

And you're accepting Agatha's decision that Wanda is a threat, but you deny the coven saying Agatha was a threat. The coven who was following the same book as Agatha?

So it's either both are wrong, or both are right.
Either way, Agatha would be in the wrong for doing the same thing her coven did, she'd be hypocritical.

And again, you can clearly tell from Agatha's words that she knew fully well the magic she was diving into was forbidden, and yet she did it anyway.
She lusts for power, and it's obvious.

[rhorle]

An "opinion" that's pretty much the international legal standard in the developed world. Hardly a stretch, dude.

But it wasn't presented on the show and wasn't even the international legal standard in the 1600s. So your statement is objectively a lie. And now your are just throwing a tantrum, cue your refusal to commit to insults, by calling me a whiner like Jan from the Brady Bunch. This isn't the first time you've refused to let go of your head canon when it isn't based on anything in the show.

If it doesn't present the punishment for an off show crime then provide the time code of the crime she committed? Oh wait you can't. It is funny how much you refuse to accept when you are wrong. Breaking the rules is the same thing as a crime. You are reduced to semantics because all crimes are only crimes based on a set of rules created by a group of people.

[Endus]

No, she was trying to gaslight Wanda into accepting death basically.

Like, they clearly showed that Agatha kills people by taking their power.
Otherwise, if she truly didn't want to kill her mother, she could have taken the power without killing her.

And you're accepting Agatha's decision that Wanda is a threat, but you deny the coven saying Agatha was a threat. The coven who was following the same book as Agatha?

So it's either both are wrong, or both are right.

Or maybe it's contextual and depends on perspective.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

I haven't been arguing that Agatha was the unblemished hero of the piece. I've been pointing out that Wanda did more harm than we've seen Agatha do. That a lot of what Agatha was shown to have done was very much from a violence-as-a-last-resort approach. That her capacity to absorb someone's power is, apparently, only possible if they are throwing that power directly at Agatha at the time.

Sure, she's absolutely lying a lot, and gaslighting Wanda, but Wanda was forcing thousands of people to play their roles in her little show. She knew she was forcing them. She just had sold herself the idea that they'd be okay with that loss of control over their actions. Which is . . . really pretty damned crazy.

I think the show's a bit more nuanced than some people seem to think. That's it. That we're gonna see Agatha down the line as a Loki-type character; definitely out for themselves, but capable of helping to save the day in the right circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

But it wasn't presented on the show and wasn't even the international legal standard in the 1600s. So your statement is objectively a lie.

That's not how lies work, no.

This is a fiction written in the 21st century. It's written for a modern audience.

And now your are just throwing a tantrum, cue your refusal to commit to insults, by calling me a whiner like Jan from the Brady Bunch.

Dude, you're the one who's getting angry and making wild accusations about my character that don't hold up.

This isn't the first time you've refused to let go of your head canon when it isn't based on anything in the show.

Again, like the time I went back and checked the exact order of events around the deed and admitted I'd gotten it a bit wrong?

You're arguing against an image you've made up in your head, not my actual posts here.

If it doesn't present the punishment for an off show crime then provide the time code of the crime she committed? Oh wait you can't. It is funny how much you refuse to accept when you are wrong. Breaking the rules is the same thing as a crime. You are reduced to semantics because all crimes are only crimes based on a set of rules created by a group of people.

I'm disputing that it could even be considered a "crime" when the only people it offended were these seven witches. Who the hell are they to set the rules and kill people for not abiding by them?

If you think that's the same as actual codes of law and criminal behaviour, I have to ask again; do you think gang executions are the just punishments of crimes against the gang? Because that's your position here. That this gang gets to set the rules and kill anyone who breaks them. And that's fine and okay and we should accept that as fair and just.

You don't think that's a little bit off?

[rhorle]

That's not how lies work, no. This is a fiction written in the 21st century. It's written for a modern audience.

But that international standard hasn't been shown on the show. The lie is that you are basing your view on things shown on the show when every response keeps doubling down on your statement being a lie. It doesn't matter if the shown is fiction written for a modern audience you are still using your own personal view of the death penalty as proof it was equal to that of the show.

Which makes your statement objectively a lie.

I'm disputing that it could even be considered a "crime" when the only people it offended were these seven witches. Who the hell are they to set the rules and kill people for not abiding by them?

The same as any group. The same as you for saying it wasn't a crime based on your personal view of the death penalty. Weird right? That you are no governing authority but are using morality and international legal standards to define what is and isn't a crime on a fictional show. The Coven has rules, and to those of the coven, those are the same as laws obviously.

It is also over looking the fact that the Mother had a crown while the other Witches did not. Just like Wanda had a crown as the Scarlet Witch. There was some cosmic or intentional authority shown. But we don't need to be shown every last detail on the show in order to connect the dots that Agatha broke the rules. Something you even agreed to but still fight simply out of some perceived difference between rules and crime. Or that the Coven did not meet your personal modern sensibilities for what stands as a legally binding trial. And yet you've demonstrated you don't equally apply those rules to even the entire MCU.

So no its not a little off. It is just the way things work. What is off is your refusal to back down from silly theories and trying to use real world morals as proof.

[formerShandalay]

So, I have three remaining theories about the whole thing.

1: Hayward. I still think he is not only some SWORD guy, but has been either planted ot influenced by someone who at least told him some things that he has to look out for and what to do to 'prod' Wanda and the whole situation into a specific outcome. My guess is Kang. Additional to the things I said before, like him being a bit confused why Wanda has no silly nickname (while he clearly knows everything else about her) and being the one who tells Wanda she has the power to bring Vision back, he also seemed to know that the broadcast would stop at one point and that he could then send in Vision and make it seem like it was Wanda's Vision all along. I don't know and can't really guess what Kang's goal was with that, but Kang is going to show up in Ant-man so maybe we'll get some answers there.

2: Fietro. I think the casting of Evan Peters was only a semi-troll and Ralph Bohner is indeed the person in witness protection and he is Wonderman. He seemed to have superhuman speed and strength, so that'd fit and he may have been in witness protection because he was 'created' by a villainous organization and broke away from them.

3: The kids. I don't think they will go with the 'soulshards from the devil'-explanation, but instead will make the kids be shards of Gaia (couldn't take my eyes off that screen behind Agatha with Mother Earth, so that's where I got that idea ) and will ultimately help Wanda and Dr. Strange against Chthon (in Dr. Strange 2). I'm still not completely off the 'Dottie is someone special'-train, so maybe she was another witch and made the children possible, because she knew they'd be needed down the line.


And I also think there's going to be several mutants coming out of Westview later and it's going to be a point of contention, because the people there understandably don't like anything superhuman, so... there will be lots of struggles.

[segara82]

I am a bit underwhelmed by the last episode.
So many hints and signs that were dead ends or just to get the fans talking.
Opportunities wasted to bring the other IPs into the MCU ...
And parts of the story just felt flat and uninspired to me.

If i bing-watched the whole season in one sitting it would not be quite that bad, more like mediocre for me.
But after drawing things out to keep viewers subscribed for 9 weeks with empty promises/hints leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I haven't been arguing that Agatha was the unblemished hero of the piece. I've been pointing out that Wanda did more harm than we've seen Agatha do. That a lot of what Agatha was shown to have done was very much from a violence-as-a-last-resort approach. That her capacity to absorb someone's power is, apparently, only possible if they are throwing that power directly at Agatha at the time.

Sure, she's absolutely lying a lot, and gaslighting Wanda, but Wanda was forcing thousands of people to play their roles in her little show. She knew she was forcing them. She just had sold herself the idea that they'd be okay with that loss of control over their actions. Which is . . . really pretty damned crazy.

Yeah, What Wanda did was crazy...but not malevolent. That's the difference between her and Agatha.

[Aurrora]

If you think that's the same as actual codes of law and criminal behaviour, I have to ask again; do you think gang executions are the just punishments of crimes against the gang? Because that's your position here. That this gang gets to set the rules and kill anyone who breaks them. And that's fine and okay and we should accept that as fair and just.

You don't think that's a little bit off?

They're literally a jury of her peers. They're also probably the only group in the area with the expertise to understand her crimes and the power necessary to enforce the law. If it makes you feel any better had she somehow been tried by the colonial government she would have been burned at the stake was a witch, of which she was objectively guilty.

[ProphetFlume]

Must be nice to live in a world where seeing a person on trial means they’re bad and deserving of any punishment, where you trust any kind of legal system to the point you don’t need to know anything else. I don’t even presume someone being chased by a cop as bad.

[Endus]

Must be nice to live in a world where seeing a person on trial means they’re bad and deserving of any punishment, where you trust any kind of legal system to the point you don’t need to know anything else. I don’t even presume someone being chased by a cop as bad.

There wasn't even any "trial". They just declared her guilty, refused to listen to any defense, and proceeded immediately to her execution.

It was a "trial" as much as any gang execution.

[Adp]

There's a really important element to narrative that you need to be able to recognize.

The protagonist is not necessarily a hero. The antagonist is not necessarily a villain. Look at the TV show Dexter, for instance; the protagonist is a serial killer. He enjoys butchering people. He's completely capable of targeting innocents without any real moral quibbles, he chooses not to out of a sense of reasoned ethics. The police trying to figure out his crimes are, literally, antagonists, but they're not villains. We're just seeing a story from the villain's point of view.

Or, perhaps in a better example that's entirely MCU-relevant, Loki. He was the out-and-out villain of the first Avengers. Most of his roles since have been as a sidekick, mostly. And he's going to be headlining his own show as the protagonist soon. He isn't always a villain, nor is he always the antagonist; you have to look at his actual behaviour within the story to determine that.

Yes, Agatha is obviously the antagonist. That doesn't mean she's a villain.

Yes, the antagonist isn't necessarily the villain. In this show though she is, that's why I said she's framed as evil. The protagonist is literally a hero and Agatha is literally a witch trying to steal her power. Look at her behavior again and just hers. You've been engaging in moral relativism to justify Agatha's actions as tragically heroic. I think you've alluded to this already with the Loki example but she's the out and out villain of this series and her roles in the future will probably be supporting the heroes.

You don't have to hand waive away her villainy here to make sense of her roles in the future.

[eschatological]

There wasn't even any "trial". They just declared her guilty, refused to listen to any defense, and proceeded immediately to her execution.

It was a "trial" as much as any gang execution.

You didn't get the impression that they were supposed to be "good witches"? That was my distinct impression. But that may be my bias from my profession, where the "organization" with rules and laws hint at regulation and restraint of unchecked power.

[Endus]

You didn't get the impression that they were supposed to be "good witches"? That was my distinct impression. But that may be my bias from my profession, where the "organization" with rules and laws hint at regulation and restraint of unchecked power.

What part of their actions seemed "good"?

The kangaroo-court rush to summary execution?

The unwillingness to consider any possibility that they're wrong?

That they're all wearing black and meeting cloaked under cover of night?

We also have a pretty clear archetype for the "magic-police" of the MCU setting, in the sorcerors under the Sorceror Supreme. Who don't go around killing willy-nilly. And Mordo seeming to take that path is what's set him on the path to being considered a villain.

Would Doctor Strange up and murder a helpless woman just because he's afraid of her?

I feel I have to emphasize that there aren't any "laws", here. The coven leader forbade a thing, and Agatha did the thing anyway, so the coven leader ordered her cronies to murder her. It's not presented as anything but their own personal hostility. They are not presented as representing anything beyond their coven, or that the "rules" come from any higher power or purpose than the whims and opinions of the coven leader.

Leaping straight to killing without listening to any defense is a giant blinking red flag, to me, frankly. Especially when the show makes no real effort to convince us that we should believe them.

Now, do I think Agatha probably crossed a "bad" line back then? Oh, sure. Where I diverge strongly is their stance that there is no possibly way Agatha could still be a good person at any level, and their decision to summarily kill her as a result. I really can't lay any blame at all on Agatha for turning the tables on them at that point.

If the coven leader was Agatha's actual mother, and that wasn't just a title for her role, that makes everything even worse, IMO.

[eschatological]

You're making a lot of assumptions that it's rushed, a kangaroo court, and that they're wrong.

And considering this series couldn't bother to summon Dr. Strange from NYC like an hour away in 2021, how can you make the assumption that whoever was Sorcerer Supreme back then didn't weigh in, help investigate, and pass judgment?

Like, you're literally operating from a bias, just like I am. Your bias is you want to see something in Agatha that I don't see.

[Nastard]

Whether or not Agatha was judged fairly in the past is kinda irrelevant to her actions several centuries later. If anything it explains, not excuses.

She killed a puppy specifically to traumatize children. What do you need, a twirly mustache and a small furry creature to slowly pet while she reveals her plot? Oh wait, we already got half of that.

[rhorle]

What part of their actions seemed "good"? The kangaroo-court rush to summary execution? The unwillingness to consider any possibility that they're wrong? That they're all wearing black and meeting cloaked under cover of night?

The show doesn't show the crime or trial so you can't say it was rushed or "Kangaroo" style. You don't know if they already considered that they might be wrong. So being cloaked and at night is evil now? They were witches in Salem in the 1600's. This is the problem over and over. You are not using anything supported by the show but are instead relying on your own personal views and head canon and expecting everyone to just accept it.

Considering in the Dr. Strange movie he was threatened with death before ever leaving the building if he stole a book I think your skewed perception of the MCU extends a lot further then Wanda Vision. Agatha was not executed simply because they were afraid of her. Nor is it anything new for Magical groups in the MCU to protect themselves in such fashion.

[Endus]

You're making a lot of assumptions that it's rushed, a kangaroo court, and that they're wrong.

Not really.

First, I can't assume anything we don't see or that isn't referenced. So I have no reason to assume there was some lengthy trial process, here.

Second, Agatha faces her accusations when she's dragged before them, attempts to make her pleas, and gets shut down without consideration. Why would she try if she'd already tried in a more-formal and more-thorough process? We're given every reason to think the entire process is right there before us.

What actual reason do you have that there was anything but what we saw? And by that, I mean actual evidence from within the narrative itself. Because I feel folks like yourself are the ones making a lot of assumptions, here, starting with the assumption that the coven were "good people". I don't see any reason to presume that, at all, and as I've said, what we do see argues fairly strongly against that.

And considering this series couldn't bother to summon Dr. Strange from NYC like an hour away in 2021, how can you make the assumption that whoever was Sorcerer Supreme back then didn't weigh in, help investigate, and pass judgment?

Because we get no indication that's the case.

This is a perfect example where I am taking the narrative exactly as presented, and not assuming things that aren't "in evidence", here, whereas you're making arguments based on hypotheticals for which there is no evidence at all. And no; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not arguing the Sorceror Supreme couldn't have been involved. Just that, like Russell's Teapot, if you want me to take that claim seriously, you'd better have actual evidence to support it, beyond wishful thinking.

Like, you're literally operating from a bias, just like I am. Your bias is you want to see something in Agatha that I don't see.

How am I biasing what we were shown?

I'm just sticking to what we actually saw, rather than making assumptions that things must have happened differently than we experienced in some significant way.

[rhorle]

I'm just sticking to what we actually saw, rather than making assumptions that things must have happened differently than we experienced in some significant way.

Another flat out lie. We didn't see the trial yet you are saying it was rushed. We did not see the investigation yet you say they never considered it. You said they jumped to killing with out listen which was never shown on the show. You are not going off of what the show has shown but rather your morality and head canon of what was actually shown.

[Endus]

The show doesn't show the crime or trial so you can't say it was rushed or "Kangaroo" style.

We literally do.

The whole thing takes from when Agatha is tied to the stake, to the coven trying to kill her. That's the whole length of the proceeding. We have no reason to think there's any more to it, so why pretend that there is?

You don't know if they already considered that they might be wrong. So being cloaked and at night is evil now?

You see, this is fiction, and tropes exist in fiction. They aren't conclusive, but they're film language that's used to communicate things implicitly, unless directly contravened.

Same concept behind leitmotifs in film scores and the like.

They were witches in Salem in the 1600's.

Are you referencing our actual history, here?

Because if so, there literally weren't.

And if not, the Salem Witch Trials could've been entirely justified, and these women may have been the devil-worshippers they were thought to be. Once you allow that witches exist, you've also got to allow that maybe the accusations against them were correct.

This is the problem over and over. You are not using anything supported by the show but are instead relying on your own personal views and head canon and expecting everyone to just accept it.

You have this backwards. You're the one presuming there was some more in-depth trial of Agatha, despite it not being shown on-screen and no suggestion was given that such occurred. I'm sticking to exactly what was actually there, for us to see. Including tropes and such, yes. Because those were actually there.

Considering in the Dr. Strange movie he was threatened with death before ever leaving the building if he stole a book I think you skewed perception of the MCU extends a lot further then Wanda Vision. Agatha was not executed simply because they were afraid of her. Nor is it anything new for Magical groups in the MCU to protect themselves in such fashion.

Threatened. How many people did you see them actually kill like that?

That's the problem. Unless you see them actually doing it, you can't presume that they do it. They could be lying. They could be making a joke. Until you see action follow words, it's up in the air. Presuming everyone in a narrative is entirely honest and never joking and never wrong is . . . not a tenable position to hold.

- - - Updated - - -

Another flat out lie. We didn't see the trial yet you are saying it was rushed.

We literally see the trial. Why are you pretending we don't?

Yes, it's super short and they don't allow Agatha any chance to defend herself. That's how kangaroo courts work. That's my point.

There's no suggestion there was anything beyond what we saw.

We did not see the investigation yet you say they never considered it.

There was never any suggestion that there was any investigation. Why are you assuming there was one?

This is what I mean; I'm taking the show exactly as it is, you're saying it didn't happen like we saw it happen because there must've been a lot of stuff that they didn't show us. What's your evidence for that?

You said they jumped to killing with out listen which was never shown on the show. You are not going off of what the show has shown but rather your morality and head canon of what was actually shown.

It literally is in the show.

Ep 8, 2:07, trial begins with the coven leader asking "Agatha Harkness, are you a witch?"
She immediately declares that she betrayed them, ignores Agatha protesting the charges, tells her to stop lying.
Agatha insists she just bent the rules.
The witches start seizing power to execute her.
Agatha makes an emotional appeal to her mother, which fails.

Then they start killing her. 3:27.

That's the trial.

Defendant is presented, charges are levied, sentence is passed, execution is attempted. In a minute and a half. It's all right there, and there's never a hint that there was any more to this. I am sticking to what we were shown, there, rather than trying to invent non-canon explanations that are never presented by the narrative.

[rhorle]

We literally do. The whole thing takes from when Agatha is tied to the stake, to the coven trying to kill her. That's the whole length of the proceeding. We have no reason to think there's any more to it, so why pretend that there is?

That is just the execution. Of course we have reason to think there is more because it was never to be stated that was all they did. Again you are arguing that there is only one possibility, your head canon, and that nothing else can potentially exist.

Are you referencing our actual history, here? Because if so, there literally weren't.

You can't even use literally correctly. The show clearly indicates that the scene takes place in Salem, Massachusetts 1693. So they are literally witches in Salem in the 1600's. This is getting comical.

That's the problem. Unless you see them actually doing it, you can't presume that they do it. They could be lying. They could be making a joke. Until you see action follow words, it's up in the air. Presuming everyone in a narrative is entirely honest and never joking and never wrong is . . . not a tenable position to hold.

And yet you presume a lot about the actions of Agatha's coven with out seeing that they did not do all you accuse them of ignoring. The thing is until you actually seem them not doing it then you can't presume that they didn't do it. Weird how your own logic defeats your own argument. But I'm sure you'll come up with some new statement how I am twisting, ignoring or otherwise corrupting your logic.

You are doing the exact same thing with the Hayward Deed discussion. Until you recanted because you finally realized that the show didn't indicate any of what you said. The same is true here. The show doesn't indicate anything of what you said but you have your head canon about Agatha being the victim and the coven being bad. And even when presented with evidence that the Ancient one and her group has no problem with death as a punishment you hand wave it away. What do you have against admitting that your theory might be wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

That's the trial.

It is the execution. Asking if she is a witch isn't a trail but simply them asking if she considers herself one of them. Because the next line is "Yet you have betrayed your coven". It was going over the crime that they already decided her fate. There is never an indication that there wasn't more. That is the problem. There is no proof either way yet you have your mind made up that your modern moral interpretation is the only possible set of events.

You literally earlier tried to say they are evil based on modern international law. Lol.