The MU/MCU: From Comics to Screen

[Fukui San]

After the MCU successfully made Scott Lang Ant-Man into a real franchise, I stopped doubting whether any given Marvel property could succeed on screen. In twenty year's we'll probably be highly anticipating the third DP7 movie.

And I liked what I've read of Young Avengers, for the record.

[Kromm]

[Fukui San]

It's been an interesting conceit to base the show around, but comics Wanda was never a pop culture obsessive, right? She'd always be studying magic with Dr. Strange rather than watching the latest episode of Family Ties. Unless this came up in the era after I wasn't paying attention. I missed the White Vision era and beyond.

As someone who likes to write sci-fi myself, the inconsistent world building around The Blip has always bothered me. Sometimes they treat it as something that has irrevocably scarred society. Trash piled up on the street, abandoned neighborhoods, the dissolution of Major League Baseball for some damn reason (or maybe Thanos just blipped the National League?)... and yet there's a working power grid, a nice memorial park in San Francisco, seemingly no earth shattering upheavals worth mentioning like the fall of a country or nukes being set off or martial law in the streets. Government systems seemed to have picked up the slack. 2020 real world felt more apocalyptic than post blip MCU. I feel that they could have made those decisions with more care and consistency.

To tie it back to WandaVision, I feel they leaned into the "Oh, this town is trash now since the Blip" feel in those flashback scenes but I don't think they're going to be consistent with afterblip consequences in all their offerings. Spiderman: Far From Home had virtually no aftermath in terms of how they presented the world, for instance, as far as I remember.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Fukui San said:

Spiderman: Far From Home had virtually no aftermath in terms of how they presented the world, for instance, as far as I remember.

May was doing a benefit event with Spiderman to raise money for people homeless because of the blip.

 

8 hours ago, Fukui San said:

To tie it back to WandaVision, I feel they leaned into the "Oh, this town is trash now since the Blip"

If TV has taught me anything, it's that a random town in New Jersey was probably trash even without the blip.

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:41 PM, Fukui San said:

After the MCU successfully made Scott Lang Ant-Man into a real franchise, I stopped doubting whether any given Marvel property could succeed on screen. In twenty year's we'll probably be highly anticipating the third DP7 movie.

That's a deep cut. I like. 

On 2/26/2021 at 1:02 PM, Fukui San said:

It's been an interesting conceit to base the show around, but comics Wanda was never a pop culture obsessive, right? She'd always be studying magic with Dr. Strange rather than watching the latest episode of Family Ties. Unless this came up in the era after I wasn't paying attention. I missed the White Vision era and beyond.

As someone who likes to write sci-fi myself, the inconsistent world building around The Blip has always bothered me. Sometimes they treat it as something that has irrevocably scarred society. Trash piled up on the street, abandoned neighborhoods, the dissolution of Major League Baseball for some damn reason (or maybe Thanos just blipped the National League?)... and yet there's a working power grid, a nice memorial park in San Francisco, seemingly no earth shattering upheavals worth mentioning like the fall of a country or nukes being set off or martial law in the streets. Government systems seemed to have picked up the slack. 2020 real world felt more apocalyptic than post blip MCU. I feel that they could have made those decisions with more care and consistency.

To tie it back to WandaVision, I feel they leaned into the "Oh, this town is trash now since the Blip" feel in those flashback scenes but I don't think they're going to be consistent with afterblip consequences in all their offerings. Spiderman: Far From Home had virtually no aftermath in terms of how they presented the world, for instance, as far as I remember.

I was not the biggest fan of comics Wanda and didn't read many of the miniseries about her. Most of my comics knowledge of her is from the 80s and before. It seems to me that in that time period basically most female characters had interchangeable personalities. There would be no way to tell an action or a piece of dialogue by Wanda apart from Jean Grey or Sue Storm or whoever (baring something like an explicit reference to mutants or their particular love interest). 

I think that if there was a Blip, it's not unrealistic that some places would be hit harder than others and some places would recover better/faster than others. Just random chance might mean that some entire cities might lose only 10 percent of their population while others would lose 90. Even if it was a given that it was universally 50 percent, I have no doubt that the Bay Area could weather such a loss better than a random NJ town given advantages in money, brain power (sorry, not sorry), climate and other things.

I will once again cast my vote for a D+ series that shows what happened in the Blip with more detail.

[Kel Varnsen]

10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I will once again cast my vote for a D+ series that shows what happened in the Blip with more detail.

I am not sure I want to see that. Last year I watched the Leftovers which was about 2% of the world population suddenly disappearing. It was good but a lot of it was super sad and depressing. Change it to 50% of all life and I am not sure how you can pull it off without making it a giant downer. 

[tv echo]

(pics source)

[Chicago Redshirt]

In the various episode threads, there has been talk about MCU characters not facing the consequences for their actions, with the implication that it should not be a surprise that Wanda does not. So I thought it would make sense to talk about that here. 

In this discussion, I am going to probably blur together criminal/moral/civil consequences for actions somewhat. Some common themes apply across each:

1. Scale matters. Threatening a single person is bad, but threatening a hundred people is worse and therefore is more worthy of consequences.

2. Knowledge and mindset matter. One cannot truly be guilty for acts over which they have no control, and over reasonable mistakes.

3. Foreseeability matters. Someone is more guilty when the result of their action is or should be obvious. 

4. Mitigating circumstances exist.

With that, let's talk about some of the characters.

Loki betrayed Asgard, sicced the Destroyer on the New Mexico town in Thor 1, tried to enslave Earth using the Chitauri in Avengers, and usurped the throne of Asgard between Thor 2 and 3. As a trickster, he managed to escape at least some of the punishment for his crimes. But even so, he was being imprisoned in Asgard.

Tony Stark designed and sold weapons of mass destruction, including some that ended up in terrorists' hands. His bombs killed the Maximoff's parents and presumably thousands of others. He also f--ed around with AI, and found out about Ultron and the numerous deaths and a threatened extinction-level event he caused. Nothing, though, that Tony did was (as far as we know) illegal. I think that there is a YouTube video on whether Tony would be responsible for Ultron's actions as a products-liability matter. 

Bucky killed the Starks and countless other people, plus attempted to kill Cap, Black Widow and Falcon and countless others. But Bucky was under mind control the whole time and his inability to do other than what he was commanded makes Bucky's acts legally and morally blameless.

Black Widow famously has a lot of red in her ledger. But presumably all her bad actions were part of spycraft and thus legal to some degree, or at least, not things the conventional criminal and civil justice system deal with in the same way as most actions. She has violated (presumably) some portion of the Sokovia Accords by being secretly Team Cap. 

Black Panther attempted to kill Bucky and did kill Killmonger. But these acts were justified on multiple grounds. He enjoys a level of diplomatic immunity as a prince/king, he reasonably thought that Bucky killed his father and numerous other people, and of course Killmonger had taken his throne after what was supposed to be a challenge to the death/yield

Hawkeye killed or attempted to kill people in the first Avengers while under the influence of the Mind Stone, and after the Snap. He obviously was deservedly exonerated for his actions under hypnosis. As to his post-Snap actions, it looks like he was targeting criminals only, which doesn't justify his actions. We will see what happens with him in the planned Hawkeye series. 

Wanda enslaved thousands for days and had them endure anguish. Literally no one faults her for the original creation of this situation, because she did not do it consciously. The question is if/when she became aware that she had created the situation and that she could end it. Vision straight-up told her she was doing it early on, and Fietro repeated that. It could be that Wanda simply didn't believe them. But she did not seem to be very much in denial. It might be that Wanda's not guilty by reason of insanity. But though she underwent trauma, the show never seems to say that Wanda is literally insane. 

TLDR: there have not been presented too many cases in which the MCU heroes should have faced legal consequences for their action that they did not IMO. 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Chicago Redshirt

[Ailianna]

Ironically, the Sokovia Accords weren't aimed at preventing any of the things you listed. They seemed to care deeply about property damage as well as deaths and injuries caused by defending civilian populations from attack by various entities. Which is a bit like complaining about the bombing of Dresden or Berlin. Lots of damage and death, but done in service of what was and is generally viewed as a greater good.  Yes, those bombings were done under orders, but the Chitauri weren't slowly marching on Poland, or crossing the Maginot Line. They were erupting via portal over Midtown Manhattan, so the timeline was a bit different for decision making.

[Chicago Redshirt]

There is a whole bunch of handwaving that has to be done about the Sokovia Accords. As far as we saw, everybody ultimately violated them in Infinity War and Endgame. I mean, we do not know the exact contours of what they say, but presumably every hero would have to get some sort of pre-approval for initiating any action. There was a nod to their existence when Ross barked some nonsense about them in Infinity War and Cap shut it down.

[Guest]

One thing that stood out to me in the conversation about consequences is that most of the characters involved have a upcoming tv show or movie. Wanda, Bucky and Loki all have series. Wanda will be back in Doctor Strange and Natasha has a movie focusing on her past. Amour Wars is going to focus on Tony’s tech failing into the wrong hands. It stands to reason consequences will play some part of phase 4 but I don’t expect it to be legal consequences. 

On 3/7/2021 at 8:02 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

It might be that Wanda's not guilty by reason of insanity. But though she underwent trauma, the show never seems to say that Wanda is literally insane. 

 

Not guilty by reason of insanity doesn’t require Wanda to be insane now. That’s being not competent to stand trial. An insanity defense is that the person was so mentally disturbed or incapacitated at the time they committed the crime they didn’t have the mental capacity to commit a crime. To me Wanda fits that description perfectly. She has no legal culpability when she first commits the crime. 

You might be able to argue that she has some culpability at some point during the show but that’s a grey area of her how mentally disturbed she was throughout. The split reaction from the audience shows why it wouldn’t be clear from a legal standpoint. Particularly since once she was clearly aware she ended it. She obviously didn’t have the intent to hurt anyone. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Guest

[Chicago Redshirt]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

Not guilty by reason of insanity doesn’t require Wanda to be insane now. That’s being not competent to stand trial. An insanity defense is that the person was so mentally disturbed or incapacitated at the time they committed the crime they didn’t have the mental capacity to commit a crime. To me Wanda fits that description perfectly. She has no legal culpability when she first commits the crime. 

You might be able to argue that she has some culpability at some point during the show but that’s a grey area of her how mentally disturbed she was throughout. The split reaction from the audience shows why it wouldn’t be clear from a legal standpoint. Particularly since once she was clearly aware she ended it. She obviously didn’t have the intent to hurt anyone. 

I may respond more in the episode 9 thread. But I guess I would say it would be an open question as to when she was or should have been aware.

If she was aware before that people were suffering before she did finally let them go, as I contend she was, then there would potential legal liability.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I may respond more in the episode 9 thread. But I guess I would say it would be an open question as to when she was or should have been aware.

If she was aware before that people were suffering before she did finally let them go, as I contend she was, then there would potential legal liability.

I think you can make that argument but realistically, it would go nowhere. It delves into areas the law is not equipped to handle. Trying to determine exactly how aware she was at any point and to convince a jury to convict her seems unlikely. Criminal consequences would probably require her to willingly admit guilt. 

It reminds me of the scene in Luke Cage where he is released from prison and breaks the cuffs off when they go to remove them. He was only there because he chose to be there. To hold Wanda she would have to agree or they would have to torture like she was on the raft. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Guest

[Chicago Redshirt]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

I think you can make that argument but realistically, it would go nowhere. It delves into areas the law is not equipped to handle. Trying to determine exactly how aware she was at any point and to convince a jury to convict her seems unlikely. Criminal consequences would probably require her to willingly admit guilt. 

It reminds me of the scene in Luke Cage where he is released from prison and breaks the cuffs off when they go to remove them. He was only there because he chose to be there. To hold Wanda she would have to agree or they would have to torture like she was on the raft. 

The law would generally be able to handle the inquiry into what Wanda's state of mind is about the same as it does in actual cases, with the available evidence and reasonable people of the jury making inferences from it.

In this particular case, some of the strongest witnesses to Wanda being no some level aware of what was happening early on -- WV Vision, Fietro and Agatha -- would not be available. The WV residents who Agatha woke up would testify that Wanda acted as though it was a surprise to her that they were suffering and wanted to die. They would also testify that they heard her voice in their heads all the while she was suppressing their personalities.

I would imagine that even if she thought that the WV residents were having a blissful time, it would not change that what she did was still kidnapping or some other crime might apply.

 Yes, it would be perhaps difficult to capture Wanda, but it could be done. And I don't know if power suppressing collars count as torture.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The law would generally be able to handle the inquiry into what Wanda's state of mind is about the same as it does in actual cases, with the available evidence and reasonable people of the jury making inferences from it.

Generally, the law and juries suck at handling cases when things aren’t clear cut. 

29 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

In this particular case, some of the strongest witnesses to Wanda being no some level aware of what was happening early on -- WV Vision, Fietro and Agatha -- would not be available. The WV residents who Agatha woke up would testify that Wanda acted as though it was a surprise to her that they were suffering and wanted to die. They would also testify that they heard her voice in their heads all the while she was suppressing their personalities.

The shows audience knows all the details and is completely split.  Clearly you feel Wanda was aware and I completely disagree and feel there was a lot of evidence that she was not aware until the very end. In real life most of the details showing Wanda being in control early on wouldn’t be available to the general public because the show was edited. A good defense attorney could make a very strong case in her favor. 

29 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I would imagine that even if she thought that the WV residents were having a blissful time, it would not change that what she did was still kidnapping or some other crime might apply.

Sure but it’s really a question of if and when she was mentally sane. She was playing house with her dead boyfriend and fake children while living out a sitcom. An insanity defense feels like a slam dunk to me. 

Any legal system would need massive adjustments to handle people with powers and there is nothing to indicate the MCU has made that adjustment. Our legal system hasn’t even successfully updated to handle issues created by technology. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Guest

[Kromm]

11 hours ago, Dani said:

I think you can make that argument but realistically, it would go nowhere. It delves into areas the law is not equipped to handle. Trying to determine exactly how aware she was at any point and to convince a jury to convict her seems unlikely. Criminal consequences would probably require her to willingly admit guilt. 

I don't get this debate at all. Since when do charges like Negligence, or even moreso Reckless Endangerment, require proving awareness of harm done? 

Lets say someone drives down the highway at 120 miles an hour, blissfully unaware the cars behind her are piling up into wrecks because of her. Do you have to prove she knew others were getting hurt?  Aren't the results of reckless use of power (in this case a car that can go that fast) enough? 

 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

I don't get this debate at all. Since when do charges like Negligence, or even moreso Reckless Endangerment, require proving awareness of harm done? 

Lets say someone drives down the highway at 120 miles an hour, blissfully unaware the cars behind her are piling up into wrecks because of her. Do you have to prove she knew others were getting hurt?  Aren't the results of reckless use of power (in this case a car that can go that fast) enough? 

 

Most criminal laws have a state-of-mind requirement.

To simplify, there are very few laws where just the fact of doing it makes it a crime. One example would be DUI. It doesn't matter if someone is actually a very good driver after drinking a case of beer. Driving above a certain blood alcohol means you are guilty.

There are few  criminal laws where mere negligence is enough. 

Most criminal laws require that the person knowingly or intentionally did X. 

So it would be important to establish that Wanda knowingly kept the Westview residents against their will for the purposes of most criminal law. I don't think there is a reasonable debate about that point. She is in apparent disbelief that the Westview residents were suffering. Taking that on face value, though, shows that she knew that they were real people and that she was keeping them from their lives. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Kromm said:

I don't get this debate at all. Since when do charges like Negligence, or even moreso Reckless Endangerment, require proving awareness of harm done? 

Because it’s not a debate about what she is guilty of but whether or not she was legally sane enough to be held responsible. The charges don’t matter if Wanda wasn’t legal sane when she committed the crime. Her awareness is a potential indicator of at what point she could be legally culpable. 

 

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't think there is a reasonable debate about that point. She is in apparent disbelief that the Westview residents were suffering. Taking that on face value, though, shows that she knew that they were real people and that she was keeping them from their lives. 

Clearly there is a debate about that because we are having it. Unless your saying that my (and others) opinion is unreasonable. It’s all just interpretation of what we saw on screen and there is evidence to support both sides. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 minute ago, Dani said:

Clearly there is a debate about that because we are having it. Unless your saying that my (and others) opinion is unreasonable. It’s all just interpretation of what we saw on screen and there is evidence to support both sides. 

The debate we have been having is about whether Wanda knew that people were suffering from her mind control. Reasonable people can say she did know or she should have known. Reasonable people can say that she didn't know. 

The debate over whether Wanda knew that people were suffering from her mind control is a different debate from whether Wanda knew that she was mind controlling people at all. There is no evidence in the show that Wanda had no clue that these were actual people she had been manipulating, as far as I can tell. 

It would still be a crime if the people of Westview were experiencing bliss and happiness while they were being held because they did not consent to it. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The debate we have been having is about whether Wanda knew that people were suffering from her mind control. Reasonable people can say she did know or she should have known. Reasonable people can say that she didn't know. 

The debate over whether Wanda knew that people were suffering from her mind control is a different debate from whether Wanda knew that she was mind controlling people at all. There is no evidence in the show that Wanda had no clue that these were actual people she had been manipulating, as far as I can tell. 

It would still be a crime if the people of Westview were experiencing bliss and happiness while they were being held because they did not consent to it. 

Just to clarify, that’s not the point I have been debating (though I do feel she wasn’t). My point is that would be impossible for Wanda to be held legally reasonable by any justice system because of her powers and her mental break from reality. 

I so agree with your point that the people in Westview are victims.  For me it’s a very weird line with action movies and particularly those involving super heroes. They commit crimes all the time but for the sake of the story (and sometimes for realism) the legal consequences have to be glossed over. These movies and shows often require a certain degree of detachment from viewing many of the people living in that universe as real people. Endgame, in particular, is a nightmare from a average person standpoint. 

[tv echo]

FYI, Paul Bettany and Kat Dennings are part of the voice cast list for Marvel's What If...? animated series...

Here's the link to the What If...? forum here:
https://forums.primetimer.com/forum/4565-what-if/ 

Edited August 2, 2021 by tv echo