Is (REDACTED) redeemable after Doctor Strange 2? (SPOILER ALERT)

[kingaliencracker]

What are you talking about?

Loki's first major villanous act was an attempt at full-on planetary genocide against the Ice Giants ("I will destroy that race of monsters!"). They were at cold war with Asgard, but that's no reason to kill them all.

His second act was to invade New York, kill a lot of people with his bare hands (those SHIELD agents, and that guy with his eyeball gauged out comes to mind) then indirectly, at this command, be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Then there's unknowingly helping Kurse take down Asgard's defenses. That's also going to take his death count a few hundreds up.

None of this had any mitigating circumstances. Loki, willingly and will full cognition, chose to do these horrendous acts. Then had a period of contriteness and sacrificed his life, which made people like him again. Except the current Loki had none of that, so he was just told all these things, and he's just... really sorry?

By comparison, Wanda, who in addition to movies worth of mental torture (Parents dead. Torture by HYDRA. Brother dead. Killed her own husband, meaninglessly. Died. Killed her own husband again, and her own children by turning the magic off), is also hit with the equivalent of magical cocaine.

Wanda, at most, killed dozens of people. Loki killed thousands.

She may not be completely morally blameless, but she's a heck of a lot more redeemable than Loki ever was.

I was very clear that Loki is a good counterargument to my point regarding Wanda, because in most fans' eyes Loki has been redeemed. But again, I think it's what we can visually see and know, versus what we speculate. Yes, Loki wanted to eradicate the Ice Giants but didn't. Loki did kill Coulson but Coulson had a gun he was about to use on Loki. Loki's actions presumably killed thousands in New York but Loki would argue it was a war and Earth was refusing to surrender, and we don't really see these deaths. Additionally, Loki may have done evil things and many people died as a result of his actions. But he wasn't intentionally cruel or violent.

With Wanda, she knowingly used an evil book, became corrupted by it, and then violently attacked and murdered numerous people, sometimes in cruel and unnecessary ways (i.e. Black Bolt). I think a person can look at both set of circumstances (with Loki & Wanda) and see the differences, even if we all agree both of their actions were evil.

[kingaliencracker]

I also want to be clear that I think arguing that Wanda was possessed by the Darkhold is a cop-out.

First, and as pointed out numerous times, Wanda chose to use the Darkhold despite knowing its dangers and seeing what it had done to Agatha. We can get into the nuances of what she thought the book might be capable of versus what it actually was, but regardless she knew the book was evil & dangerous yet still casted spells with it.

Second, we've seen others use the Darkhold (Agatha and Strange specifically) yet still have control of their decisions and actions. The book doesn't act like a demon possessing an individual. All it does from what I can tell is lower ones' inhibitions and moral compass (i.e. like a drug or alcohol).

[Shadowedeyes]

It's still more than what some other characters have had as a mitigating factor, and perhaps not as good as some others. And again, Wandavision doesn't portray the book as corrupting, so Wanda wouldn't have known the specifics of the danger involved. Yes, it's called the Book of the Damned, and is called dangerous, but this is by Agatha, who I might add, is trying to kill and steal Wanda's power at the time. I could see Wanda not necessarily fully trusting the word of the woman who has been trying to manipulate and gaslight her at the time.

As for the comparison to Loki, I don't think we can excuse genocide because the character failed to so so, otherwise we can excuse Wanda because she failed to kill America. Furthermore, Black Bolt was getting ready to hit Wanda with something much worse than Coulson's gun, considering Loki did get hit by it and survived. Considering Black Bolt's power, I'm not sure it was unnecessary from a survival point of view, if we are arguing that. Again, I'm not sure the it was war argument is a good one considering Loki was the one who started said war, but if we are arguing that, why can't we argue that the deaths at Kamar Taj were casualties of war.

I don't believe that Wanda is blameless, but Loki is far worse and has less mitigating factors, so if we buy that he can have a path to redemption, it's hard for me to see why Wanda could not as well.

[Twickster]

I was very clear that Loki is a good counterargument to my point regarding Wanda, because in most fans' eyes Loki has been redeemed. But again, I think it's what we can visually see and know, versus what we speculate. Yes, Loki wanted to eradicate the Ice Giants but didn't. Loki did kill Coulson but Coulson had a gun he was about to use on Loki. Loki's actions presumably killed thousands in New York but Loki would argue it was a war and Earth was refusing to surrender, and we don't really see these deaths. Additionally, Loki may have done evil things and many people died as a result of his actions. But he wasn't intentionally cruel or violent.

With Wanda, she knowingly used an evil book, became corrupted by it, and then violently attacked and murdered numerous people, sometimes in cruel and unnecessary ways (i.e. Black Bolt). I think a person can look at both set of circumstances (with Loki & Wanda) and see the differences, even if we all agree both of their actions were evil.

No, even handwaving away attempted genocide (because he was stopped and all - not even by choice as what Wanda did), there is no speculation involved (the death toll of Loki's rampage in Avengers is defined: 80 for the first few days (Black Widow: "He killed 80 people in two days") and the invasion of New York kills 71 more per MCU word of God, although that seems like an extreme underestimate). Loki, without speculation at all, kills much more than Wanda. Realistically, given that whole buildings were collapsing in New York and that he does things like fire a planet-rending device at a world for an extended period, it really should be in the thousands at least.

The distinction you're trying to make is what we can *see*, which I claim is hollow. What difference does it make that it's not shown to the audience? In-story, people are dead. Just because we don't see them means they don't exist? Kate Bishop's dad died to Loki's attack in Avengers although we never learned about it until a decade later - Loki's culpability here was *hidden* but never mitigated.

On your final point, I agree that we can look at both sets of actions in terms of their circumstances - in this case, all factors, mitigating or otherwise, to me point to Loki being much, much worse than anything Wanda ever did. Wanda feels more raw and emotional, Loki's more detached and on a much larger scale. Not meaning to Godwinize the analogy here, but I'd rate a Nazi cooly and cold bloodedly gassing entire rooms full of people he's never met or even gets to see as higher in the "evil scale" than someone who murders a handful of people in a fit of passion while intoxicated.

[Multiverse]

I say yes, but like Bucky, it needs to be done over a wider span than just 1 movie.

[Twickster]

It's still more than what some other characters have had as a mitigating factor, and perhaps not as good as some others. And again, Wandavision doesn't portray the book as corrupting, so Wanda wouldn't have known the specifics of the danger involved. Yes, it's called the Book of the Damned, and is called dangerous, but this is by Agatha, who I might add, is trying to kill and steal Wanda's power at the time. I could see Wanda not necessarily fully trusting the word of the woman who has been trying to manipulate and gaslight her at the time.

As for the comparison to Loki, I don't think we can excuse genocide because the character failed to so so, otherwise we can excuse Wanda because she failed to kill America. Furthermore, Black Bolt was getting ready to hit Wanda with something much worse than Coulson's gun, considering Loki did get hit by it and survived. Considering Black Bolt's power, I'm not sure it was unnecessary from a survival point of view, if we are arguing that. Again, I'm not sure the it was war argument is a good one considering Loki was the one who started said war, but if we are arguing that, why can't we argue that the deaths at Kamar Taj were casualties of war.

I don't believe that Wanda is blameless, but Loki is far worse and has less mitigating factors, so if we buy that he can have a path to redemption, it's hard for me to see why Wanda could not as well.

Actually, Wanda gave Kamar Taj multiple chances to surrender. To Strange specifically, and then to the people there a day afterwards. Loki never even did this before his attack in New York. So I never got the reasoning why this being a "war" for him would be a mitigating factor to what he did. Again, what Loki did was much, much worse.

[Username taken]

I say yes, but like Bucky, it needs to be done over a wider span than just 1 movie.

Yes.

Wanda can be redeemed.

The story just needs to be told carefully.

[Havok83]

Where was all of this talk about whether Wanda could be redeemed when she loosed the Hulk on a city or enslaved an entire town? How is it that this movie is the breaking point for fans?

people felt this way after WV. There were many debates on this forum about that

[kingaliencracker]

No, even handwaving away attempted genocide (because he was stopped and all - not even by choice as what Wanda did), there is no speculation involved (the death toll of Loki's rampage in Avengers is defined: 80 for the first few days (Black Widow: "He killed 80 people in two days") and the invasion of New York kills 71 more per MCU word of God, although that seems like an extreme underestimate). Loki, without speculation at all, kills much more than Wanda. Realistically, given that whole buildings were collapsing in New York and that he does things like fire a planet-rending device at a world for an extended period, it really should be in the thousands at least.

The distinction you're trying to make is what we can *see*, which I claim is hollow. What difference does it make that it's not shown to the audience? In-story, people are dead. Just because we don't see them means they don't exist? Kate Bishop's dad died to Loki's attack in Avengers although we never learned about it until a decade later - Loki's culpability here was *hidden* but never mitigated.

On your final point, I agree that we can look at both sets of actions in terms of their circumstances - in this case, all factors, mitigating or otherwise, to me point to Loki being much, much worse than anything Wanda ever did. Wanda feels more raw and emotional, Loki's more detached and on a much larger scale. Not meaning to Godwinize the analogy here, but I'd rate a Nazi cooly and cold bloodedly gassing entire rooms full of people he's never met or even gets to see as higher in the "evil scale" than someone who murders a handful of people in a fit of passion while intoxicated.

Going down this path, since you brought up Germany and WWII, do you believe the United States was just in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? It ended WWII and in the long run saved untold lives.

Loki's actions did cost more lives, but again he essentially declared war on Earth. The actions taken by opposing sides during a war are almost always judged historically by the victors. It's hard for me to compare that to what Wanda did and has done even from a numbers perspective as you're trying to do. It's like taking the actions of a military sniper and comparing it to that of a serial killer.

Intentionally or not, I think you're really just making the argument that Loki isn't redeemable either. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I think from a fans' perspective though, the reason why they're more forgiving of Loki than I believe they will Wanda is because Loki is a much more established and likeable MCU character, is played by a better actor (no offense to EO because she's good too but I'm just giving my two cents), and has had a much better story arc in the MCU. And yes, I think because we didn't necessarily see Loki slaughtering people the way Wanda was shown, it does skew perspective.

[GenericUsername]

Again, she willingly used the Darkhold knowing its dangers.

And so did others. Agatha murdered her coven, and Sparky. Alt Strange took out an entire universe.

I'm not really sure why people expect Marvel heroes to be perfect, goody-two shoes. When they've always been written with flaws. Being flawless has never been a standard for being a hero.

And they love making heroes villains and villains into heroes.

With how many times they've had Loki, Doom and Magneto go back and forth, it should never even be a question about if they can redeem Wanda.

[kingaliencracker]

And so did others. Agatha murdered her coven, and Sparky. Alt Strange took out an entire universe.

I'm not really sure why people expect Marvel heroes to be perfect, goody-two shoes. When they've always been written with flaws. Being flawless has never been a standard for being a hero.

And they love making heroes villains and villains into heroes.

With how many times they've had Loki, Doom and Magneto go back and forth, it should never even be a question about if they can redeem Wanda.

My issue isn't that Wanda is flawed. My issue is explaining away her actions as being possessed somehow by the Darkhold, when it's clearly shown that 1) Wanda willingly chose to use the Darkhold despite the dangers; and 2) the Darkhold isn't shown to work in such a way.

[GenericUsername]

My issue isn't that Wanda is flawed. My issue is explaining away her actions as being possessed somehow by the Darkhold, when it's clearly shown that 1) Wanda willingly chose to use the Darkhold despite the dangers; and 2) the Darkhold isn't shown to work in such a way.

It absolutely is because it shows both Agatha and alt Strange corrupted by it.

It's also hilarious to me how people assume Hulk killed people when Wanda mind controlled him. Which damns her but now it's we've seen Wanda brutally murder and the others weren't seen nor as brutal.

Let's be honest here. Even if it were kept vague like the others or no deaths happened, this conversation would still be happening. Because it did before.

[Havok83]

It absolutely is because it shows both Agatha and alt Strange corrupted by it.

It's also hilarious to me how people assume Hulk killed people when Wanda mind controlled him. Which damns her but now it's we've seen Wanda brutally murder and the others weren't seen nor as brutal.

Let's be honest here. Even if it were kept vague like the others or no deaths happened, this conversation would still be happening. Because it did before.

Of course it would bc Wanda's motives were selfish. She didnt care about damning the multiverse, as long as she got what she wanted. Every life she killed was expendable to achieve her goal. Even if they didnt show her killing anyone, the stuff she was willing to do paint her in a bad light. Plus this is coming off of WV where she already should have been in probation mode and on the path of redemption

[kingaliencracker]

It absolutely is because it shows both Agatha and alt Strange corrupted by it.

It's also hilarious to me how people assume Hulk killed people when Wanda mind controlled him. Which damns her but now it's we've seen Wanda brutally murder and the others weren't seen nor as brutal.

Let's be honest here. Even if it were kept vague like the others or no deaths happened, this conversation would still be happening. Because it did before.

There's a difference between being corrupted by something and being possessed by something. Life experiences can corrupt you. It doesn't take an evil book to do it. And even with that corruption with Agatha and the alternate Stranges, the individual still has a considerable measure of control and decision making.

My point is, Wanda knew the dangers and evilness of the Darkhold but still chose not only to keep it but to use it. Therefore, any corruption that occurred is still entirely her fault. It goes back to my drunk driving analogy.

[GenericUsername]

Of course it would bc Wanda's motives were selfish. She didnt care about damning the multiverse, as long as she got what she wanted. Every life she killed was expendable to achieve her goal. Even if they didnt show her killing anyone, the stuff she was willing to do paint her in a bad light. Plus this is coming off of WV where she already should have been in probation mode and on the path of redemption

Agatha's motives were also selfish. Her motivation is getting more power.

Again, Marvel does this a lot with both heroes and villains. I doubt Wanda will even be the last hero given a villain turn in the MCU. They loved that trope in comics. They likely will in the movies too.