Possibly, but if he was deliberately provoking her, I think he would have been standing well back when she came through the Hex field hauling the disabled drone behind her. Like, “in a hardened bunker half a mile away” back.
I think he thought that both the armed drone, and the platoon of soldiers, were potentially effective against her. Which is objectively dumb.
If that is objectively dumb, then Monica, Jimmy Woo, Darcy are also objectively dumb. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember any of them arguing that the drone strike was wrong because it was a dumb idea that couldn’t possibly kill Wanda, they argued it was wrong because they didn’t know if killing Wanda would actually resolve the problem.
I also think that y’all are assuming way too much about Hayward’s detailed knowledge of events that we in the audience have witnessed. But beyond that, Wanda has enormous power, but as far as we know, she’s still human. A surprise strike that she’s not prepared for seems like it should be able to kill her, so the drone strike doesn’t seem objectively dumb to me. And the platoon of soldiers…well, that’s what he had, and they were obviously acting on routine SOP. And note that Hayward didn’t order them to open fire - at that point, he pretty clearly seemed to realize that conventional force wasn’t likely to work.
Okay, subjectively dumb. My apologies if I came off as dismissive of anyone’s theories - I wasn’t trying to put anyone down except the douche who works for SWORD.
He’s still dealing with a being who can alter reality on a whim, and he has absolutely no idea of the upper limits of her power. He’s recently lived through several events where similar beings very nearly exterminated life on Earth, at least one of which was partly powered by the same thing that’s powering Wanda. It’s not impossible that her reaction to someone trying to kill her would be to simply snuff out all life outside her bubble.
He’s right to regard her as a bomb. And the first rule about bombs is, don’t shoot at bombs.
Well, probably not the first rule. “Don’t smoke around bombs” is probably a lot higher on the list, just because it’s more likely to happen. But I’m pretty sure, “Don’t shoot at bombs” is on there somewhere.
There’s supposed to be a Mandalorian-level cameo. What if her actual older twin sisters made an appearance?
Hayward was the one who took time to think about the missile idea - Darcy, Woo and Monica had no idea the drone was armed until moments before it was fired (fired, I might add, at Wanda’s whole family, including children), so their impulsive statements about why it’s a bad idea to shoot at Wanda can’t be directly compared to Hayward’s considered decision to fire a missile at a demigod in the middle of civilians
You know, I only found out like two weeks ago that she wasn’t one of her older twin sisters?
I didn’t realize there were three Olsons. I thought she was one of the kids on Full House.
Didn’t Woo know that Wanda took on Thanos alone and nearly won? If a regular FBI agent knew the details, I assume the director of SWORD would too.
Oh, no worries. I didn’t think you came across as dismissive at all. I apologize if I came across as prickly or defensive - I certainly didn’t mean to. From my end, we’re having a spirited but entirely civil disagreement.
I’ll admit, I’ve got a built-in bias. I’m a veteran, and my service and my pre-existing attitudes were mutually reinforcing. I tend to default to respect for teamwork, chain of command, lawful authority, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the person on the scene making command decisions. The elements of genre fiction that glorify the “maverick” who bucks authority tend to rub me the wrong way.
I don’t think Monica’s crew are wrong, exactly (well, beating federal agents unconscious was wrong), I just don’t think Hayward is, either, really. It’s a difficult situation. I also think it’s a lot more narratively interesting in a conflict like this if neither side is objectively or clearly right.
That was actually a big problem for me with the Civil War plotline, especially as it was originally presented in the comics. Tony just seemed to me to be clearly on the right side. But that’s a whole 'nother thread…
I sympathize with your bias but I apply it to Hayward too - he has a chain of command too, and before he makes a decision like this one (use of weapons of war for a criminal matter inside the borders to the United States), he should probably be checking in with higher authority.
Yeah, I think he did say something to that effect, now that you mention it. Fair point. It still doesn’t seem objectively dumb to me to try a surprise attack. And we don’t actually know what the drone tried to fire. It could have been a hellfire missile, ala a real world drone, but the in the MCU, the SSR/SHIELD/Project PEGASUS has been studying the Tesseract and various beyond-bleeding-edge weapons systems since World War II. And SWORD itself is the “Sentient Weapon Observation Response Division.” They might well have a weapon they consider a godkiller.
…okay I’ve flipped theories again 
If we expand Ebert’s law to include the entire MCU then Ultron is the obvious, and really only option for the Big Bad. Anybody else would need an introduction, and would probably fall a bit flat. But Wanda and Ultron have history. And makes a whole lot of sense.
Okay. How about this: SWORD were trying to use Vison’s body to bring Ultron back. Wanda found out so she stole Vision’s body and hid in a small town. Ultron tried to assert himself so Wanda created the Hex to contain him, inadvertently and inexplicably creating the sitcom universe. So Wanda is keeping everyone alive, when Vision tried to escape she expanded the hex not to save Vision but to contain Ultron. Who would have been revealed under the Vision skin if he had continued to exist outside of the Hex world.
Thats my story and I’m sticking with it
One of the problems with extended universes is, after seeing the same events fold out in the same way over and over, shouldn’t they start developing more genre awareness? Is it fair to criticize the general at this point for not recognizing that he’s a stodgy guy in a uniform, and she’s a cute girl in a whimsical hat, and that alone probably means she’s right?
We don’t actually know one way or the other if he has. He might be under standing orders from above to take out the threat at the first available opportunity.
On the other hand, now that you mention it, IIRC, Monica and Jimmy Woo did say something to the effect that Hayward was exceeding his authority. If so, that seems to me like a perfectly reasonable objection to his actions.
As I recall, the twins were billed as “Mary Kate Ashley Olsen” on Full House as if there was only one kid in the role, so I didn’t realize they were actually twins.
Because all child actors under a certain age can only work for a few hours at a time, they frequently will cast twins so they can swap them in and out to extend their hours on-screen. Mary-Kate and Ashley are a unique pair as they remained in the role from six months through to 8 years old, whereas other shows tend to age kids up, regularly recasting as they grow out of the cute phase.
And Mary Kate and Ashley are unusual in another regard: they’re not identical twins. Usually, with fraternal twins, they start developing their own “look” earlier than the Olsons did. That they both could play the same character for that long is not the norm.
My current hypothesis falls between the extremes of “Wanda is totally in control and is therefore the ultimate villain” and “there is a Big Bad who is controlling everything and Wanda is therefore a victim like everyone else.”
I believe that Wanda is in control of the simulation/fantasy, it’s her magic that is manufacturing the bubble, but that she has been misled and manipulated into doing so. It’s her power, but it’s being deployed under the influence of the (as yet unrevealed) ultimate villain.
This creates a much more nuanced, shades-of-gray situation, compared to the either-or absolutes of “she is using her powers purely selfishly and destructively and cannot be redeemed” versus “she has no agency in this at all.” When she’s genuinely confronted with the reality of what’s happening, the torment being visited on this town, she will be horrified and penitent, and will need to turn on whatever is manipulating her. But she will also need to atone, in some way, because she does bear some responsibility.
We know from sneak peeks that Wanda will be involved in the upcoming Dr Strange movie. I strongly suspect that Strange will appear near the end of this series, either to offer assistance with this obviously mystical trans-dimensional threat (“Why didn’t you contact me sooner?”) or to help clean up the mess afterward. He will offer Wanda sanctuary and tutelage, and that’s where she’ll be in his movie. (Which offers a nifty correlation between the trajectory of his story and comics precedent. At the end of the first Strange movie, Mordo says, “Too many sorcerors,” pointing to his future path. At the end of the House of M comic, Wanda says, essentially, “Too many mutants,” and forcefully cancels the powers of huge numbers of them. One wonders if her arc in the Strange movie will reflect this, as she decides whether or not she agrees with Mordo.)
Oh, and on that point, I would bet a substantial amount of money that the villain reveal will not be Ultron. We’ve already done that, and it would be a repeat. Yes, recurring villains are a thing in the comics, but Marvel’s strategy for on-screen stories has been to expand its canvas and its roster. It’s true that a reveal of Nightmare or Blackheart or Mephisto or somebody would require some introduction, but we already have a built-in model for that, with the appearance of Strange. All he has to do is reference Dormammu, and say something like “there are many such beings in the multiverse, and some of them are worse,” and we’re primed to understand what we’re getting into.
(Sorry, coming to this late)
I think this is a fun idea, and if it’s probably not true, it’s still dealing with one of the big mysteries of the show, which is how come Vision is gradually asserting his personality?
There’s definitely an evolution there from Ep1 Vision who wouldn’t do something as simple (to him) as phase some food out of a dying man’s windpipe without instruction, and Ep6 Vision who lies to Wanda and tries to leave Westview.
That’s not the only evolution on the show. Westview is evolving. This is one of those things that’s so obviously true that it wasn’t until the gum discussion that I started thinking about what it means.
Ep1 Westview - two sets, black and white, hackneyed plot, stilted acting. And a Vision who knows he can’t remember anything before yesterday but doesn’t really care and is solely motivated by keeping Wanda happy. Question: if Westview is all Wanda’s, why do they have to hide their powers? Why is it a normal non-super life she’s building?
As Westview gets more detailed and evolved, Vision becomes more questioning about reality. Wanda at first controls this with rewinds but then finds her control slipping (e.g. when she runs the credits over Vision’s angry questioning and is then surprised when he keeps the argument going. Increasing realism as it applies to Vision brings back more of his character - he can’t ignore that something doesn’t makes sense, and he can’t turn a blind eye to suffering.
If Wanda is sole creator of Westview then it feels like her early attempt at a cosy world is getting away from her - her need for greater reality to make the illusion more convincing comes with loss of control as even a realistic simulation has to have elements that are not ideal - it can’t all be the wish fulfillment fantasy she started out with. With Vision, this will lead to the question of what’s the difference between the original and a perfect simulation?
That’s my current thinking, as well.