#it's Waldron we're talking about

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

Further frustrating about Wanda's villain turn is that Michael Waldron originally had written a draft where Wanda was part of the heroes' team and slowly turned bad over the course of the movie due to the Darkhold's corruption, then decided against showing that journey because, in his exact words, "that would be leaving the fun for somebody else". 😠😤 Or the twist was to be revealed later on instead of in her first scene (based on a script leak of the scene used to audition America Chavez; which is essentially the pizza restaurant scene but with Wanda instead of Wong).

Then, like with Loki, they put all this effort into a whole misleading promotional campaign which was borderline false advertising. You had the producers of the movie saying "it's a classic Marvel team up movie", which isn't the case. This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't then have Wanda be completely evil from the very first scene she's in due to relegating her corruption to happening offscreen. 😬 Because here's the thing, in a "hero to villain" story, I honestly think the journey's more interesting than the destination (that's why Jimmy McGill's transformation into Saul Goodman is so fascinating, or Mike Ehrmantraut's transformation from parking lot attendant into hardened killer; or Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader).

Hard agree. It would have worked so much better if Wanda had started off as an ally then the book slowly corrupted her on-screen and in the end after she's gone full dark not only Stephen but Wong and America want to stop her and help her out because they knew her before and they know she's not evil.

It would work much better then because in MoM we see America opening up that portal so that Wanda can see her kids but why would America even care? She doesn't know her and the only scenes she has with her it's Wanda trying to kill her.

Honestly it's writing 101, you make it personal for the characters so that their conflicts hit harder and the audience is involved in their relationships.

[littlefankingdom]

I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy, unless of course, we're talking about my ENEMY, Micheal Waldron.

Fuck you, Michael Waldron, you know what you did.

[sstabhmontown]

I went on this podcast a few weeks back to talk about Craig VanGrasstek's Rules to the Game of DUNGEON.

[cocomoraine]

And kids, that's why you don't hire ✨white men✨, to write shows they don't understand.

[aelaer]

If we're thinking the same comment, I think what Stephen said to Mordo was just him baiting Mordo into action, bc otherwise Mordo would just wait for the others to return until Scarlet Witch got away with America. So it may have a little truth and largely exaggerated, it may be totally a lie, or it may be wholly true, but the point is for Stephen that Mordo attacked him.

(also like your brother I loved Wandavision and I'm very disappointed with the lack of Wanda redemption; not only did they ignore her character growth in the show, they effectively regressed it. Understandable with what she's done, consulting the Darkhold like that, but still a very disappointing creative choice.)

Stephen said to America, right before they talked to alternate Mordo, that Mordo tried to kill him. That is definitely something we haven't seen on screen and that it wasn't even mentioned in passing beforehand like, before Christine's wedding about their efforts against Mordo really sucks. It'd have been better if we could have seen it, of course, but they needed to open the multiverse and everything.

It's possible Stephen was trying to bait him, but because we didn't see the scene that Mordo tried to kill Stephen, we as the audience just have no idea what happened in that scene and if Stephen's just trying to rile him up or if it actually happened. That lack of knowledge is incredibly annoying to me.

Re: Wanda The writers 100% ignored Wanda's growth in the show. It's a bit like, what was the point of the show if you were planning to do that the entire time? I see why a lot of her fans are upset.

Honestly, the writer of the script (Michael Waldron) should just stay away from magical characters, period. (He was also the writer of Loki, and I was not fond of how that played out over time.) I hope Robert Cargill and Scott Derrickson return for the third Strange film and get it more back on Stephen (and Nightmare. Please. Nightmare).

As for Wanda, I have no idea how they're going to redeem her after the events of this film. There really is no redemption, which is part of the problem. It's like they're going to have to start fresh with another version of Wanda (maybe the one we saw, I dunno). They seem to be preparing for a merging of worlds in some way, so maybe some characters such as mutants will cross over into the normal MCU earth or something. I honestly don't know at this point.

In the meantime, there's plenty of fanfic.

[inwantofamuse]

I love Loki Laufeyson more than vanilla ice cream mixed with crushed plain potato chips (it's delicious, you must try it, just don't let the chips get mushy before you eat it), but this is Loki we're talking about.

Not Greg Brady. Not Barney Fife. Loki is not some sweet, little, harmless, innocent bean.

Loki has been harmed, but Loki has also CAUSED harm. On purpose. In some cases, to people who have never harmed him. And never showed an ounce of remorse over some of it. Much less apologized to the people who were hurt.

Here's the main reason I'm good with Loki and Mobius being good with each other and Mobius not genuflecting and wearing a sackcloth and ashes until Loki forgives him for any of Mobius's supposed wrongs:

Because they see each other. Mobius sees Loki as a being who does not have to "be" any certain way, to be appreciated, to be worthy of love, friendship, and affection. And Mobius is the only other person besides Frigga, to do that. Loki sees this human and looks beyond the surface. Loki sees an intelligent being with a heart, who knows who Loki is and voluntarily LIKES Loki. Who believes Loki can be anyone Loki wants to be. As Michael Waldron put it " they are almost opposites, but you understand why these two are friends".

Loki knows that when Mobius utters those words in the time theater, that it is Mobius's way of apologizing. And if it's enough for Loki, why shouldn't it be enough for me ?

It's more than literally *anyone* else has ever extended to Loki. And while it's not perfect, Loki's response to Mobius being hurt is a blunt " down here in the real world we use each other to get what we want". Without an ounce of regret.

So, yeah. I don't feel the need to "keep score" with this relationship. They've hurt each other,, they've helped each other. They both are who they are, and this pairing is really the only reason for me that the series didn't suck. It's not perfect, but pffft.

Perfect is boring.

[wandaposting]

the fact that marvel spent post match analysis of WV patting themselves on the back about how Wanda was gaining agency and moving on from her grief THE WHOLE TIME knowing that they were about to Daenerys her in MoM because bitches be crazy 🤮

"We had access to the scripts and then to cuts [of WandaVision]," Waldron said. "I became good friends with Jac Schaeffer, head writer of WandaVision, while I was writing Loki. Her and I became good pals, because we were kind of in it together and everything. She's great and brilliant and just somebody I really admired. It was nice to know somebody that we could commiserate together over our crazy jobs."

"I had the benefit of just being able to call Jac and talk to her about Wanda's character and everything, because it was really important to me that I do right by her with what she did with Wanda as a character," the writer continued. "And also, with Lizzie [Olsen], who's a friend of mine. I really worked with her and made sure, 'Okay, you guys just did this incredibly intimate show about this character that grew her so much. Let's make sure that we're doing that justice and telling a fulfilling next chapter of that story.'"

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[twh-news]

We're just a matter of weeks away from Loki, the latest Marvel Studios original series to make its debut exclusively on Disney+. The live-action adventure will follow the ongoing escapades of Tom Hiddleston's take on the God of Mischief, a role he has been playing for a decade since the first Thor film. It's safe to say that Hiddleston has made the character of Loki his own — and apparently, that extends to behind the scenes of the series as well. In a new press release from Marvel, Hiddleston is credited as an executive producer on Loki, alongside fellow executive producers Louis D'Esposito, Victoria Alonso, Stephen Broussard, Kate Herron, Michael Waldron, and Kevin Feige, with Kevin R. Wright and Trevor Waterson serving as co-executive producers. This will be Hiddleston's second time serving as an executive producer on a project, following the 2016 miniseries The Night Manager.

In Marvel Studios’ Loki, the mercurial villain Loki (Tom Hiddleston) resumes his role as the God of Mischief in a new series that takes place after the events of Avengers: Endgame. Kate Herron directs and Michael Waldron is head writer, with a cast that also includes Owen Wilson as Mobius M. Mobius and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Ravonna Renslayer.

"I want to preserve the freshness of the show for when it emerges, but something to think about is the [show's] logo, which seems to refresh and restore," Hiddleston explained in a recent interview with Empire. "The font of how 'Loki' is spelled out seems to keep changing shape. Loki is the quintessential shapeshifter. His mercurial nature is that you don't know whether, across the MCU, he's a hero or a villain or an anti-hero. You don't know whether you can trust him. He literally and physically changes shape into an Asgardian guard, or into Captain America repeatedly. Thor talks about how he could change into a snake.

"I think that shapeshifting logo might give you an idea that Loki, the show, is about identity, and about integrating the disparate fragments of the many selves that he can be, and perhaps the many selves that we are. I thought it was very exciting because I've always found Loki a very complex construct. Who is this character who can wear so many masks, and changes shape, and seems to change his external feeling on a sixpence?"

[lokiondisneyplus]

Loki, Disney+'s third Marvel TV show, has a diverse list of influences.

Spanning six episodes, the timey-wimey drama follows Tom Hiddleston's titular God of Mischief after he escaped with the Tesseract during the time heist in Avengers: Endgame. Unfortunately, his time on the run comes to an end when the Time Variance Authority — a bureaucratic organization tasked with safeguarding the proper flow of time — apprehends him because they need his help fixing all of the problems in the timeline he created. While the creative team can't share when and where Loki's new job will take him, they were willing to share some of the pop culture that inspired the look and tone of the series.

"I would describe it as big sci-fi with heart," director Kate Herron tells EW, pointing Jurassic Park as the platonic idea of that tone. "They're in these amazing sci-fi worlds, but Jurassic Park, for me at least, is about a guy working, 'Can I be a dad? How do I feel about kids?' I think that is very relatable. So I think for us with Loki, I think the thing I brought to it is that i'm very character-focused and I'm always trying to give the audience an understanding of, how does these characters feel in these big huge universes?"

For a show about Loki, that meant grounding the show's high-concept in the Asgardian's struggles with identity. To that end, head writer Michael Waldron looked to AMC's Mad Men as an example of how to tell rich character study.

"We're going to get to invest six episodes worth of time and get to tell maybe a more complex, layered character-driven story than you'd get to do in a big blockbuster where you've got so many characters to service in just a two-hour runtime," says Waldron. "That Mad Men influence as much philosophical and it was aesthetic."

With the TVA, Loki dives into a new corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. When Herron went in to pitch for the show, she focused on that aspect and drew on some personal experience when she presented to the Powers That Be at Marvel.

"I actually spent a lot of my life working in admin offices as a temp, so I had a lot of personal experience in bureaucratic organizations to bring," she says with a laugh. "I was like, 'These are the detail we need to capture,' being someone who has worked in offices. And also, I love sci-fi, and I wanted to make the show just a big love letter to sci-fi and all the stuff that's inspired me to be a filmmaker."

Recalling Herron's pitch, Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige adds: "She spent a lot of time talking about noir in her initial pitch with us and looking at Mobius, [Owen Wilson's TVA analyst], as a bit of a hard-boiled detective in a nonplussed way. Bringing that vibe to the look of the show, to the bureaucratic procedure of the show is very unique." To capture that feeling, the creative looked to Ridley Scott's 1982 classic Blade Runner, because "it was just a noir-ish, sci-fi, crime thriller," says Waldron.

Of course, the writers room also looked to the Marvel canon to inspire their approach to the TVA. "We drew inspiration from a wide breadth of ideas as the TVA shows up all throughout [Marvel]. There's Fantastic Four runs, where they're running around, and they're in She-Hulk in a cool way," says Waldron. "All of those stories were inspiration in just saying like, 'Alright, what is this crazy organization? And how can we now make them real in a way that you could actually shoot a TV show about them?'"

Finally, Herron also lists Terry Gilliam's Brazil and, curiously, The Teletubbies as some of her visual references, too. How does that last one play into the show? Says Herron, "You're gonna have to wait until [the show premieres]."

Loki premieres June 9 on Disney+.

[iamnmbr3]

I was holding out some hope that Mobius would turn out to be the real villain of the series, hiding behind a folksy demeanor to disguise his real malice (banality of evil and all that). But the way Waldron talks up Mobius in that interview has me thinking that's not the case (or at least not intentionally). I'm very worried we're gonna get 6 hours of Loki being captured, brutalized, belittled, stripped of his identity, and enslaved and told it's "for his own good." Oh god no. :(

Yeah! The head writer seems to speak more positively about him than he does about Loki who he calls “proper and pompous” and an “ass” none of which are complimentary or reflective of Loki’s actual character and flaws so it comes off as him disliking the character, rather than just having a good understanding of his flaws. Ironically “proper, pompous, ass” is a great descriptor for Mobius. Maybe he got confused lol. Tom, Kate Herron (the director) and even Kevin Feige have given interviews where they demonstrated an understanding of the complex and nuanced and multifaceted nature of Loki’s character and backstory. It’s kind of baffling that the head writer couldn’t do the same. Hopefully the 3 of them are more involved in the reshoots than the head writer is. 

Of course. The show isn’t out yet. Still holding out hope that Mobius is either gonna turn out to be a villain or be framed as a villain initially who then learns from Loki and gets redeemed by his interactions with him. I mean. Loki represents chaos. But chaos can also mean freedom. Especially given that the TVA’s brutal brand of order imposed through violence and threat is just authoritarianism. Maybe Loki will teach Mobius to see that. 

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

Something that bothers me so much in MoM is how nobady sat down to watch the first doctor strange movie and wandavision, like how Waldron and Raimi didn't worried to do so. Wanda is such a complex character and she was written so poorly, not her but Strange was also very out of character IMO. I honestly don't mind Wanda being the villain but like... make a villain backstory! Show how the Darkhold corrupted her, how that works, how it messed with her head, not simply mention it once during a two hours movie. The first concept of the movie was so much better, slowly introduce her as a villain than just throw it at the public - a public that mostly is not interested in understanding her character - without a single care

Waldron said he had seen DS1 several times before writing MoM and, if we're being merciful, we better call him a liar and assume he didn't because if he did... then he didn't understand a damn thing in that movie.

Stephen "holding the knife" is not something he enjoys, it's a huge sacrifice for him. Christine did love him, and she still does, and she understood him just fine so her words post-wedding are bullshit. He was over her in DS1 and he would have never linked his happiness to a girlfriend because his pain comes from losing Donna, not being single. His loneliness + insecurities + guilt they all originated in the same place, it's all far more complex.

With Wanda, the problem is neither Waldron nor Raimi watched WandaVision - they admitted as much publicly - so of course she was ooc. But even then, if they wanted to ignore WV they should have written a good villain! I can't really blame the audience for not caring about her, if her own writer/director don't give a damn, why should we?

In fact, an ooc Wanda could have gone well IF they had worked on the Darkhold and its lore + we as the audience were aware there was something off about her (because we know her) but Stephen and Wong didn't (because they don't) and the story followed that path: us watching them slowly figure out what's wrong with her then helping her. Except this requires showing her corruption on-screen and her fighting against it!

Stephen has a few good moments (his first scene with Wanda in the garden is chef's kiss) but I'm convinced those were thanks to Benedict. I don't know if I'd say he was ooc in the film but there are certain moments where I think he would have acted differently and he should have been allowed to talk back to the people defining him (especially Nic).

[emptymasks]

I wish people would stop leaping on Tom for the fact that he's cis and start leaping on Marvel for the fact that they and Disney literally do fuck all for actual representation, drag their heels and then try to claim brownie points on the bare ass minimum.

Like when they were like 'oh we have an explicitly canon gay character for the first time in Endgame' and it was literally that one dude in Steve's support group who, for exactly 6 seconds, spoke about his boyfriend and then we never saw him again.

Tom being cis wouldn't be an issue if they were actually providing the representation they claim to be. Its an actors job to be able to portray and display characteristics and qualities. Their acting should amaze us with the fact that they're not X quality.

Marvel and Disney are the issue

Sorry have I put any blame on Tom? Don't think I have. I have in fact said you can't say in this particular case it's bad he's a cis actor playing a genderfluid character because the character was made genderfluid movies after Tom was already playing Loki.

Disney and Marvel at the top are who are to blame overall yes, for the big representation issues. For example, not allowing them to show any more or better representation of bisexuality or genderfluidity.

However.

The things they chose to include instead are the responsibility of Michael Waldron (writer), Kate Heron (director) and I would say in part Tom Hiddleston as he was the executive producer and got a lot of say on what was included in the show. Just because I like Tom, just because we like Tom, doesn't mean we get to say he had nothing to do with anything and can't have made any mistakes.

The lines of dialogue that are fluidphobic in the show were unnecessary to include and they could have easily just not included those lines. That has nothing to do with what Disney would have and wouldn't have allowed. Disney wouldn't have allowed a better line yes, however they could have just not included the line at all. The Loki creative team made the decision to keep those lines in, and to write those lines in the first place.

Do I think it is okay to send abuse to Tom and the Loki creative team? No. Do I think they weren't allowed to do better representation because Disney wouldn't have allowed it? Yes. Do I think the answer then was to do bad and offensive representation instead of no representation? No.

If we criticise Michael and Kate then we have to criticise Tom too, he doesn't get a free pass because we think he's nice and pretty. Does this make Tom or the rest of the team evil? No. It just means they don't know anything about real genderfluid people and didn't do any research or talk to any real genderfluid people when writing the show.

I understand the point of 'oh but Disney wouldn't' have allowed anything better' because that is true, however Disney didn't force them to write actively fluidphobic and transphobic words. The Loki team could have chosen to not to write those things. Mickey Mouse didn't make them write those lines. And those lines weren't necessary to the story.

I'm just tired and I'd really love someone from the team to address the concerns of genderfluid fans. But they won't, because I doubt they've even heard us because we're so drowned out, and people are more likely to notice homophobia and transphobia than fluidphobia because they don't know what fluidphobia looks like, and sadly there's a lot of the LGBT+ community that doesn't think genderfluid is a real identity.

[discoscoob]

Follow valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn

This is Waldron about Sylvie: So let me get this straight: Sylvie is a hero (uh what?!!) in opposition to Loki who has spent his life being selfish. And not only that but Sylvie is not selfish, she's on a "crusade for good and liberation". I'm sorry but I feel like my brain is going to explode. How the hell is Sylvie's mission not 10000000000000000% selfish and sure as hell not for good?! She doesn't give a damn about what HWR has to say, she doesn't give a damn about the timelines and the multiverse, she doesn't give a damn about the state the people she enchants end up in, she doesn't give a damn about the TVA agents she kills (even though she has the guts to tell B-15 "we're the same" at some point). Her whole 'crusade' as he calls it is entirely selfish!! She wants to destroy them because they took her as a child, she doesn't think about "what happens next", she doesn't think about what the state the multiverse will be in after she kills HWR. You know who cares? Loki! He tries to speak and reason with her and yet she's the one who won't listen to him. You know who's selfish there? Sylvie. You know who isn't? Loki! And yet, and yet!, you call her a hero. This is insane. PS. Not to imply that killing HWR was the wrong thing to do, I sure as hell want the TVA to be destroyed. But the fact that a writer is so keen to convince us that Sylvie was acting for the good of others and she was being heroic is laughable. She was 100% selfish and she did it for herself.

i get this person points but i got feeling MW was talking regards before the finale but yeah Loki has sacrificed himself for Thor twice and died saving the universe but his selfish? Sylvie scoffs when Loki mentions about saving the world. but some how she the hero and Loki is the selfish one, Sylvie main agenda is not being a hero at the moment, it about revenge. Loki begs her to think about the bigger picture and the risks about how it affect the world but she ignores that because ultimately she only cares about herself/her revenge but loki is the selfish one and she is the hero is like how she doesn't care about saving the world she even said i not go that far when loki talks about saving the world. but maybe in Sylvie eyes she thought of herself as the hero who was going to take down the tva but ultimately she cared more about her revenge more than how it affect the universe and was doing it for the wrong reasons and sure Loki has been selfish but doesn't mean his not done heroic things either.

I interpreted what MW said as he was talking about how they are seen up until the final episode and then it is spun on its head and we see that maybe Sylvie isn’t so much of a hero after all and actually Loki is the one who has developed beyond a need for vengeance and can take into consideration other lives beyond his own, even ones who aren’t close to him, even when he won’t have personal gain, even when he has to sacrifice vengeance and let someone who hurt him get away with it.

I don’t think MW is saying that this is how it was throughout all the way up to the final, he is like this is how it seemed and this is how the final changed that and revealed these characters aren’t how we originally thought they were. Because Loki is more developed than Sylvie and her journey isn’t a heroic one about restoring free will and saving the universe after all.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

I'd honestly prefer Sylvie to be more on the unstable side. As she is in the show, she doesn't make sense. We're told that she grew up - raised herself - in apocalypses, was constantly on the run and watching her back, and had no friends or family. But no one comes out of a situation like that mostly okay, just kinda sad and wanting revenge, then getting a job at McDonald's. It would be insanely traumatizing and the show does an incredibly poor job of showing that.

I couldn't agree more, they tell us she's traumatized but we never get to see that trauma.

It's like they want her to have a sad backstory because they think that's what makes a character interesting and complex, but since her whole deal is to be "superior to Loki" and a "badass" that means she can't show any vulnerability or weakness - and they're so foolish that they think a traumatized character is weak.

When she returns to the TVA she should be nervous and afraid. When she sees Renslayer again she should have a panic attack. When she's talking about Asgard she should have tears in her eyes or she should get mad for no reason. We should see a lot of emotional responses and like you say a whole lot of instability because she was never raised in a stable home and her whole life was spent around people destined to die. That is one hell of a backstory!!

Psychologically and emotionally that has to mess with you in so many ways and yet she seems to be the same in all episodes. She is sassy to B-15, she's all smug in her room right after being arrested, she speaks to Renslayer like it's no big deal, her entire characterization is mean and cold except for two very, very short scenes... It sucks because she has a lot of potential, she could have been such a fantastic character.... ugh Waldron 🤦‍♀️

If anything I'd say the only moment she acts like she should is in ep6 with HWR. She attacks and attacks and attacks even though he dodges her every time.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

Why people who rightfully hate Sylvie are fans of Wanda? She is also an abuser who faced zero consequences for her actions because she is a woman.

Wanda is an abuser? Look, I'm going to assume this ask is in good faith because if I don't...

I've answered a bunch of asks (this is one of many) about her and Westview but in short, yes, what she did there was wrong and I have never said otherwise. There's also a context and a reason why it all happened and while it doesn't excuse nor justify her, it explains her. No, she's not abuser and for the love of everything stop calling people who you think are evil or somewhat villainous "abusers", that word means something and yes it's a big deal and no it's not a synonym for "bad guy/girl".

But to claim she never faced any consequences... wow. What is this then?

Straight jacket + collar for 1) refusing to sign Accords that removed her and other people's civil rights, 2) fighting a battle started by Stark after he had chosen to ignore what Steve was telling him.

This isn't for Lagos (a place where she saved the lives of countless people on the street, not to mention Steve's, but the media and Ross chose to ignore that and focused on the people killed by... her? nope! Crossbones! But hey, why blame him when you can blame her, amirite?), she is in the Raft for refusing to bow down to Stark + US government after, may I remind you, she had been arrested illegally and forced to stay in the compound.

She faces no consequences, then what is this?

Oh right, they weren't real. Well, they were real to her. She is losing them, killing them in fact, as she willingly chooses to destroy the Hex so that the people in Westview can be free. She could have chosen to keep it up just as easy, she was given a choice and she chose the right thing for everyone except herself.

Wanda: "I'm sorry for all the pain I caused"

Wanda: "I knew you'd show up sooner or later wanting to discuss what happened at Westview. I made mistakes and people were hurt"

Sylvie was told to wait a damn minute so that Loki and her could talk about it and what she did was betray Loki, kick his ass and get on with her personal vendetta not giving a flying fuck who got hurt in the process. And even then I can sort of understand people sympathizing with her (even if I don't) but to claim Wanda is an abuser and she faces no consequences is just plain wrong, not to mention the fact that her gender doesn't change absolutely anything taking into account just how much Waldron ruined her in MoM.

Frankly if we can't tell the difference between explaining a character and justifying everything they do then what's the point. But also, if we're going to remove all nuance and context to everything they did then I assure you every single character in the MCU is going to turn into a villain. Every.Single.One.

[valkyrieandstrangeridingaragorn]

I willing to bet Sylvie as killing HWR was obviously meant to be selfish revenge but the creators realized after the fact that's not something good heroes would do so the make up whatever excuse they can after the fact to make Sylvie seem more sympathetic.

Like, so much of the story actually goes against what creators have said about. That is either the most remarkable bad writing ever or they realized so many mistakes afterwards and had no way to change them so they claim otherwise.

I'd say they did include a few things to try and make her slightly heroic but it all ended up ruining her character. There would be nothing wrong in having her being entirely selfish and not giving a damn about anyone else but since they were pitting her against Loki they needed a character who was supposedly heroic to show just how selfish Loki is.

And so that disconnect between what they show in the series vs what they tell us makes the message so hilariously confusing. Like in ep4 we're supposed to believe she cares about the minutemen because she tells B-15 "we're the same". The problem is Sylvie has always known they were variants and she never told them, she had encountered B-15 twice before that scene and she didn't tell her. Why not? If she cares so much about the agents she should have.

Then in ep6 she talks to HWR about the "innocent people" who have had their lives ruined by the TVA but when it comes to killing him when Loki asks her "what if he's telling the truth" her answer is "so what?".

Based on the actual actions in the show she's 100% selfish and any sign of compassion and kindness is entirely performative because when it really comes to it all Sylvie cares about is herself. But that doesn't quite fit the narrative of her being a good girl so in interviews they try and convince us that she's a hero and it's so funny, especially coming from Waldron.

Dude, you wrote her, she does all those things because you made her. If you wanted a hero you should have written a hero. Or rather.. he did write a hero in Loki but he framed him as a villain 🤦‍♀️😂😂