[honk]

Weird question that you already know the answer to. The fourth episode was a clumsy, unnecessary, and unfunny exposition dump, and nothing that happens later in the show will retroactively change that fact. The fifth episode was overall an improvement, but it seems to be establishing a pattern of having these unfunny characters now providing a running commentary on what's going on in Westview and what Wanda is up to. They've thrown the principle of "show, don't tell" out the window. The best (worst) example of this so far is the cameo at the end of the fifth episode. This is a jaw-dropping moment, and both we and the characters need a few moments to let it sink in...but no, Kat Dennings immediately has to open her big mouth and give us a lame quip. And just like that, the dramatic impact is ruined.

[Rama Set]

Weird question that you already know the answer to.

It was weird to assert that they were telling you everything is going on when you are midway through the series.  We don't know how much is true and how much isn't.  From what I have read of source material, there could be significant red herring's they set up.

The fourth episode was a clumsy, unnecessary, and unfunny exposition dump, and nothing that happens later in the show will retroactively change that fact.

Again you are assuming that you know everything that is going to happen.  What a silly way to judge the middle of the story.  Was it heavy on expository type information?  Yes.  Was it clumsy?  Not at all.  They managed to show (not tell) what it was like when the events of Endgame took place.  They reintroduced an adult Monica and used her story to inform the audience with a whole bunch of backstory in a few minutes.  Much more efficient than a flashback and not at all clumsy considering the territory they have to cover.  You don't like the humour, fine, but its not objectively bad, but I can understand not liking it.

The fifth episode was overall an improvement, but it seems to be establishing a pattern of having these unfunny characters now providing a running commentary on what's going on in Westfield and what Wanda is up to. They've thrown the principle of "show, don't tell" out the window.

They haven't.  Vision's entire storyline is proof of that.

The best (worst) example of this so far is the cameo at the end of the fifth episode. This is a jaw-dropping moment, and both we and the characters need a few moments to let it sink in...but no, Kat Dennings immediately has to open her big mouth and give us a lame quip.

It wasn't a lame quip.  First off, there will be large portions of the audience who will not have Days of Future Past and so will need to be filled in some way.  Instead of devoting extra time to "showing" it, they made the choice to expedite the matter.  It's a fair choice and one you have to make when you are juggling significant amounts of material like they are.  It wasn't even a quip, it was a pretty concise expression of what happened in the context of the world Wanda created.

And just like that, the dramatic impact is ruined.

The dramatic impact was ruined?  What impact do you think it was "supposed" to have?  It wasn't a moment you enjoyed, sure, but again, there are huge amounts of audience who need the narrative to do more than just be mysterious because it actually takes a fuck load of background knowledge to keep up.  I can vouch for this every time I watch an MCU property with my wife, who has seen a lot, but not everything, forgets things because she isn't a huge nerd like me and needs to be reminded of expository information.

I feel like your issue with how they handle exposition misses how well Wanda is being portrayed, how well they are taking Vision through his growing understanding or allowing for there still to be more going on than they have told you.

It's also objectively better than WW84 in every facet, js.

[honk]

It was weird to assert that they were telling you everything is going on when you are midway through the series.  We don't know how much is true and how much isn't.  From what I have read of source material, there could be significant red herring's they set up.

That's not important. Whether the information we currently have will ultimately turn out to be true or false, it's still information that the show wants us to have. This information was being communicated to us in a very interesting, unique, almost Lynchian way, and then the show decided to put a halt to that and instead give us the exact same information in the very familiar, tired format of government agents and scientists quipping and spouting technobabble at each other. That's really, really disappointing.

They managed to show (not tell) what it was like when the events of Endgame took place.

Yeah, I hated that too. The five-year time skip was such a stupid idea, and just like I predicted when that movie came out, now all future MCU projects have to find a way to either write around it or include it in their overall stories.

It wasn't a lame quip.  First off, there will be large portions of the audience who will not have Days of Future Past and so will need to be filled in some way.  Instead of devoting extra time to "showing" it, they made the choice to expedite the matter.  It's a fair choice and one you have to make when you are juggling significant amounts of material like they are.  It wasn't even a quip, it was a pretty concise expression of what happened in the context of the world Wanda created.

If you haven't seen DoFP, you will get nothing out of that cameo. The entire impact is predicated on you recognizing who this person is and realizing why it's a big deal to see him here. The quip wasn't to help anyone understand what was going on, it was a fourth-wall joke highlighting the fact that Pietro has literally been recast IRL. It wouldn't make any sense to seriously call Pietro's appearance a "recast," because he was never in the "cast" of Wanda's show to begin with.

The dramatic impact was ruined?  What impact do you think it was "supposed" to have?  It wasn't a moment you enjoyed, sure, but again, there are huge amounts of audience who need the narrative to do more than just be mysterious because it actually takes a fuck load of background knowledge to keep up.  I can vouch for this every time I watch an MCU property with my wife, who has seen a lot, but not everything, forgets things because she isn't a huge nerd like me and needs to be reminded of expository information.

You know perfectly well what impact it was supposed to have. It's Pietro returning from the dead as well as being played by the actor who played a different version of the character in a competing franchise. I still don't believe that cameo was meant for the benefit of anyone other than those who did recognize him, but if they did want to give a quick line explaining what was happening, they could have said something along the lines of "I think that's supposed to be...Pietro?" or "It's Pietro, but he's...different." Something like that, not a dumb quip about him being "recast."

I feel like your issue with how they handle exposition misses how well Wanda is being portrayed, how well they are taking Vision through his growing understanding or allowing for there still to be more going on than they have told you.

Yeah, everything with Wanda and Vision is great. It makes it all the more frustrating when they're forced to share the spotlight with the constant exposition and awful attempts at comedy from Dennings and Randall Park. The difference in quality between everything set in Westview and everything outside of it is night and day.

It's also objectively better than WW84 in every facet, js.

I agree.

[honk]

And now WandaVision is all over. It was great for the most part. I do still think that much of the technobabble and expository dialogue was unnecessary, especially in the fourth episode, and in general that the show was at its weakest when it was most conventional and "MCU-like," so to speak. I wanted more quiet, poignant scenes between Wanda and Vision, less quipping and expository technobabble. More Kathryn Hahn, less Kat Dennings. More "Ship of Theseus" philosophical musings, less extravagant CGI battles.

I also really disliked the show's presumption that Hayward was a villain for wanting to kill Wanda - not just a jerk, but an actual villain who needed to be physically defeated and sent to jail - and that the other side characters were totally right to defend Wanda and stop him from killing her. It's such blatant protagonist-centered morality. We in the audience like Wanda and don't want her to be killed, but that doesn't mean anything in-universe, where the only thing the characters know is that Wanda is holding a town full of people prisoner via a powerful and dangerous magic spell. Why was it so morally wrong to try and kill Wanda? Why did the show portray that as such an inherently villainous act? In fact, why was Hayward even arrested at the end anyway? Did he ever actually break the law or do something that wasn't simply his job?

Pietro being played by Evan Peters was a bullshit fake-out on the show's part, and I'm not using spoiler tags for that because of how inconsequential the role proved to be. They knew what they were implying by casting him as Pietro, and if they weren't willing to follow through with it, they shouldn't have cast him.

[JSS]

And now WandaVision is all over. It was great for the most part. I do still think that much of the technobabble and expository dialogue was unnecessary, especially in the fourth episode, and in general that the show was at its weakest when it was most conventional and "MCU-like," so to speak. I wanted more quiet, poignant scenes between Wanda and Vision, less quipping and expository technobabble. More Kathryn Hahn, less Kat Dennings. More "Ship of Theseus" philosophical musings, less extravagant CGI battles.

I also really disliked the show's presumption that Hayward was a villain for wanting to kill Wanda - not just a jerk, but an actual villain who needed to be physically defeated and sent to jail - and that the other side characters were totally right to defend Wanda and stop him from killing her. It's such blatant protagonist-centered morality. We in the audience like Wanda and don't want her to be killed, but that doesn't mean anything in-universe, where the only thing the characters know is that Wanda is holding a town full of people prisoner via a powerful and dangerous magic spell. Why was it so morally wrong to try and kill Wanda? Why did the show portray that as such an inherently villainous act? In fact, why was Hayward even arrested at the end anyway? Did he ever actually break the law or do something that wasn't simply his job?

Pietro being played by Evan Peters was a bullshit fake-out on the show's part, and I'm not using spoiler tags for that because of how inconsequential the role proved to be. They knew what they were implying by casting him as Pietro, and if they weren't willing to follow through with it, they shouldn't have cast him.

Yeah, I was really disappointed he didn't turn out to be pulled from an alternate universe as a prelude to trying to reintegrate the sectioned off mess the various shows and movies are. But maybe as someone said it was to test audience reaction to the idea. People reacted VERY favorably so they might do so in the future.

I also felt the villain was underdeveloped and, well, not villainy enough to get the reaction from the other characters.

He was trying to take out a supervillain who took over an entire town and was literally altering their bodies and minds, and with Rambo providing evidence this alteration was harmful and permanent.

I guess the real evil plot was putting Vision back together as a weapon or something but it wasn't really clear what was so bad about that either.  I mean, half the Marvel universe is someone the government built/put back together.

But aside from that, it was really well done.  It was a great story when not distracted by a few flaws.

[honk]

Oh, and Monica's "They'll never know what you sacrificed" line left a very bad taste in my mouth. As if Wanda was a hero who just saved the day and everyone should be grateful to, rather than the person who was responsible for the whole horrible situation to begin with. You don't praise someone for "sacrificing" something that they never should have had to begin with. Monica taking on the role of Wanda's constant apologist throughout the show made no sense - she didn't know Wanda, and had no more reason to assume good faith on her part than anyone else did - and neither did the show's portrayal of her as inherently heroic and morally correct for doing so. It's so weird. The show knew that what Wanda did was monstrous and portrayed it as such, but at the same time, it demonized the character that put the most effort into stopping her and lionized the character that mindlessly defended her.