|
R. Guyovich posted:it's pretty cool that tony demands the unsnap not revert things back to how they were just because he wants his daughter to still exist. a universe's worth of trauma, insignificant in the face of one last act of stark selfishness. I am curious about how things seem back to normal in Far From Home even though the world would still be in a state of total disrepair. Also the question of wouldn't half the cast be mysteriously five years older than the other half unless like every major character in that series was snapped
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
I wish the first movie post Avengers was Fantastic Four and it could open with Reed Richards going I fixed it and everything being “normal” and as if nothing happened
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I wish the first movie post Avengers was Fantastic Four and it could open with Reed Richards going I fixed it and everything being “normal” and as if nothing happened I want to see the Fantastic Four as a really weird Partridge Family style thing straight for the early 60s and that it makes everyone else in the MCU super uncomfortable
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I want to see the Fantastic Four as a really weird Partridge Family style thing straight for the early 60s and that it makes everyone else in the MCU super uncomfortable We gave you civil rights and now you want us to pretend that you are captain america? Come on now, boy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Caros posted:We gave you civil rights and now you want us to pretend that you are captain america? Come on now, boy. Less awkward racism and sexism and more like Johnny Storm as a grown man being like "Gee I sure do get HOTheaded about bad guys" while fighting some monster and everyone else just kinda tilting their heads at him awkwardly
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I'm don't really care about changing character motivations. This is the franchise that basically ignored the entirety of Ragnarok in the very next movie, just lol if you think they're trying to keep anything but the biggest beats consistent. Yeah, I know. Continuity of motivations in the MCU seems to be in service to the plot of whatever movie that particular character is in, not in service to the actual character that has shown consistent grown in films prior. Not many will care or notice that kind of thing, but I do, and it's frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
One thing I find fascinating about the website Uproxx is that it used to be a loose affiliation of bloggers with their own sites that eventually turned into a #content farm. Most of the original writers left long ago except for the movie dude, which means major movies get two reviews. One from the #content brand ambassador guy and one from the original snarky blogger who doesnt give a gently caress https://uproxx.com/hitfix/avengers-endgame-review/ https://uproxx.com/hitfix/avengers-end-game-review-marvel-victory-lap/ Like even the difference in headlines is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, what kind of rear end in a top hat doesn't want to be directly responsible for the non-existence of their five daughter. Stark isn't wrong, because any good father would do the same, but that doesn't mean he's not being selfish. Greater good and all that. Further shows how Stark regressed as a character and wasn't willing to make the sacrifice play. He preferred the narcissist play, so people would built monuments to him in the aftermath of his self-annihilation, feeding his ego into the afterlife.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, what kind of rear end in a top hat doesn't want to be directly responsible for the non-existence of their five daughter. teagone posted:Stark isn't wrong, because any good father would do the same, but that doesn't mean he's not being selfish. Greater good and all that. Further shows how Stark regressed as a character and wasn't willing to make the sacrifice play. He preferred the narcissist play, so people would built monuments to him in the aftermath of his self-annihilation, feeding his ego into the afterlife. Ding ding ding. More evidence the motivations all out of whack, because post IM3 Stark wouldn't have made that choice. Hell, I don't think Civil War Stark would've made it. I hope the next phase is better at maintaining character development. It shows even in other movies; T'challa in Civil War is hardass, pragmatic royalty and in BP he's an inconsistent upper management sort of guy. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
teagone posted:Stark isn't wrong, because any good father would do the same, but that doesn't mean he's not being selfish. Greater good and all that. Further shows how Stark regressed as a character and wasn't willing to make the sacrifice play. He preferred the narcissist play, so people would built monuments to him in the aftermath of his self-annihilation, feeding his ego into the afterlife. Man who literally sacrifices his life to save those he cares about is unwilling to make the sacrifice play. That is your argument? Or that he isn't willing to sacrifice the life of his innocent daughter for the 'greater good'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Caros posted:Man who literally sacrifices his life to save those he cares about is unwilling to make the sacrifice play. That is your argument? Or that he isn't willing to sacrifice the life of his innocent daughter for the 'greater good'? Stark weighs the trauma of billions (trillions?) of lives across the universe — not just human lives either — against the life of his daughter. Like I said, it's absolutely the right thing to do, but it's still a selfish act. And I've already expressed my sentiments on how I feel Stark taking it upon himself to snap the gauntlet felt more like a selfish act than a heroic one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Where did this whole daughter business come from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Where did this whole daughter business come from? After they manage to kill Prime Thanos in the aftermath of the snap early on in the film, where half the universe was dusted, there's a 5 year jump moving forward in that grim timeline. In that time, Tony and Pepper had a daughter named Morgan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Where did this whole daughter business come from? Pepper's vagina
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Pepper's vagina Lol, easier answer but 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:After they manage to kill Prime Thanos in the aftermath of the snap early on in the film, where half the universe was dusted, there's a 5 year jump moving forward in that grim timeline. In that time, Tony and Pepper had a daughter named Morgan. Lmfao.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Tony! Hey Tony, it's your cousin Marvin!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:Stark weighs the trauma of billions (trillions?) of lives across the universe — not just human lives either — against the life of his daughter. Like I said, it's absolutely the right thing to do, but it's still a selfish act. And I've already expressed my sentiments on how I feel Stark taking it upon himself to snap the gauntlet felt more like a selfish act than a heroic one. Captain America, paragon of virtue, weighed the life of his three year old robot buddy against the lives of trillions and decided that 'we don't trade lives'. It is generally considered a trait of the good guys that they don't do things that will murder innocent children, not so much a selfish act. Hell, it is probably in some ways intended to be a direct parallel to Thanos, who was willing to murder his own daughter in order to achieve his objectives. I mean it is your interpretation, can't stop you from that. I just think it is silly as hell to say that the guy who sacrifices his own life to save the universe isn't willing to sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:I mean it is your interpretation, can't stop you from that. I just think it is silly as hell to say that the guy who sacrifices his own life to save the universe isn't willing to sacrifice. Stark's self-annhilation was a sacrifice made for the wrong reasons. And it was out of character. The act itself was a regression of the character growth Tony has experienced in films prior. That's my argument. But yes, my argument is made null because the MCU is notorious for not caring about past character motivations. It's a systemic issue in the series I personally have an issue with, and Endgame puts that issue at the forefront full stop. quote:Captain America, paragon of virtue, weighed the life of his three year old robot buddy against the lives of trillions and decided that 'we don't trade lives'. This is exactly the reason why it should have been Cap to snap the gauntlet. Not Tony. It's right in line with Cap's ideology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
I feel like you are missing the narrative parallel of the MCU began and ends its first era with Tony Stark it seems pretty clearly a symbolic gesture about the entire franchise as opposed to a moment of characterization
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yeah, what kind of rear end in a top hat doesn't want to be directly responsible for the non-existence of their five daughter. Again, he had the power of God and two time machines. Why can’t he fix the Earth and keep the daughter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I feel like you are missing the narrative parallel of the MCU began and ends its first era with Tony Stark Nope, I acknowledged this in my deeper dive post earlier on how I felt about Stark's death. I'm approaching my argument on a more logical character basis than like a meta-narrative basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:They don’t venge anyone! eeeehhhhhh like I think Endgame sounds pretty bad but this seems a specious complaint; they don't "avenge" anything because the better option of just fuckin undoing it pops up instead, and that's fair enough for me
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
teagone posted:Nope, I acknowledged this in my deeper dive post earlier on how I felt about Stark's death. I'm approaching my argument on a more logical character basis than like a meta-narrative basis. I have to say, it does feel weird to see you say that 'Sacrificing himself is at odds with his ideology', given that Tony was willing to, and nearly did, sacrifice himself in both previous Avengers films. He carries the nuke through the portal in the first film, under the assumption that it might kill him, and he isn't sure if either he or thor is going to survive breaking the vibranium in AoU. Sacrificing himself is actually pretty solidly in character, doubly so when he knows that if he fails that Thanos is going to murder his family, along with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Just give me loving Jonathan Hickman’s Avengers for the next gigantic rear end phase. Please. Crib exactly. Put him in charge. If you'd asked me pre-IF I would've said Hickman's stuff was nigh unadaptable but I'm glad to have been proven wrong. Go full bore with it; a decade long build up with the Annhilation (and the fallout), the Builder War, the Illuminati, Future Foundation, etc, culminating in a trilogy of Secret Wars movies and an accompanying anthology TV series with all the various side stories (Old Man Logan, the Siege, etc). Do it Feige. All profit lies in DOOM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:it's pretty cool that tony demands the unsnap not revert things back to how they were just because he wants his daughter to still exist. a universe's worth of trauma, insignificant in the face of one last act of stark selfishness. Would the glove even be able to do that? Restoring everything to how it was means either large scale timeline fuckery, which I'm not sure it can do, or destroying then rebuilding the universe which seems kinda icky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have to say, it does feel weird to see you say that 'Sacrificing himself is at odds with his ideology', given that Tony was willing to, and nearly did, sacrifice himself in both previous Avengers films. He carries the nuke through the portal in the first film, under the assumption that it might kill him, and he isn't sure if either he or thor is going to survive breaking the vibranium in AoU. Sacrificing himself is actually pretty solidly in character, doubly so when he knows that if he fails that Thanos is going to murder his family, along with everyone else. See this: Mat Cauthon posted:Tony on the other hand has had two or three movies that demonstrate that he wants to be done with the heroics, and find a way to end the fighting once and for all. Dying doesn't accomplish that, and on top of that he leaves behind his actual kid and his surrogate son in a pretty hosed up world. He hasn't been the selfish, self absorbed tech guy since Avengers 1, why does that loop need to be revisited and resolved this way? It's evocative because rdj is the face of these movies but man it all feels so off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Why not just make this a spoiler thread since that’s literally what it is and stop with the spoiler tags. Makes mobile browsing a pain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Would the glove even be able to do that? Restoring everything to how it was means either large scale timeline fuckery, which I'm not sure it can do, or destroying then rebuilding the universe which seems kinda icky. Maybe. We know it has at least one significant limit. Hulk tried to bring back Widow with everyone else. That was probably soul stone fuckery, but given how bad the gauntlet hosed up the Hulk, it certainly seems plausible that they couldn't have have wound things back on that scale even if they'd wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
colachute posted:Why not just make this a spoiler thread since that’s literally what it is and stop with the spoiler tags. Makes mobile browsing a pain. I do think there's a decent chance of people wandering in for non-spoiler reviews/opinions on quality or even to ask legitimate questions like "is there an after credits scene" (the answer to this appears to be "no") so I think the current policy is doing its job
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I do think there's a decent chance of people wandering in for non-spoiler reviews/opinions on quality or even to ask legitimate questions like "is there an after credits scene" (the answer to this appears to be "no") so I think the current policy is doing its job You can put *****spoilers**** in the thread title, y’know. The thread is, as it stands, unreadable if don’t want spoilers, and a relative pain if you want to read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Also, reading a few pages back, some of you either haven't seen the movie yet or failed to grasp how time travel worked. They never do anything in the past that affects "our" timeline, the act of going back and interfering makes time branch, and when they return everything still happened just as it did. They don't even necessarily need to bring the stones back to the respective universes they took them from, that's just because they want to leave the alternate timelines as unfucked as possible. Loki escaping with the stone doesn't matter because it happens in IronCap branch A, and when they travel back a second time they steal the stone from IronCap branch B. Nu-Thanos came from a timeline that already split off - that timeline will never have a snap event due to the lack of him, but that is not our timeline-prime where the snap did and always will have happened. That being said, bringing the stones back to their respective timelines seems like a generally bad idea for those timelines - apart from the time stone, I think all universe branches would be better off with one stone lacking since that sabotages Thanos in that timeline too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
colachute posted:You can put *****spoilers**** in the thread title, y’know. The thread is, as it stands, unreadable if don’t want spoilers, and a relative pain if you want to read it. Which doesn't allow this to be a thread for people who aren't going until tomorrow, Friday, Saturday or beyond to ask their fellow posters the legit questions I posted. This is pretty much what happens with every major movie, if you think the policy is unsound maybe PM Fran and make a suggestion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Which doesn't allow this to be a thread for people who aren't going until tomorrow, Friday, Saturday or beyond to ask their fellow posters the legit questions I posted. No. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Intelligent Moral Quandry: “Tony Stark you gotta either lick a skunk on its rear end in a top hat or ingest three pounds of dirt for no reason.” Why doesn’t he just do neither of those th- “I CHOOSE THE SKUNK, THANOS!!!”
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Also, reading a few pages back, some of you either haven't seen the movie yet or failed to grasp how time travel worked. They never do anything in the past that affects "our" timeline, the act of going back and interfering makes time branch, and when they return everything still happened just as it did. They don't even necessarily need to bring the stones back to the respective universes they took them from, that's just because they want to leave the alternate timelines as unfucked as possible. Loki escaping with the stone doesn't matter because it happens in IronCap branch A, and when they travel back a second time they steal the stone from IronCap branch B. Nu-Thanos came from a timeline that already split off - that timeline will never have a snap event due to the lack of him, but that is not our timeline-prime where the snap did and always will have happened. But if this is the case then how does OldManCap show up to pass on his shield? Surely going back and living his life with Peggy creates a new branch as you say, so how is he able to still show up in the "main" timeline then? I realize all time travel stories have inherent flaws and this is no Primer, but come on now
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:But if this is the case then how does OldManCap show up to pass on his shield? Surely going back and living his life with Peggy creates a new branch as you say, so how is he able to still show up in the "main" timeline then? Cap still has his time travel equipment, and as shown with the sidetrack to 1970, they are able to pick a new destination with it. Cap marries Peggy, has his happy life, and towards the end of it he jumps back to his original timeline in order to give away the new shield. It actually makes sense in context because he's old, but not fuckoff old. Either he time travelled again, or the super soldier serum is loving fantastic for aging. If he didn't time travel then he is 121 years old when he shows back up, or ~210ish if you account for his time frozen in the ice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:But if this is the case then how does OldManCap show up to pass on his shield? Surely going back and living his life with Peggy creates a new branch as you say, so how is he able to still show up in the "main" timeline then? That actually “makes sense”. Steve A goes to MCU B and marries Peggy B. They live together for 70 years, then Steve B gets defrosted - so Steve A steals the unbroken shield and runs back to MCU A.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Alternately, Steve A‘s gone MIA in the B timeline and guy at the end is actually Steve B.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:But if this is the case then how does OldManCap show up to pass on his shield? Surely going back and living his life with Peggy creates a new branch as you say, so how is he able to still show up in the "main" timeline then? Bill and Ted has no errors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 22:32
|
|
