|
teagone posted:It's easily one of the worst MCU films, but like I said, I think it's a necessary evil wrt its importance in The Infinity Saga's story. It really is not. The total summation of it is "also there's a red one"
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
euphronius posted:My 4 year old likes and follows the story of IW and endgame. If you want a sweeping epic that's huge in scope but don't want to watch all 22 films that make up The Infinity Saga, I think the 10-part list I originally came up with offers just that. Throw in Iron Man 1 and Cap 1 if you want the ending to be more poignant. If you just want to experience the Infinity Saga in the shortest amount of running time possible, then I think SMG's 6-part list works fine. teagone fucked around with this message at 20:27 on May 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:It really is not. The total summation of it is "also there's a red one" That's important enough tbh, and the film also shows what it's capable of. The Dark Elf dude wanted it to use the aether to destroy the 9 realms, making it a big deal. There's also the whole narrative beat in Endgame with Frigga and extracting the aether from Jane. The Infinity Saga is about the stones... makes sense to include the movies that have them. Avengers introduces the tesseract (space), Dark World introduces the aether (reality), GOTG introduces the orb (power), Age of Ultron introduces Vision (mind), Doctor Strange introduces the amulet (time), and Infinity War introduces the soul stone.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Presumably some nerd somewhere will eventually whittle down all the movies to just a pick'n'mix of scenes that matter and upload it as a 6 hour (?how long?) cut on illegal youtubes as 'Marvel's Avengers: The story of the stones' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My 4 year old likes and follows the story of IW and endgame. I want to watch IW/EG with my 8 yr old so badly but she loves Spiderman and especially Homecoming I don't think I can do that to her.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Bucky ends up being totally useless, so you really don't need a three-film "death and resurrection of Bucky" arc in there. Avengers 1 already has a flashback sequence summarizing Steve and Peggy's interactions in WWII and, in the context of the whole series, the whole HYDRA thing is strictly B-Plot and easily cut. Yeah that's fair, if we're going for "here's what's strictly necessary for IW/Eg" then Cap 1 and 2 would get the axe since that info is in the other Avengers movies. This is turning into more of a "here's a trimmed down MCU with a set end (IW/Eg) and whatever movies are good* or lend to a cohesive narrative" *ymmv of course
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Another Bill posted:I want to watch IW/EG with my 8 yr old so badly but she loves Spiderman and especially Homecoming I don't think I can do that to her. But he comes back
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Yeah but "Mr. Stark I don't want to die" is such a gut punch. She'd be bawling.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Another Bill posted:Yeah but "Mr. Stark I don't want to die" is such a gut punch. She'd be bawling. When he comes back to life will be like the greatest scene ever for her. Just watch them back-to-back.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Another Bill posted:Yeah but "Mr. Stark I don't want to die" is such a gut punch. She'd be bawling. When I was a kid I wouldn’t stop crying when Bruce Willis died in Armageddon, I didn’t know heroes could die in movies. He didn’t come back and I was ruined forever.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Ant-Man 2 is super improtant for Endgame: that's where all the time-travel stuff comes from.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Ant-Man 2 is super improtant for Endgame: that's where all the time-travel stuff comes from. That baggage comes with the character imo, and he gives you enough info in Endgame about the quantum tunnel stuff. If anything, all you'd need to watch is Ant-Man 2's stinger.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Right, and that alone makes Thor 2 redundant. I think you need to watch Ragnarok for Loki's arc to make sense and for his death to mean anything more at the beginning of IW than "good, gently caress that guy." It also introduces Dr Strange in a way that feels adequate; I didn't see Dr Strange until after IW and while I don't think I needed Dr Strange, without Ragnarok I don't think I would have had as good an intro to such a pivotal character. I still haven't seen either Ant-Man though and I managed just fine with his exposition dump.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I included Strange mostly because I legit enjoy the film, but also because Doctor Strange (the character) and The Ancient One have relatively important parts in Infinity War and Endgame.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The time travel in this movie is very simple and clearly explained. The confusion arises almost entirely from people incorporating rules from other movies: something that there is a specific scene in the movie telling you not to do. Never said it would have to be in the same place, but just if they could be returned that it would simply be at the same moment as when they left - in short they would never have seemingly vanished at all within that universe’s dimension of time. It’s never shown that a divergent timeline of another universe vanishes and least of all because the stones are in place, the exchange itself between Hulk and Swinton is within another divergent timeline and universe. Like, yeah each of those universes is decaying in the sense everything within the universe is moving away from each other - expanding. This is why it’s a question of interpretation. Swinton was never going to give Hulk the stone, because while it may give them a chance to undo whatever was done in his universe, giving the stone away would doom her timeline and thus universe as she saw it. So no timestone for the Strange she knows, the events of Dr.Strange could be radically altered/divergent and so-on, all on the promise and the gamble that Hulk and co would succeed. Which could spell all kinds of catastrophe for her universe in picking up the tab for another universe if they fail, lose the stone, destroy it in the process or whatever. This is the characterisation of Swinton's character from that exchange. What convinces her to hand it over is when Strange is mentioned, specifically that he saw it was as only way(to do what is the question) and not her own reservations about handing it over being overcome. Those other universes and timelines emerge as much as they always existed, there’s no reason or indication that those universes decay in like a hundred years, or immediately, or wait around for Steve to die or whatever. History in each of those other universes is irrevocably altered by their presence within it, it's also just simply their past - from the one born from Hawkeye’s test jump to the one where Thanos and co disappear in 2014 etc. Like, old man Steve at the end handing off a different shield isn’t the guy who left on the pad, because in order to return to his universe/timeline he’d have to return by that pad and this basic point of the narrative is fairly well established - they can’t visit their own past. This temporal-multiverse colonialism does have all kinds of hosed up power imbalances, such as more snaps and 'timetravel' emerging from those other universes - should those events take place. The ultimate joke being here in all that horror, is that for the heroes it all balances out in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I think you need to watch Ragnarok for Loki's arc to make sense and for his death to mean anything more at the beginning of IW than "good, gently caress that guy." See, that’s the thing: why can’t we say “gently caress that guy”? Loki’s the guy who dies in the first five minutes to show that the villain is mean. He’s Captain Antilles. He’s Lor San Tekka. In the context of the whole series, Loki’s “arc” is so incoherent that they had to retcon Avengers 1. Going back to the scriptwriting stage: if this poo poo were better written, the fact that Loki used to work for Thanos would be a big deal - especially since a chunk of this two-partner takes place during Thanos’ first invasion, led by Loki. This is where you condense characters: Gamora is basically just a second, redundant Loki.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
The Aether in Thor:TDW doesn't even act the same way as the Reality Stone in Infinity War. in Thor:TDW it's poorly described and written, like that whole movie.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
was the aether even supposed to be the reality stone or they just conveniently made it so later on
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Snazzy Frocks posted:was the aether even supposed to be the reality stone or they just conveniently made it so later on I'm pretty sure that's what the post-credits stinger was supposed to reveal, that the aether was an infinity stone. The whole "having two stones in one place" deal was like, oh poo poo, there's another stone kinda thing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Iron Man 2 is important for Endgame cause it introduces Tony's daddy issues! There! Is that all of them now?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Endgame missed an oppurtunity to have Mickey Rourke return by cameo as Whiplash's dad. Have him holed up in some dingy office with big ol' nerd glasses.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Snazzy Frocks posted:was the aether even supposed to be the reality stone or they just conveniently made it so later on That‘s where we get into story structure. Although they’ve been branded “Phase 1”, “Phase 2”, and so-on, there’s much less of a clear delineation in the actual films. The “Phase 1” films were largely designed to stand alone but complement eachother. Iron Man, Captain America and Thor are basic superhero movies that, together, tell a conspiracy story linking ancient aliens to Nazi occultism. Stark’s technology in Iron Man 1 is subtly revealed to be based on the Asgardian super-science pursued by the double-Nazis, even though it’s not really explicitly stated. Avengers 1 may have sucked, but it was consistent with this. But then, as noted before, the Thanos plot comes out of nowhere and makes absolutely no sense thematically, or even plotwise. The ancient aliens and Nazi occultism storylines are suddenly interrupted with pointless references to the chaos emeralds, and even retconned out of existence in the case of the cube. The big reveal that SHIELD is HYDRA, which they’d obviously been building towards, happens in a Captain America standalone film, and has zero consequences. Like how do Stark or Banner even react to this revelation? They don’t. It doesn’t matter. So what you get in “Phase 2” is a mess. There’s no connection whatsoever between Winter Soldier, Iron Man 3, and Dark World. And the events of these films have no relevance whatsoever to the story of Avengers 2. They even introduce a new team of characters to deliver a shitload of exposition about Thanos. GABBO IS COMING. But the Guardians also have no relevance to Avengers 2. Also Ant-Man’s there? Why? Things are badly off the rails at this point, and it’s where they begin to increasingly not even bother with coherent self-contained narratives. Watching Winter Soldier and Civil War back-to-back is sure to cause whiplash, because what the gently caress is Spiderman doing here? What does that have to do with, like, The physical incarnation of God as six gemstones? This is where things suddenly shift into being a TV series.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Endgame missed an oppurtunity to have Mickey Rourke return by cameo as Whiplash's dad. Have him holed up in some dingy office with big ol' nerd glasses. You joke but I was slightly disappointed Jeff Goldblum didn't have a cameo
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
you should only watch the movies i specifically liked, so iron man three, then civil war, then thor ragnarok. easy
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Kids deal with death ok.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Another Bill posted:Yeah but "Mr. Stark I don't want to die" is such a gut punch. She'd be bawling. Transformers the (1980's) movie had all my favorite corporate branded characters die and I watched my copy of the tape so much growing up it started to wear down. I couldn't have been older than six or seven. She'll cry, but she'll be fine. Extra fun is when she wants to watch it again and cries just as hard the second time. Also every Disney movie growing up had scenes in it to intentionally make kids cry.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Yeah I mean we've already watch the Far From Home trailer so maybe I can explain the continuity to her ... Thread is convincing me to go for it 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
The central theme of the Marvel movies is: "Nothing can be allowed to occur." "You want to protect the world but you don't want it to change." Since event and change is the core of what storytelling is, the Marvel movies are generally bad. But A4 is mildly interesting if for no other reason than that things really have changed (of course, not for long). But still, there are traces of authenticity: the camera holds just a little too long on Scarlett Johnassen's tear stained face. Or check out the weirdly long shot of Ant Man's sad taco as he glumly chows down in a wind blown New Jersey parking lot. I loved the first scene of Mark Ruffalo's subdued Alpha Male Hulk: the character is carefully balancing being pleased as peaches with his own self-actualization and the knowledge that the world has largely gone to poo poo. Anyway, nothing can be allowed to occur, so the movie has to end with a disquietingly weightless battle with Thanos's revenant. It's a strange confrontation: Thanos is dead, and this ghost barely knows the plot of the movie. Of necessity, the whole thing plays out like a fantasy or daydream: "If only I could do it over again, I would..." What's odd is that the time travel is just a means to an end, and there's not a moment's thought given to the possibility of using the Glove to rewind time. Instead the goal is Resurrection, which on some level is surprising: everyone is just going to have to live the with the last five years' trauma. But still, it's a fantasy: there are no takebacks in life. My read is that acts two and three are Black Widow's dream after she drunkenly passes out in Avengers HQ.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
porfiria posted:there's not a moment's thought given to the possibility of using the Glove to rewind time. Except for the part where Tony Stark explicitly says that any solution they find has to retain the last five years because he won't sacrifice his family?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Except for the part where Tony Stark explicitly says that any solution they find has to retain the last five years because he won't sacrifice his family? I don't remember that part although I figured it was implicit. As somebody else pointed out above there's obvious room for conflict among the Avengers on this point. I guess everyone had the same ethical calculation?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
I mean rewinding time even if it was possible (doesn't seem to be the case according to Banner) is essentially murdering the billions to trillions of people who have been born in the last 5 years, which I'd imagine most would consider pretty monstrous.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I don't remember that part although I figured it was implicit. As somebody else pointed out above there's obvious room for conflict among the Avengers on this point. I guess everyone had the same ethical calculation? It's also stated you can't alter your own past.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Yeah but the Glove is Yahweh. I'm a bit surprised they came down on the "Can God make a boulder so big even He cannot lift it?" paradox so definitively.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:Anybody want to talk about Stark's line to Cap near the start of the film that ends in "...your precious freedoms!", implying that if Cap had rolled over in Civil War, they would have beaten Thanos? (citation needed Tony) Civil war was personal, he was talking about Ultron. Though the failure of that program wasn't exactly due to Cap's opposition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Rewinding time would revive Thanos and run the risk of him winning this time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:I mean rewinding time even if it was possible (doesn't seem to be the case according to Banner) is essentially murdering the billions to trillions of people who have been born in the last 5 years, which I'd imagine most would consider pretty monstrous. It would also conversely give a bunch of people who've died in the past 5 years the time back to spend with their loved ones. Also there's a bunch of people who now have a 5 year age difference in relation to their spouses/siblings/children/friends and in some cases that can cause some bad/depressing situations. Of course the entire situation is hosed and rife with all sorts of moral and ethical issues, they probably chose the best option at their disposal but it's interesting to philosophize about alternatives.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Grand intellectual hulk could have had a multitask snap that reversed time, dusted Thanos, but kept Tony's timeline intact since the stones can do anything
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
Snazzy Frocks posted:Grand intellectual hulk could have had a multitask snap that reversed time, dusted Thanos, but kept Tony's timeline intact since the stones can do anything The stones pretty obviously can not do anything. They have some sort of limit, if just because we know Black Widow couldn't be revived. Also the act of using them does incredibly massive damage to the person using it, it isn't like the comic where it's unfettered omnipotence. Edit: Also if you believe the FFH trailer/Fury isn't being tricked, the Snap itself also was such a massive thing that it literally broke reality so presumably throwing in time travel in ADDITION to trying to fix everything perfectly would be a Very Bad Thing ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The stones pretty obviously can not do anything. They have some sort of limit, Why are they called infinity stones then? porfiria posted:the weirdly long shot of Ant Man's sad taco as he glumly chows down in a wind blown New Jersey parking lot. Actually thats a space ship landing zone at UEA, Norwich, Norfolk, HQ of the avengers.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Why are they called infinity stones then? Because "the nearly infinity stones" don't sound as good. Alternately and more plausible, the stones can do anything but there isn't anyone who can actually survive attempting to wield their full power for any meaningful amount of time. Thanos did it twice with a magic super-gauntlet made by Space Dwarves and it still hosed him up right, while Tony's Infinity Gauntlet appeared to be significantly shittier since even Thanos was having trouble keeping it together long enough to snap.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 01:51
|
|