Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
The title of this thread will only be true for me if I hear that Blade is in the movie and he's the one to defeat Thanos.

Give the people the Daywalker already marvel, what's the hold up? The avengers would have won in infinity war if Blade was there.

I will accept either Snipes or Sticky Fingaz, I am not picky.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
Maybe I'm reading all these spoilers wrong but am I correct in assuming That they say they bring back the snapped heroes and it's five years later, but these unsnapped people are back from their point of view like they never left (and I'm assuming all the ordinary people in the galaxy got unsnapped as well, because JESUS CHRIST if not), doesn't that mean that all the returned people are five years younger than their friends. Like Spider-Man is now five years behind all the people in his class who didn't turn to dust?

Seems pretty hosed up if so

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

SCheeseman posted:



The time travel stuff is fine. They set up the rules, they can travel back and snatch the stones but have to put them back afterwards, and can't gently caress things up too much or the fabric of the universe falls apart and all that. .



I haven't seen it and just read the spoilers, but doesn't Past Thanos travel forward to the future and get killed, along with Past NebulaThis doesn't gently caress with the timeline? Because this means That Thanos is never able to do the snap in the first place? Because he travelled to the future and died, thus Infinity War basically never happened. Or are the spoilers not quite right?

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

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.

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.


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

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Caros posted:

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.



SuperMechagodzilla posted:

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.

Ah, I see I was wrong. All complaints cheerfully withdrawn!

I was confused by the spoilers that Iron Man demanded they leave the last five years unchanged, so I thought they could change things but they couldn't. All they would have done is create a timeline where Lil Stark didn't exist for example, but the one where she did would still be there. So Stark was worried about nothing, the big idiot.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
The One Ring is shown to call to and corrupt people even before they touch it.

It's magic.

About Iron Man 23 or whatever, how does it look compared to other MCU films? Still poo poo or has it improved?

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Gianthogweed posted:

Not really because half the universe was killed by Thanos. So that means half came back. It's a huge chunk, so it's not like they're going to feel like misfits for being left behind.

Let's try a thought experiment Your significant other turns to dust in front of you, along with half the world. You struggle to move on and after years, find a new spouse. You have a child together. Then one day five years later your original partner reappears and to them no time has passed.

What is your and their reaction? Apply this to all the other people in the universe as well. What about a returned person who cannot reconnect with loved ones because they committed suicide out of grief/despair?

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

1glitch0 posted:


Right? I keep thinking I missed something, but that's not how I understood the storyline. My understanding from the nice visual of the timeline is that if the stones were put back everything would be fine.

But this doesn't take into account Thanos travelling from the past and being killed etc. There must be at least two timelines

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
With the SMG posts questioning about why didn't they undo the thing at the end of the film, I agree with him.

He is saying Strange could have used the Time stone to save Tony, but didn't. People are saying this is a bad idea because this would undo the killing of Thanos and his army.

But it wouldn't.

In Strange's own film, he uses the stone to, among other things: Reverse the eating of an apple and repair a lost page from a book. Doing this does not mean the apple is never eaten or the page is never torn out, it is a localized reversal. Mads still has the page he stole from the book and uses it, but it also reappears in the book for Strange to read. The spell just reverting the book to its prior state, not undoing the page being torn out. This is the important point.

Same with Thanos "saving" Vision and the Mind Stone in Infinity War. He doesn't wind back time so Wanda never kills Vision, he just reverses the effects of Wanda's powers on Vision and the stone. Time all around them flows as normal, once again it is a localized reversal. Other characters watch it happen, all time doesn't flow back, only in a small area. Magic!

So in this one, it is possible that Strange could reverse the damage to Starks body, without undoing the event that caused the damage, as in the above examples. Reverting his body to it's previous "Not Dead" state, like the apple, the book and Vision + the stone.

You could say that Strange is only capable of undoing damage to an apple or a book and a human being is a whole other story and only Thanos had the power to "save" Vision, but that isn't in the movie.

So yeah, Strange straight up let Stark die for no reason. I don't mind though, as far as I'm concerned, Iron Man has been the real villain of all these films, so good job Doc! You got him!

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

teagone posted:

This is all rendered null because Strange would have to wind time back to before Stark snapped his fingers in order to revive him. This also means there would be two time stones: one taken from the gauntlet post snap, and another when winding back Tony to just before the snap. That doesn't make sense. And we don't know exactly how the infinity stones interact with the space time continuum, other than it's dangerous to meddle with. Like, winding back Tony where he snaps backwards could also inadvertently un-dust Thanos and his armies. We don't know.

But, we DO know. It has already happened in previous movies like I said.

Undoing the page tear doesn't mean Mads suddenly doesn't have the page and is unable to do his ritual. It just reverts the state of the book. The torn out page remains torn out and in Mads possession.
When Thanos winds back Vision, Vision and the stone are made whole, but it doesn't mean that Wanda never destroyed them. It still happened, the only thing reversed is the effect of the action, the action itself (page being torn out of a book, Wanda killing her boyfriend etc) STILL happened. All time doesn't rewind, just the state of Vision and the stone.

So if Strange does the same thing to Iron Man, if the prior examples hold (and we have nothing else to go on) all that would happen is that the damage to Tony's body would be healed, but the event that caused it (killing Thanos and friends) would still happen.


The real reason this doesn't happen is because it means that events would cease to have any meaning because anything could be fixed. Probably should have thought of that before they created those powers.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Raenir Salazar posted:

It really didn't, SOME things appeared to be reversed, those things are NOT the same things that you're suggested could be reversed. The same movie strongly suggests bad poo poo could have happened so we really don't know. This isn't a plot hole; the rules aren't as clear as you're making them out to be. Hardly enough to definitely say Strange let Stark die for "no" reason.

Sorry about the potato quality of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VddDZf6hRPM

There is no reason you couldn't sub Strange in for Thanos and Iron Man in for vision here. You can also see from the clip that Thanos doesn't rewind ALL time, just Vision and the stone. Wanda watches it happen. This is all I'm suggesting happen, that's all.

And while this does let Thanos kill half of all people, this rewind doesn't gently caress up space-time or anything. So they can talk about consequences, but they haven't shown any.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

LividLiquid posted:

He never had the time stone after he gave it up in Infinity War.



Well yeah, but he could just pick it up from Tony's body and use it

But it's probably time to drop all this, nothing will be resolved, best to just let it go and say Only Thanos had the power to restore a living being, Strange could only do things like apples or books or that reversing around the stones is a bad idea (even though Thanos restored a stone itself using this power in the last film

It's all just Calvinball anyway.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
A friend really wanted to see this and dragged me to it today. Strangely they are a big MCU fan and I hate it but we both had the same read on it in the end. It's actually not the worst movie for the first two acts and then shits the bed to a massive extent in the third act. It's so goddamn disjointed and just plain ugly.

Ignoring all the time travel nonsense we've all complained about endlessly, the final battle is utter dogshit. The colour palette, the cinematography, the editing, the score it's all terrible. There is a moment where Cap is hosed and then all the dead heroes come back to save the day and it's nominally this big, epic moment and it looks so small, so pathetic, so boring.

Imagine how amazing it should have been. I'm not asking for something unreasonable here. The trailers for Godzilla: KOTM show the kind of thing that is possible. But in this it's just a muddy orange/brown nightmare, with uninteresting debris and battlefield stuff. The action doesn't flow, there is no sense of danger, of spacial relations. It's just a bunch of things happening until it's time to stop. As an example of what I mean, how quickly Ant-Man + The Wasp get to the van, versus the time it takes Captain Marvel, who can travel faster than the speed of light. None of it makes sense, it's all just an excuse for boring, weightless action against CGI nonsense to happen. It was so bad that thinking about it (because this movie went back to it), the climax to the first Avengers was terrible, as CineD has long documented, but I actually think this climax was even worse, if that is possible. People have called out the lady heroes team-up bit as bad, but really it's no worse than the entire thing, that is just more noticeable because of people wanting to complain about the wimmins because dudes on the internet have small dicks I guess. I mean, using just the final battle not other movie or outside material, what colour is Spider-Man's suit? That's what I mean about the visual style, it's so bad.

On other random notes, I like that Iron Man got a big funeral with all the MCU there, while Black Widow got Hawkeye remembering her with Wanda by a lake, they really don't give a gently caress lol.


I don't want to say something I can't take back, but the climax to this reminded me of the climax to Justice League, in visual ugliness and terrible colour, it's that bad.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
Part of being a good friend is doing things you might not enjoy, because you want them to do the things they enjoy. He went with me to see a cricket test earlier in the year even though he doesn't really like cricket, but I do.

I was really surprised he was as negative about it as me, he's liked all the films until now. I hope my negativity didn't rub off on him.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

JohnnySavs posted:

Imagine you're on a flight from London to New York, and all of a sudden half the people around you turn to dust. As people begin pounding on the door to the cockpit, you realize you're fated to crash once the autopilot finally runs out of fuel.

Imagine looking up from the news on your phone to see a silent airliner bearing down on you.

Imagine you're on the same flight, you feel extremely unwell, then you and half the passengers are free falling from 30,000 ft over the ocean.. How did Tony account for that?

Before Hulk does the snap there's a line of dialogue where he's talking to Stark where he says something like "Bringing everybody who vanished five years ago back today safely" (emphasis mine), so maybe he did account for that and if people would have come back in a dangerous way, they come back a slight distance away in a place that's safe?

This is just me extrapolating a lot from one word.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:

The Earth is moving around the Sun, the Sun moves around the galactic core and so on. so unless the second snap moves people to some degree, everyone comes back into vacuum

This is how the time travel must work as well, as not only do they travel in time, they must move in space as well (e.g. War Machine returns from whatever planet from GotG 1 to upstate New York and so on with the rest as well). So I guess Stark invented teleportation] as well.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
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)

Maybe it was just his anger coming out or he was out of character, but that's a weird thing for the hero of a allegedly childrens film to say, especially as nobody reacts to it or refutes it and he later dies a hero. The only change he makes is deciding to risk his new family to save everyone else, he never walks that sentiment back.

So, Iron Man is some sort of fascist, confirmed?

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Charlz Guybon posted:

Civil war was personal, he was talking about Ultron. Though the failure of that program wasn't exactly due to Cap's opposition.

In that case I'm even more confused because I just don't see how even a properly functioning Ultron makes a difference with regard to Thanos, I'd think it would be stomped like everything else.

My problem with that line from Stark isn't so much he said it as the fact that nobody bothers to counter argue. We could argue that they understand he's acting out and are choosing to ignore it, but to me it comes across more as people ignoring their racist uncle popping off again.

These films (Infinity War and Endgame) are odd too, in that they link Thanos and Iron Man, what with both of them warning of dangers to their worlds and being ignored, leading to disaster. They then have to fix things themselves using magic rocks. You'll notice that Thanos, Hulk and Stark are the only ones to use all six gems and Thanos and Stark use them in identical ways.

I find this whole thing off-putting because the arc for Iron Man over a few films is him being scared about the end of the world and thinking it all falls on him to prevent. It's just plain weird that the films seem to agree that not only is the world in danger (it's always in danger, these are superhero films!), but agree that it is all on Tony.

His mania about fixing things, to me at least, seemed like something he would have to learn to let go, as in learn that he is not the center of the universe and not liable for fixing everything. I would have thought his arc was about realizing this and letting go a bit.

But instead it is all on him to solve and not only that, the comfort his wife gives him is telling him "You did it, you can rest now", like everyone agrees that the world depends on some rear end in a top hat billionaire arms dealer.

Gross.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

CelticPredator posted:



Go bitch about the cinematography again

Okay. The cinematography is poo poo.

Nobody is going to talk about it because the cinematography is always poo poo and people seem to have decided to just accept it.

The morality of Cap's action being discussed is new because even people (like me!) who don't like the MCU still think it is hosed up and out of character for Cap to do what he does.

And for the argument that Peggy B is the same as Peggy A because they are identical, Endgame itself seems to disagree with this notion. When? In the scenes where Nebula, Cap and Hulk interact with/see their past selves and are clearly very different from them. Nebula and Cap even fight themselves (Cap really seems to dislike himself? What's going on there?).

Not to mention there is a version of the Cap/Peggy reunion in this film with Quill/Gamora, that ends with Quill being kneed in the balls because that's not his Gamora!.

And Steve is not Peggy B's Steve because her Steve is frozen in ice, he never thawed out in the future (yet) and fought space aliens. It's not that Peggy is different really, it's that Cap is.

And Peggy ought to be told. We can assume she made an informed choice, but that leaves the questions about 1) The Steve in the Ice 2) Cap making out with her (their?) great niece.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

euphronius posted:

I think Peggy having his picture on her desk in 1972 is important.

Wonder what her husband (if he wasn't always time-looped Cap like the writers say) thinks of that.

Speaking of the time-loop cap theory (it's stupid but bear with me), Sharon spoke at Peggy's funeral. She clearly knew her great Aunt. Did she also know her great uncle (cap) then?

Was Sharon Carter sexually attracted to her great uncle? hosed up if so.

For this reason, people should ignore the time-loop poo poo the writers say, that way lies madness. Although incest porn is popular for some reason, so maybe they are just being topical.

And there is no way Peggy reacts positively to Cap macking on her great niece (see cap 1 with the Natalie Dormer scene), so cap probably omitted that, meaning her consent is not fully informed.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

ImpAtom posted:

Sharon Carter is Peggy's Great-Niece. There is literally no biological connection between them. It's still kinda weird but he wasn't hitting on his granddaughter.

So, step-siblings and step-parents/children are 100% ok to bang then? No biological connection!

Family ties are about more than blood dude.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

ImpAtom posted:

They are which is why this is a stupid argument. Captain America had no family ties to her at all.

Yes I know, but I'm ragging on the writers who didn't seem to understand that by making Cap Peggy's husband all along, they created a family tie between Cap and Sharon (even if not related by blood) so that means he made out with his own grand niece. Not the sharpest tools in the shed those two.

And it's still weird that he made out with his true love's great niece.

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Ate My Balls Redux posted:


who is around to recognize him? Bucky is on ice/a Soviet hitman. Maybe he needs to hide once in a while when the Howling Commandos come to drink with Peggy?




Howard Stark who founded SHIELD with Peggy? All the Hydra dudes inside of SHIELD? Tommy Lee Jones?

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo
While the physical logistics of the UnSnap are talked about (shouldn't people appear in space since earth has moved from where it was, etc etc, blah blah blah, a wizard did it), what people are really complaining about are the societal impacts of the mass vanishing and unvanishing being ignored, glossed over or treated as gags.

In Far From Home there is mention of housing problems for the returned, but they don't spend any time on it because Peter trying to get laid and so on.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

garycoleisgod
Sep 27, 2004
Boo

Lurdiak posted:

In the comics, it is pointed out multiple times that imposing your will on the universe using the gems, no matter how noble your aims and how advanced your philosophy, is immoral, because you're literally reshaping reality, people, ideas, lives, free will, etc. to suit what you think the world should be like, a monstrously selfish act.

This is...interesting.

Does this mean anytime anybody tries to change the world, you know, like trying to achieve, let's say, ending slavery or universal healthcare or minimum basic income or gay rights or transgender rights or workers rights or climate change action, they are being selfish?

Because if you are successful in your goals you will be

quote:

literally reshaping reality, people, ideas, lives, free will, etc. to suit what you think the world should be like

Are social activists "monstrously selfish?" Would they become so if they had a magic wishing glove that let them achieve their goals?

Or is achieving positive social change good, whether done by political activism or magic? The only difference between the two really is that the magic is basically certain to work. Doing immoral things is immoral, doing good things isn't. Especially as in this case it can be achieved without any violence, unlike other revolutions.

And seeing as the Avengers plan in the movie is to use the gems to bring everyone back, they're reshaping the world anyway. Remember, some people will have moved on, remarried etc. Like the new family in Spiderman living in Aunt Mays house. Bringing everybody back sure as poo poo "reshaped their lives", this must be immoral according to your logic.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply