Jump to content

Avengers: Endgame Spoilers


Romans832

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Duckman said:

I am sick of "girl power" being an issue.  I get women wanting to have more representation and I have no problem giving it to them.  I'm not sure why men even feel a need to notice or comment on it.  Are you really so insecure that you can't deal with a character who does not look like you?  If not then what other possible reason could you have for noticing or caring?  Personally, as someone who is surrounded by strong, capable women in my life (mostly by my own choice) I was happy to see that whole sequence and a nod to some great characters and some great actresses who have been key to the franchise.

In this case, the issue is that Stan Lee's Marvel is dated and was created at a time where female equality wasn't expected in the superhero lineups. So staying true to the comics means having a minimal female cast. And since that female inequality is no longer kosher in mainstream films, we get these forced "girl power" scenes when they try to make films based on those comics with dated ideals. 

Nothing wrong with females wanting more representation, but I do criticize it when hollywood "forces" it into a scene, rather than making it fit. That "girl power" scene was them showing that females are not equal, and require their own little scene just to be taken seriously (which is the opposite of the message that should be being broadcast).

They should have just include females in every epic fight scene, sometimes main and sometimes supporting. Instead we got segregated fight scenes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, paxmiles said:

In this case, the issue is that Stan Lee's Marvel is dated and was created at a time where female equality wasn't expected in the superhero lineups.

This only matters if the MCU was staying true to Stan Lee's Marvel of the 1970s and earlier.  They have not and are not and so again, what's the big deal?  Marvel was not female until 82 and even then it was Rambeau, not Danvers, just as one example.

Stop for just a second and have a bit of empathy...  Never mind all the other MCU films...  How many times did we see the bros sitting around the campfire just in Endgame?  Scenes where not even Black Widow was present and it was all boys posturing for the camera...  And one time it happens with women and you have to comment on it.  Maybe the issue is not the women...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duckman said:

Stop for just a second and have a bit of empathy...  Never mind all the other MCU films...  How many times did we see the bros sitting around the campfire just in Endgame?  Scenes where not even Black Widow was present and it was all boys posturing for the camera...  And one time it happens with women and you have to comment on it.  Maybe the issue is not the women...

We're staying into Realm of Chaos territory here. Not taking a side on it, but the argument is often the female empowerment moments are ham-fisted in their presentation. Very "look at us". Which rubs some people the wrong way for a variety of reasons--some defensible, some despicable. 

The counter-argument I'd offer, is that scenes of bros just bro-ing out are so ubiquitous that they don't draw attention to themselves in the same way--nor do they need to. 

And finally, I would just remind people that these are designed to be all ages movies. One demographic they're certainly marketing towards is impressionable young girls. Comic books are already a Male-dominated medium. If they're trying to change that narrative, ham-fisted female empowerment beats can still be a message that resonates with the target audience. We, as adult males, may find a reason to roll our eyes, but those moments aren't for us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Duckman said:

This only matters if the MCU was staying true to Stan Lee's Marvel of the 1970s and earlier.  They have not and are not and so again, what's the big deal?  Marvel was not female until 82 and even then it was Rambeau, not Danvers, just as one example.

Stop for just a second and have a bit of empathy...  Never mind all the other MCU films...  How many times did we see the bros sitting around the campfire just in Endgame?  Scenes where not even Black Widow was present and it was all boys posturing for the camera...  And one time it happens with women and you have to comment on it.  Maybe the issue is not the women...

I was commenting on your comment about "girl power." And yes, I would like more scenes a mix of genders sitting around a campfire. I think we agree in the respect that we think females deserve representation in films.

My issue is the "girl power" scene in question feels forced. I'm not a fan of any scenes in any film that feel forced, be it product placement or any other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brother Glacius said:

I'm sorry, how is one scene, in a three hour long movie, where the girls come together "ham-fisted"?? This is what Duckman is getting at. Seems like some guys just can't handle any focus that isn't on their 50%. 

I didn't say it was. That's abundantly clear in my post, both in what I explicitly said and within the context of the post as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Yarbicus said:

I think I am guilty of bringing up the topic. My main points were that I already miss Natasha but love all of the new super women. More Valkyrie, please!

Nah you're good. You brought it up within the context of reviews of the movies. Once we start straying into representation in cinema in general, or making assumptions about people for daring to clarify the debate, we're on RoC-y shores.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Munkie said:

Nah you're good. You brought it up within the context of reviews of the movies. Once we start straying into representation in cinema in general, or making assumptions about people for daring to clarify the debate, we're on RoC-y shores.

Good to know since I didn't apologize for it! 

I think that Valkyrie and Shuri as a crime solving detective team would be awesome.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2019 at 4:43 PM, Yarbicus said:

Great ending to Caps story arch.  Beautifully done.

I knew Stark would die but I was surprised by Black Widow.  Makes sense and it was well done but I did not see that coming.  Of course, I am surprised that more main characters didn't die.

Yep. That last scene was just perfect. I was pretty sure that either Clint or Nat was going to die, but wasn't sure which. Kinda wish it had been Clint, just so I wouldn't have had to see that awful haircut for the rest of the film.

On 4/30/2019 at 7:52 PM, Duckman said:

Remember the kid who helps him with tech against the Mandarin?

OK, there we go. I couldn't figure that out either. And was Maria Hill in that scene, too? I can't remember seeing her, but Cobie Smulders was in the credits.

On 4/30/2019 at 8:41 PM, Brother Glacius said:

Love Cap's fight with Thanos. Best scene in whole flick. My big question mark is when does the next Spider-Man take place? It can't be post End Game...no way him and all his friends went "poof" and didn't age.

Cap with Mjolnir was absolutely beautiful. So glad we got that.

I was kind of hoping for a Thor and Danvers back to back against a horde bit. Sort of like the opening of Ragnarok, but with both of them in there.

Spiderman: Far from Home is post-Endgame. Homecoming messed up the chronology of the MCU pretty significantly, and I'm not really sure how they're planning to address that.

On 5/1/2019 at 7:10 PM, Yarbicus said:

Also, "It's ok, Tony. We will be fine. You can rest now."

Totally lost it.

Yep. Right in the feels.

On 4/30/2019 at 8:37 PM, andozane said:

(though I'm still holding out hope they meld Shuri with Ironheart as that would be bad ass)

My friend and I were thinking more about having Shuri mentor Riri. Also, that the girl who played Monica Rambeau in Captain Marvel could probably be a really good Riri in a few more years. They're going to need someone different if they want to do more with Monica Rambeau anyhow, since she's like 25 years older if they bring her up in the current continuity.

-------------------

In my own thoughts, I thought it did a great job of wrapping things up for the Big Three, and many of the others, especially the tertiary characters, but a couple of the mid-tier ones sort of felt like even with all that run time, they didn't have enough room to really work them in properly. SWitch and Marvel in the final fight against Thanos in particular. Which, I can understand (They're both ridiculously powerful characters, but they really can't be the ones to finish things here, since we need to wrap up the Big Three's arcs, while theirs still have a ways to go), but it still felt a little off to me. Sam and Bucky felt like they set up their vibe for their show just about perfectly, too. Also, the Falcon apparently has some serious claws now!

It was never going to happen, but I would have loved a Deadpool cameo during Ronin's rampage through Tokyo. Nothing much, just something like Wade jumping through a shot in the opposite direction, chasing some other gangster.

Seeing Potts get to put on a suit and kick butt was pretty awesome. Been hoping for that all along.

Overall, I feel like it would have been very difficult to do much better. Most of the issues were legacy problems either from earlier MCU films, like Iron Man's deus ex machina armour, or just from the Marvel Universe in general, like trying to balance the importance of characters with such vastly different power levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

Russo Bros said that those that were snapped back are the same age they were when the snap happened, while everyone that remained alive is 5 years older.

The Stark clause. 

Did anyone else feel like snapping everyone back was weirdly just assumed to be the best thing to do? The debate was whether they turn back time, which Stark wouldn't agree to because he'd lose his family. They compromised and keeping the universe the same, but bringing back the snapped 50%.

Nobody considered:

-The potential trauma of being snapped back. Widow(er)s remarried, with their dead spouse thrust back into their lives. People snapped back, only to find their loved ones died in the the immediate aftermath. Etc.

-The fact that nobody got to choose whether or not they wanted to be snapped back. People on their deathbed brought back to die again.

-That the universe is massive and they know almost nothing about it. Deciding to make that choice based on losses in their own sliver is existence is...naive.

It just seemed like a group that up until quite recently was trying to kill eachother over questions of oversight and their reckless use of power, took their ability to wield existential power responsibly as a given.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Munkie said:

The Stark clause. 

Did anyone else feel like snapping everyone back was weirdly just assumed to be the best thing to do? The debate was whether they turn back time, which Stark wouldn't agree to because he'd lose his family. They compromised and keeping the universe the same, but bringing back the snapped 50%.

Nobody considered:

-The potential trauma of being snapped back. Widow(er)s remarried, with their dead spouse thrust back into their lives. People snapped back, only to find their loved ones died in the the immediate aftermath. Etc.

-The fact that nobody got to choose whether or not they wanted to be snapped back. People on their deathbed brought back to die again.

-That the universe is massive and they know almost nothing about it. Deciding to make that choice based on losses in their own sliver is existence is...naive.

It just seemed like a group that up until quite recently was trying to kill eachother over questions of oversight and their reckless use of power, took their ability to wield existential power responsibly as a given.

 

I was also thinking about things like species that had been below twice their minimum survival population before the snap, went extinct during the five years since then, and then get brought back, but again with too small a population base to maintain, doomed to go extinct yet again.

Basically, the snapback has as many overlooked issues as the snap did in the first place.

On 4/30/2019 at 12:45 PM, andozane said:

Also, he didn't seem to feel the effects of taking on the stones so fast...just my opinion.  

What Tony did with the Stones was minuscule compared to what Thanos or Bruce did. They made changes across the entire universe. Tony just dusted maybe a few tens of thousands of Thanos's troops, all within a few miles' radius. Even just the changes Thanos and Bruce made on Earth were something like 5 orders of magnitude more than what Tony did. If he hadn't been so beat up at the time, he probably could have survived it, and someone who knew what they were doing could likely do basically the same thing with just the Power Stone or Reality Stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Munkie said:

The Stark clause. 

Did anyone else feel like snapping everyone back was weirdly just assumed to be the best thing to do? The debate was whether they turn back time, which Stark wouldn't agree to because he'd lose his family. They compromised and keeping the universe the same, but bringing back the snapped 50%.

 

The bit that gets me is that they had peace. I mean after that purple guy killed half of the population, the humans, despite being in mourning, were doing great. 

But the *Revengers* decided that peace meant admitting that the purple guy won, and their egos wouldn't permit that. So in the name of *revenge* they went back in time to undo peace because that peace was achieved by someone other than themselves. 

And for clarity, it's revenge, not avenge, in this film. They're too personally invested for it be avenging. 

 

Oh, the other solution, not mentioned, is that they could just go back in time and live there. There is no need to fix the present, they like the past more than the present and can just go live in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanos explained very long ago why he was doing what he was and it was essentially something he viewed as altruistic.  He classified the humans as lower beasts because they were too stupid or selfish to manage themselves to handle how their resources were being consumed.  He accomplished what he wanted with the snap as well even if it he admitted that he didn't care about localized effects like planes crashing after pilots were snapped out of existence.

The dialog between Steve and Natasha before Scott came back demonstrated that they interpreted Thanos' actions as an attack on the Human Race and they essentially ignored Thanos explanation (not that that should come as a surprise to anyone).  Their behavior is not inexplicable or even unusual.  There are countless examples of people coming together and ignoring their own differences to fight a common enemy.  China was fragmented when the Japanese invaded after the Marco Polo Bridge events and that's just a simple example that I can come up with off the top of my head.

They even addressed, tangentially, the difference between revenge and positive action when Thor talks about striking down Thanos when he knew it would change nothing and that he was too late.

As for the consequences of the snap back, nobody cared and with good reason.  4 billion people died.  You can save them or you can worry about fine details like trying to use the stones to determine who was already close to death and trying to exempt them.  The person saved from a mugging because their assailant was dusted is a token consideration compared to the 3,999,999,999 other people impacted.  Given that you are already in a battle to keep your sanity and not be overwhelmed by the stones as demonstrated in every other movie it is incredibly nitpicky to as why Banner didn't spend more time making the snap back perfect.  He also explained to Clint that he spent time trying to bring Nat back when he snapped and it didn't work so whether that was because of the soul stone itself or a more general statement he *did* try to change the parameters of the snap back and failed.

 

If you want to open the can of worms which boils down to why don't superheroes always pick the option we want them to, there are numerous comics which address the fact that heroes are not perfect and are prone to mistakes (see countless examples even from posts in this thread like Wanda's past, the history of the Black Panther and fratricide, etc.).  Add on the fact that no two readers/viewers are going to agree on what is perfect and ask yourself about the Klansman in Georgia watching it and asking why Banner bothered to return any of the people from Wakanda (or maybe the easier example of not returning anyone who was Hydra).  It's a cheapshot example but the point is that, as was pointed out, the protagonists in the movie could not agree on a course of action without an external threat and so the simplest course of action that everyone is likely to agree about is to undo Thanos actions to the best of their ability and make no other changes.

 

If you want to examine the movie at this level don't trivialize it by just dismissing what the characters did.  Examine what you would have done differently and why.  That's what any writer is going to hope for as a result of his work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duckman said:

If you want to examine the movie at this level don't trivialize it by just dismissing what the characters did.  Examine what you would have done differently and why.  That's what any writer is going to hope for as a result of his work.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying they probably should've thought about it on some level, like, at all. Their entire thought process was "people in this group lost people, and are hurting, so we should fix that."

I have no idea what I'd do. I'd like to think that I understand the weaknesses of people in general, and mine specifically, that I'd hesitate to just wield the power over life and death, over reality itself and trust that I'd do the right thing with it. I assume I'd probably be corrupted by having the most power of anyone in the universe, and I'd hesitate to just snatch it up.

Thanos didn't have the right to kill half of all life. That doesn't mean bending reality to what you feel is correct is the right thing either. But they didn't even consider that. It was all about how they bend reality to their will, not should they bend reality to their will.

You'll notice they didn't undo the extinction the dinosaurs faced. They didn't undo plagues or famines in history. They didnt wipe out malaria or solve cancer. They just wanted to restore balance to their lives, and didn't even consider any larger implications.

 

"We want this result, so everyone gets this result" is a bad logic to apply when you've got power. Nobody batted an eye at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't want to fix what happened to them directly.  In fact, that was the point of the Stark storyline (that it was not just about them but that it was about selfless consideration of 4 billion other people).  They wanted to undo what Thanos did.  No judgement of any other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Duckman said:

Thanos explained very long ago why he was doing what he was and it was essentially something he viewed as altruistic.  He classified the humans as lower beasts because they were too stupid or selfish to manage themselves to handle how their resources were being consumed.  He accomplished what he wanted with the snap as well even if it he admitted that he didn't care about localized effects like planes crashing after pilots were snapped out of existence.

And the real issue I have there is that, even without the snapback, it wouldn't have worked, and Thanos should have known that. Someone smart enough to pull all this off should know how population growth works. Another 70 years or so, and places with more or less human reproductive rates would be back in exactly the same situation, and this time, there would be no Infinity Stones to change things. Well, assuming that the Dark Dimension hadn't just taken everything over now that the Time Stone (apparently critical to holding off Dormammu, tho I really don't know how) was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Duckman said:

Thanos explained very long ago why he was doing what he was and it was essentially something he viewed as altruistic.  He classified the humans as lower beasts because they were too stupid or selfish to manage themselves to handle how their resources were being consumed.  He accomplished what he wanted with the snap as well even if it he admitted that he didn't care about localized effects like planes crashing after pilots were snapped out of existence.

The dialog between Steve and Natasha before Scott came back demonstrated that they interpreted Thanos' actions as an attack on the Human Race and they essentially ignored Thanos explanation (not that that should come as a surprise to anyone).

Well, the heroes aren't wrong, Purple Guy's altruism was an attack on the human race. It was, past tense. Once it's been done, though, a real good guy should press on.

But our heroes didn't press on. Instead, they became consumed with a desire for vengeance. They started by murdering a defenseless Purple guy, no trial, just attacked him while he was helpless.

But that wasn't enough.

So our heroes decided that the present wasn't good enough, so they planned to alter reality to their whims....

This is like villain mentality 101.

 

There's probably a list somewhere of super villains whose plan is to destroy the present to return to life some idealized component from their past. Pretty close to Purple Guy's plan, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Duckman said:

They didn't want to fix what happened to them directly.  In fact, that was the point of the Stark storyline (that it was not just about them but that it was about selfless consideration of 4 billion other people).  They wanted to undo what Thanos did.  No judgement of any other factors.

What happened to them directly is that they lost. They wanted to win, even at all costs. It was a battle of Ego.

Our heroes are really competitive, if you haven't noticed. They won't accept loss, even if it benefits them or the world. Winning is paramount.

Not unlike:

Except the Avenger's would have attacked him once he fell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Duckman said:

They didn't want to fix what happened to them directly.  In fact, that was the point of the Stark storyline (that it was not just about them but that it was about selfless consideration of 4 billion other people).  They wanted to undo what Thanos did.  No judgement of any other factors.

Tony's storyline was about his family. It had nothing to do with the consideration of anyone else.

They wanted a way to bring their friends back, bring Hawkeye's family back, but not lose Stark's family. That was it. No other factors considered.

They saw absolute power, and they wanted it to accomplish purely selfish goals. They were just able to justify it by telling themselves that it's probably what everyone else wants too. But considering they made no effort to find out what anyone else wanted, and didn't consider any moral or ethical implications, it's hard to believe they cared too much about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, paxmiles said:

Well, the heroes aren't wrong, Purple Guy's altruism was an attack on the human race. It was, past tense. Once it's been done, though, a real good guy should press on.

 

1 hour ago, Munkie said:

They saw absolute power, and they wanted it to accomplish purely selfish goals. They were just able to justify it by telling themselves that it's probably what everyone else wants too. But considering they made no effort to find out what anyone else wanted, and didn't consider any moral or ethical implications, it's hard to believe they cared too much about it.

 

Cap lead survivors counseling, Tony had a long conversation with his father where the final exchange was about selfless sacrifice for the betterment of humanity. 

I'm not disagreeing that both Thanos actions and those of the Avengers were shortsighted.  Thanos action was aimed at everything and not just the populations that were so numerous that they were destroying their environments (which is what he claimed to be aiming at).  I agree that he was supposed to be smarter than to think that this would be a good solution but I've also seen smart people get tunnel vision to the point that they could not see obvious implications to the solution they chose for the problem in front of them.  Not saying that they conveyed that in the film but it's not something that I have trouble imagining.  The Avengers turn around and they set a single goal of undoing what was done.  Again, shortsighted as it ignores all the situations that are not recoverable...  People coming back in midair where a plane used to be or in the wreckage of a plane somewhere else (never mind the whole "pick a gravity well as a frame of reference and why should Earth win" situation)...  People coming back in rooms that are no longer capable of sustaining life (flooded with water, open to vacuum of space, etc.)...  But the whole point of the conversations with Thor and the conversations between Natasha and Steve after grief counseling was that they could not move on because they failed their job as protectors.  It's an ensemble show so maybe not everyone has the same motive but in a three hour movie they wasted a good 30 minutes on that dialog and you are just dismissing it as I said before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap in counseling seems like given regardless of Purple Guy's actions. He's like 100yrs old, most of his friends are dead either way, he's a WW2 vet, and so on.

Super Mansion covers it pretty well (as a fail comedy)  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperMansion

Anyway, the counseling is a move forward. Grief is a normal part of life. Bad things are part of life too. Accepting the present and working forward is the role of a good hero.

Time travel because you can't accept loss and would gamble everything to rewrite the present, that's bad guy stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...