Avengers: Endgame

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby maybeagnostic » Sat May 04, 2019 6:35 am UTC

In what way is that a plot hole?
Spoiler:
She uses the Time Stone to protect Earth from magical entities and in an earlier movie we've seen that Strange would've failed to stop Dormammu without the Stone. Now there's no longer a Time Stone and we have an upcoming Dr Strange movie so doesn't it stand to reason that that's exactly the problem he'd have to face in it?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby CorruptUser » Sat May 04, 2019 6:55 am UTC

I liked the movie. Biggest gripes

Nonspoilered
Lighting is a bit terrible
So many characters, felt like barely anyone got more than 10 lines of dialogue

And spoilered
Spoiler:
The biggest issue was that the prior movie had the villain win, and more importantly, the permanence of such a victory. Undone with time travel, even if it cost the lives of 3 of the major characters (one of which comes back as her undeveloped self), is kind of cheap
Not too much of a fan of the giant battle scene at the end. So Thanos orders his ship to open fire with supercannons or whatever on absolutely everyone, including his own army, yet every hero survives the onslaught. Granted, the wizards used their shield thingies, but seriously, what was the point of that then?


Weird things, spoilered to be on the safe side
Spoiler:
Alright, everyone is brought back. That is going to create some HUGE amount of chaos; literally half of married couples lost someone, assuming random death (1/4 both died, 1/4 neither died, 1/2 one died), and the bulk of those people have moved on, remarried, had kids with a new partner (and the mass PTSD from The Snappening would've resulted in a MASSIVE baby boom), so yeah, chaos. Now add in the questions of property laws considering that virtually everyone alive inherited property from their dusted relatives, who now come back to life and want the home you already sold back. This crisis is far from over.

Ok, the stones all need to be returned to their original timelimes? Imagine the scene when Captain America shows up to reinject Natalie Portman with the aether stone...

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Angua » Sat May 04, 2019 8:32 am UTC

OP Tipping wrote:Ah ... someone elsewhere has pointed out another confusing aspect or potential plothole.

Spoiler:
Bruce goes to visit The Ancient One to retrieve the Time Stone in 2012.

TAO: I'm sorry, I can't help you, Bruce. If I give up the Time Stone to help your reality, I'm dooming my own.

Bruce: With all due respect I'm not sure the science really supports that.

TAO: The Infinity Stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one of the stones, and that flow splits. Now this may benefit your reality, but my new one, not so much. In this new branch of reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world would be overrun. Millions would suffer. So tell me, doctor, can your science prevent all that.

But in 2018, Thanos destroys all the stones. The Earth is a bit shit because of the economic disruption that flowed on from The Snap, but nothing really happens to "The Flow of Time". The Earth is not overrun by the forces of darkness despite the absence of the Time Stone.
Spoiler:
I parsed that as needing to have all 6 stones present in the reality to provide balance. Thanos destroyed them all at once. It does retroactively lead to a problem with Vision's mindstone being destroyed, but our main characters didn't know about the problem with destroying them and Thanos reversed that pretty immediately. Also might have been the reason Strange gave Thanos the timestone when he did.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby SecondTalon » Sat May 04, 2019 1:32 pm UTC

OP Tipping wrote:Ah ... someone elsewhere has pointed out another confusing aspect or potential plothole.

Spoiler:
Bruce goes to visit The Ancient One to retrieve the Time Stone in 2012.

TAO: I'm sorry, I can't help you, Bruce. If I give up the Time Stone to help your reality, I'm dooming my own.

Bruce: With all due respect I'm not sure the science really supports that.

TAO: The Infinity Stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one of the stones, and that flow splits. Now this may benefit your reality, but my new one, not so much. In this new branch of reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world would be overrun. Millions would suffer. So tell me, doctor, can your science prevent all that.

But in 2018, Thanos destroys all the stones. The Earth is a bit shit because of the economic disruption that flowed on from The Snap, but nothing really happens to "The Flow of Time". The Earth is not overrun by the forces of darkness despite the absence of the Time Stone.


Spoiler:
You’re underestimating how hard Strange mindfucked Dormmanmu. Dormmamu does not like time. At all. I also thought she was just referring to the timelines branching off. I may be mistaken and you may be right, though. They working on a Doc Strange II?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby maybeagnostic » Sat May 04, 2019 1:48 pm UTC

Yes, Doctor Strange II is slated for next year.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby rmsgrey » Sat May 04, 2019 2:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:[...]


Spoiler:
Thanos' victory isn't fully undone - as you point out later, there are some pretty significant consequences of the Decimation (Duoation?) even after everyone is restored - Thanos didn't achieve his stated goal, but he did have a lasting effect.


Angua wrote:
OP Tipping wrote:Ah ... someone elsewhere has pointed out another confusing aspect or potential plothole.

[...]
Spoiler:
I parsed that as needing to have all 6 stones present in the reality to provide balance. Thanos destroyed them all at once. It does retroactively lead to a problem with Vision's mindstone being destroyed, but our main characters didn't know about the problem with destroying them and Thanos reversed that pretty immediately. Also might have been the reason Strange gave Thanos the timestone when he did.


Spoiler:
There's potentially a difference between destroying the stones, and removing them from the timeline intact. Remove them, and you take a chunk of power with them; destroy them, and all that energy remains - possibly to coalesce into a stone again at some point in the future, or possibly just diffused throughout the cosmos. So simply destroying the stones may not be an existential threat in the same way as removing a key chunk of the universe. Of course, you're still removing a potent tool for manipulating that aspect of existence, which means the universe is less well defended against outside threats, but it's not actively causing things to unravel...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby CorruptUser » Sat May 04, 2019 3:32 pm UTC

For some fun, google "Thanos" and click on the little gauntlet icon.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Sun May 05, 2019 1:01 am UTC

Apparently, there are some interviews with the directors where they resolve a lot of people's questions. To which I say, if the movie doesn't stand on its own, maybe it's not great, and also Dumbledore isn't gay.
Spoiler:
Though I'm curious what their excuse is for Cap not telling his beloved wife "BTW the organization you dedicated your entire life to is being infiltrated by Nazis"
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby maybeagnostic » Sun May 05, 2019 4:22 am UTC

Why do you assume he didn't?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5440
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 06, 2019 5:08 am UTC

Finally saw this movie. Biggest lingering question not already raised in this thread so far:
Spoiler:
what happened to Loki after he took the tesseract back in 2012? sure they stole it from 1970 after that and then presumably put it back then but 2012 Loki still got away with the 2012 version of it and then what happened?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby ConMan » Mon May 06, 2019 5:19 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Finally saw this movie. Biggest lingering question not already raised in this thread so far:
Spoiler:
what happened to Loki after he took the tesseract back in 2012? sure they stole it from 1970 after that and then presumably put it back then but 2012 Loki still got away with the 2012 version of it and then what happened?

My assumption:
Spoiler:
Yes, this causes a branching timeline where, in 2012, Loki got away with the Tessaract. This is the point that allows Disney to launch its Loki spin-off series on their new streaming platform (that has already been announced, alongside a Scarlet Witch show), without having to worry about maintaining continuity with the main MCU timeline. Presumably he won't give the Tessaract to Thanos in this timeline, but it's hard to say what his angle will be.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby SecondTalon » Mon May 06, 2019 12:19 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Apparently, there are some interviews with the directors where they resolve a lot of people's questions. To which I say, if the movie doesn't stand on its own, maybe it's not great, and also Dumbledore isn't gay.

Absolutely agree there. If it ain't in the movie, it doesn't count.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Angua » Mon May 06, 2019 12:27 pm UTC

Meh, other than the Captain America thing (which the directors and writers disagree about anyway), most of the other stuff in these interviews so far I have generally figured out with context. If they explained every single thing it would be really boring and also an extremely long movie.

This is not the same as Prometheus were we are supposed to find out that Jesus was an engineer.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Mon May 06, 2019 2:30 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:Why do you assume he didn't?

If it's not in the movie and not implied in the movie, I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon May 06, 2019 3:05 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why do you assume he didn't?

If it's not in the movie and not implied in the movie, I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt?

But that's exactly what you are doing (except, like, the benefit of assuming aggressive stupidity). Its not in the movie either way and you are assuming it happened the way that doesn't make sense when nothing in the movie even hints that it did.
Spoiler:
The movie took pains to establish you can never go back to your own past but you can go back to what looks almost exactly like your past but is actually a parallel universe. Anything you do in that parallel universe only affects it and not your original timeline therefore Cap went off and married some alternate dimension Peggy then proceeded to spend seventy years in that parallel universe before coming back to the moment he originally left his own universe. He could have done absolutely anything in that other timeline and we have no information either way but I would be extremely surprised if it turns out he decided to let Hydra grow and corrupt the US for sixty years unopposed.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Mon May 06, 2019 4:46 pm UTC

I'm sorry, I can only see what the creators have decided to show me. It's possible there are cut scenes that address a myriad of plot points I found confusing or unclear or, for example,
Spoiler:
talk about how at some point someone tells the other characters it's shitty to mock someone's weight gain and alcoholism due to their PTSD

but the movie doesn't show them. I'm not going to assume the movie is actually great based on imagined scenes. Obviously they didn't feel those pieces were important enough, and decided instead having a giant crossover is more interesting. That's a decision they're allowed to make, and a decision I'm allowed to criticize.

Even if they publish "The Canon Guide That Reasonably Explains Everything Zohar Found Troublesome In The Movie, Including Additional Scenes With Extra Context That Explain Why Characters Behave In The Way They Did", I suppose it could be an interesting read but it wouldn't make the movie any better.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Chen
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Chen » Mon May 06, 2019 4:52 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why do you assume he didn't?

If it's not in the movie and not implied in the movie, I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Spoiler:
But what you posted about him not revealing Hydra was also not in the movie. Why did you assume he didn’t tell everyone about Hydra?

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby maybeagnostic » Mon May 06, 2019 5:43 pm UTC

Even if they publish "The Canon Guide That Reasonably Explains Everything Zohar Found Troublesome In The Movie, Including Additional Scenes With Extra Context That Explain Why Characters Behave In The Way They Did", I suppose it could be an interesting read but it wouldn't make the movie any better.


I am starting to wonder whether you even watched the movie at this point. Most of your questions in this topic are attempting to poke plot holes into a time travel story which is usually quite easy but your attempts really miss the mark. I am just left wondering what's your point in asking "questions" when you obviously ignore the summaries people give you of how the movie directly and explicitly gave those answers. There is absolutely no need to read additional content to answer most of your questions, just pay attention to the movie itself.

As for Thor,
Spoiler:
would you care to explain what exactly rubbed you the wrong way? I don't remember them poking fun at him being fat all that much after the initial shock reveal and even that I mostly saw as poking fun at the shirtless superhero scene that's a staple of MCU movies and especially Thor. While his depression wasn't taken very seriously by the other characters, overcoming it was his story in the movie and he had a big emotional scene with his mom to sort of resolve it so its not like the movie treated it as a joke.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Angua » Mon May 06, 2019 6:13 pm UTC

Spoiling this whole thing in regards to Thor - ST
Spoiler:
It's also worth mentioning that the depiction of Thor is controversial, but a lot of people feel that it is not merely being played for laughs, and Thor's PTSD is taken pretty seriously throughout the movie, even if some characters don't know how to deal with it. Obviously everyone has their own opinion though, and YMMV on whether or not you felt this was a glaring flaw.

https://www.slashfilm.com/avengers-endg ... t-a-thing/
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Mon May 06, 2019 6:26 pm UTC

I am really getting tired of explaining myself. I think those plot points don't make sense, I think the attempts the movie makes to explain them are not effective, I think the myriad of articles you can find on the matter and the creators finding they need to explain themselves in interviews is proof enough that there are plenty of people who also didn't understand what they were going for. You may not care, and that's fine. You may think you got it all worked out, and that's fine. You may think you're smarter than me, and that's fine too. At the end of the day, as I mentioned multiple times in this thread already, these plot holes are not the things that bother me most about the movie.

As for Thor,
Spoiler:
it's fine if you don't understand why people find his depiction offensive - not everyone can relate or understand everyone's mental health experiences! It is totally OK to say "I don't relate to this". But saying that it can't possibly be offensive is pretty obnoxious. It was obvious to me they were laughing at Thor and his pain. It was obvious by the way the movie showed it, it was obvious by the amount of laughter from the crowd around his scenes that that was the point. It is obvious from many other people's comments that this is not a singular opinion held by me.

After the relatively decent (or at least sensitive) attempt at depicting PTSD in Iron Man 3, I was pretty shocked this is the path they chose.

Yes, there's a great scene between Thor and his mom, one of the best bits in the movie! It makes the hypocrisy of laughing at him alongside this even more apparent.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Angua » Mon May 06, 2019 7:07 pm UTC

I literally did not say it can't possibly be offensive, my first statement was that it was controversial. I'm saying that different people are viewing it differently. I gave an article to that effect, not because I think I'm going to convince you otherwise, but to show that not everyone is viewing it the same way.

There are many works of fiction that have people doing loads of arguing over what something means or why it happens, there are even entire university courses devoted to the subject. It doesn't mean that every book/film studied in those classes is inherently a bad work of fiction? We are saying that things make sense to us, if you disagree then ok but you can't expect to say 'this didn't make sense' and not have other people who viewed the movie saying 'well I thought it make sense because of x,y and z'. This is a widely viewed movie, it's not surprising that it will have more articles and analysis spawned very quickly than other ones that were less popular.

Again, a lot of the interviews that they are giving about the movie are less about plot points and more about how the story came to be - what parts in the process they made x decision or decided on x line, or why they decided to go to one place instead of another with which character pairing (again, less because they are trying to 'fix the movie' and more about what sort of storyline they wanted to portray by that decision). Did they have z movie that's coming out later in mind when they made a certain decision?

Eg
Spoiler:
Eg they were originally going to have Iron Man and Thor in Asgard because they thought it would be cool for Tony to see Asgard and the magic/science aspect. They made the decision to take Tony and Steve back to the base in 1970 because they wanted to have Tony have a chance to talk to his dad and Steve to run into Peggy. They didn't liaise with Gunn about the ending with Thor going off with the GOTG. They spent a long time debating on whether Black Widow or Hawkeye should be the final sacrifice for the stone and it was originally going to be Hawkeye and why they decided that Widow's story was more fulfilled by the sacrifice.

As you can see, these are all things about their creative process in writing the story, and less about fixing or explaining plot points.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Mon May 06, 2019 7:24 pm UTC

My post was a reply to maybeagnostic's post, not yours, I got ninja'd and I apologize that it seemed it was aimed at you.

It's reasonable to have differing opinions on a piece of fiction. What I was referring to in that section of the post was discussing the technical happenings of the plot. I have not taken a film course, but I imagine they concentrate more on discussing symbolism and characters' motivations, on why people act in specific ways, not what actually happened. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think this movie set out to present itself as a puzzle to the viewers? Like it's not like the end of Neon Genesis Evangelion (or the entire show I guess) that's supposed to be a weird riddle in philosophy with multiple interpretations.

Regarding the article you posted, I think it comes at the issue from a different direction. There's a difference between saying "This isn't problematic, why are you saying it's problematic? It's not problematic. I'm denying the entire issue", which is what most people I talked with about this say, and saying "I understand why people would find this troublesome, I think it isn't because of xyz". The article you linked to acknowledges other people's views are acceptable. I disagree with it and I think it misses the mark, but at least it says "Yeah I get why people would think that".
Spoiler:
The person who wrote the article basically says "These are shitty people and they say actual comments fat people here". But a movie can do better than that. If a movie leaves comments like these hanging, with no retort, nothing to say or indicate this sort of thing is wrong, it basically condones it. And repeating these jokes over and over throughout the film is not necessary. I don't need an afterschool-special moment of looking at the camera and saying "Hey kids, bullying is wrong!" but maybe even a single person telling someone else "Stop being an asshole" would be nice.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon May 06, 2019 9:34 pm UTC

I'm just happy I live in a world where
Spoiler:
A Time Heist
is (overwhelmingly likely to be in the near future if it isn't already) the highest grossing movie of all time.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5440
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 06, 2019 11:35 pm UTC

Regarding Thor
Spoiler:
I felt awkward and uncomfortable during most of his scenes, until the big climax battle and denouement afterwards at least. When we first saw his condition early in the movie, I thought it was meant to be a quick play for laughs, "lol wow Thor the superhunk really let himself go", and Thor would just move on and be back to his old self soon thereafter and not linger in that condition for the entire movie. When he did linger like that, I found myself at first just annoyed with the film(makers) because this "joke" was more annoying than funny, watching a drunk guy mumble through his scenes is not entertaining and this had become an overly long gag. When it kept going through the whole movie, I started wondering if it was meant to be humorous at all, or whether instead we were supposed to take pity on Thor and find his situation sad and tragic. But as it wasn't made clear that that was the case, since besides Professor Hulk trying to cheer him up a little in those first scenes none of the characters really seemed to take pity on Thor so it wasn't clear that that's what the movie wanted the audience to do, I ended up finding the entire portrayal overall just awkward and unclear, unpleasant to watch without being clear that it's supposed to be an unpleasant thing we're supposed to feel sad about, and not a badly executed joke that dragged on way too long.

It's a bit like someone says in a flat tone "Three Jews walk into a bar and the bartender says 'Was möchten Sie trinken?'" Is... that a joke? It's kinda in the format of a joke but I don't get it, and I get the sense that if it is a joke it's probably an offensive one, but maybe it's supposed to be more like an "oh shit this isn't going to turn out well" beginning of a tragedy or horror story...? Why did that person say that thing, what reaction do they want from me by saying it?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 06, 2019 11:48 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:Why do you assume he didn't?

If it's not in the movie and not implied in the movie, I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt?

But that's exactly what you are doing (except, like, the benefit of assuming aggressive stupidity). Its not in the movie either way and you are assuming it happened the way that doesn't make sense when nothing in the movie even hints that it did.
Spoiler:
The movie took pains to establish you can never go back to your own past but you can go back to what looks almost exactly like your past but is actually a parallel universe. Anything you do in that parallel universe only affects it and not your original timeline therefore Cap went off and married some alternate dimension Peggy then proceeded to spend seventy years in that parallel universe before coming back to the moment he originally left his own universe. He could have done absolutely anything in that other timeline and we have no information either way but I would be extremely surprised if it turns out he decided to let Hydra grow and corrupt the US for sixty years unopposed.

There is a problem with your spoiler'ed assertion:
Spoiler:
If you can't time-travel to a given time without spawning a parallel universe, then the Ancient One doesn't know what she's talking about - okay, strictly, Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about, but she doesn't correct or challenge his claim that if the Avengers win back home, they can return the Stones and repair the new timelines rather than dooming those timelines to destruction and creating yet another set of parallel universes where the Stones were returned.

So this is not the standard "every time-travel spawns a new timeline" model of time-travel. One moderately consistent model that does fit what I remember of the movie is that the timeline has a degree of resistance to change, so if you keep things consistent with the history you came from, you can return home the long way, but if you do change history, that will spawn a separate reality for the new timeline, but if you undo your change before the consequences can ripple out too far, you can divert the new timeline back into the old timeline, where it merges rather than staying separate. The obvious metaphor is with streams of water. In this model, returning the Stones would actually work, you still wouldn't be able to change your own past (though you could change your perspective on events), and Steve could live out a life with Peggy provided he stayed off people's radar...

OP Tipping
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby OP Tipping » Tue May 07, 2019 3:33 am UTC

Zohar wrote:Apparently, there are some interviews with the directors where they resolve a lot of people's questions. To which I say, if the movie doesn't stand on its own, maybe it's not great, and also Dumbledore isn't gay.



To my mind, the movies stand on their own: none of the objections are crushing faults. Any of the perceived plot-holes have multiple possible explanations and it is just interesting to discuss what the explanation might be.

As to the directors' comments: I do think they are not indicative. We only have what happened in the movies. Even the comics and TV shows can't "resolve" these issues, especially since the Russos are done now.
a) Please explain the specific MEDICAL reason for ordering this MEDICATION !
b) Please state the nature of your ailment or injury.
c) One a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your pain?
d) Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby arbiteroftruth » Tue May 07, 2019 7:17 am UTC

Spoiler:
Here's what I gathered about time travel, from the movie only.

From the conversation between Banner and The Ancient One, the timeline branches if and only if a time traveler takes an infinity stone, because the stones govern the flow of time. But the new branch can be erased if the time traveler comes back from the future and returns the stone.

The movie makes it clear from the outset that a time traveler can't change their own present by changing the past.

We see changes occurring in the past that are not directly related to the theft of the stones (Loki escapes, Thor retrieves Mjolnir, etc).

The suits are able to hop through time independently during an excursion, but the Official Return Trip is consistently treated as something special.

So here's what I figure. During a time travel excursion, the suits are linked to the machine/timeline that sent them. During the excursion, the travelers can freely alter events throughout history, but as soon as they make the Official Return Trip, the infinity stones restore the timeline, as though someone snapped their fingers to do so. Unless of course, not all the stones are available to restore the timeline, because one or more were taken, in which case the changes are permanent and the timeline branches.

If a traveler comes back and returns the missing stones, they can then take effect and restore the timeline.

After the Official Return Trip, the time traveler is, as far as the universe is concerned, no longer a time traveler, but is merely a natural entity within the universe. That's the only way Cap's ending makes sense to me. He returned the stones and made the Official Return Trip, but intentionally missed the return coordinates so he could have a life with Peggy, which was always part of the timeline, which is why he's able to show up on the bench in the original timeline.

After all, if he lived his life in an alternate timeline and then returned, why miss the return point? Just an unexplained accident?

As far as telling Peggy about Hydra, there are a couple possibilities. If Cap was in the original timeline, then anything he does was always part of history and must not have stopped Hydra. Maybe he knew that and didn't want to burden Peggy with a Cassandra complex. Or maybe he told her, and they did the best they could to keep SHIELD uncorrupted, but Hydra still got in. Or maybe he still had no idea how time travel worked, and they intentionally avoided trying to change anything so as not to interfere with how Thanos was defeated.

Edit: And since the scepter and time stone were taken from 2012, the timeline where Loki escaped with the tesseract exists as a separate branch "until" Cap returns the stones, so it's still a viable setting for the Loki spinoff.
Last edited by arbiteroftruth on Tue May 07, 2019 4:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Tue May 07, 2019 2:02 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Regarding Thor
Spoiler:
I felt awkward and uncomfortable during most of his scenes, until the big climax battle and denouement afterwards at least. When we first saw his condition early in the movie, I thought it was meant to be a quick play for laughs, "lol wow Thor the superhunk really let himself go", and Thor would just move on and be back to his old self soon thereafter and not linger in that condition for the entire movie. When he did linger like that, I found myself at first just annoyed with the film(makers) because this "joke" was more annoying than funny, watching a drunk guy mumble through his scenes is not entertaining and this had become an overly long gag. When it kept going through the whole movie, I started wondering if it was meant to be humorous at all, or whether instead we were supposed to take pity on Thor and find his situation sad and tragic. But as it wasn't made clear that that was the case, since besides Professor Hulk trying to cheer him up a little in those first scenes none of the characters really seemed to take pity on Thor so it wasn't clear that that's what the movie wanted the audience to do, I ended up finding the entire portrayal overall just awkward and unclear, unpleasant to watch without being clear that it's supposed to be an unpleasant thing we're supposed to feel sad about, and not a badly executed joke that dragged on way too long.

It's a bit like someone says in a flat tone "Three Jews walk into a bar and the bartender says 'Was möchten Sie trinken?'" Is... that a joke? It's kinda in the format of a joke but I don't get it, and I get the sense that if it is a joke it's probably an offensive one, but maybe it's supposed to be more like an "oh shit this isn't going to turn out well" beginning of a tragedy or horror story...? Why did that person say that thing, what reaction do they want from me by saying it?


I can definitely see a movie where they same thing happens and it's treated seriously, or even a movie where some characters laugh at what's happening and realize later that wait, no, this is a serious matter. I agree with you, I think the movie doesn't achieve that balance and in fact tries to have it both ways - a funny punchline as well as a (very good) emotionally-charged scene later on.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby rmsgrey » Tue May 07, 2019 4:19 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:
Spoiler:
Here's what I gathered about time travel, from the movie only.

From the conversation between Banner and The Ancient One, the timeline branches if and only if a time traveler takes an infinity stone, because the stones govern the flow of time. But the new branch can be erased if the time traveler comes back from the future and returns the stone.

The movie makes it clear from the outset that a time traveler can't change their own present by changing the past.

We see changes occurring in the past that are not directly related to the theft of the stones (Loki escapes, Thor retrieves Mjolnir, etc).

The suits are able to hop through time independently during an excursion, but the Official Return Trip is consistently treated as something special.

So here's what I figure. During a time travel excursion, the suits are linked to the machine/timeline that sent them. During the excursion, the travelers can freely alter events throughout history, but as soon as they make the Official Return Trip, the infinity stones restore the timeline, as though someone snapped their fingers to do so. Unless of course, not all the stones are available to restore the timeline, because one or more were taken, in which case the changes are permanent and the timeline branches.

If a traveler comes back and returns the missing stones, they can then take effect and restore the timeline.

After the Official Return Trip, the time traveler is, as far as the universe is concerned, no longer a time traveler, but is merely a natural entity within the universe. That's the only way Cap's ending makes sense to me. He returned the stones and made the Official Return Trip, but intentionally missed the return coordinates so he could have a life with Peggy, which was always part of the timeline, which is why he's able to show up on the bench in the original timeline.

After all, if he lived his life in an alternate timeline and then returned, why miss the return point? Just an unexplained accident?

As far as telling Peggy about Hydra, there are a couple possibilities. If Cap was in the original timeline, then anything he does was always part of history and must not have stopped Hydra. Maybe he knew that and didn't want to burden Peggy with a Cassandra complex. Or maybe he told her, and they did the best they could to keep SHIELD uncorrupted, but Hydra still got in. Or maybe he still had no idea how time travel worked, and they intentionally avoided trying to change anything so as not to interfere with how Thanos was defeated.

I have one big question about your ideas here:

Spoiler:
What determines an "Official Return Trip"? The obvious possibility is that it's when you are brought back by the portal that launched you into time, but that wouldn't explain Cap's return.

Another obvious question is what happens if they don't make an ORT?

It may also be worth revisiting Doctor Strange where there's more discussion of the dangers of messing with time - which may or may not line up with your model.

Personally, I prefer the idea that time branches when a time-traveler would create a paradox - such as by removing an Infinity Stone that was present in their original future - but so long as you don't make too big a splash, you can continue in the past of your original timeline - so you can't change the future (your past) and any changes you make (that would change your personal past and create a paradox) would instead create a new timeline, but you can also undo a branch by reversing your changes soon enough to damp down the ripples before they affect your personal timeline, letting the nascent branch remerge with the original timeline.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue May 07, 2019 7:26 pm UTC

Spoiler from the trailer for the upcoming Spider Man: Far From Home RE: effects of the events in End Game
Spoiler:
Seems like The Ancient One and Bruce's understanding of timey-wimey-ness was inaccurate or incomplete and the Time Heist shenanigans did indeed split off multiple timelines. Seems probable to me that Phase 4 will be largely concerning this new 'Multiverse'
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Tue May 07, 2019 8:36 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Spoiler from the trailer for the upcoming Spider Man: Far From Home RE: effects of the events in End Game
Spoiler:
Seems like The Ancient One and Bruce's understanding of timey-wimey-ness was inaccurate or incomplete and the Time Heist shenanigans did indeed split off multiple timelines. Seems probable to me that Phase 4 will be largely concerning this new 'Multiverse'

Spoiler:
I only watched the trailer once, did they say that's why there's a multiverse? I figured it's more related to Into The Spiderverse than anything else.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Chen
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Chen » Tue May 07, 2019 8:43 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:I have one big question about your ideas here:

Spoiler:
What determines an "Official Return Trip"? The obvious possibility is that it's when you are brought back by the portal that launched you into time, but that wouldn't explain Cap's return.

Another obvious question is what happens if they don't make an ORT?

It may also be worth revisiting Doctor Strange where there's more discussion of the dangers of messing with time - which may or may not line up with your model.

Personally, I prefer the idea that time branches when a time-traveler would create a paradox - such as by removing an Infinity Stone that was present in their original future - but so long as you don't make too big a splash, you can continue in the past of your original timeline - so you can't change the future (your past) and any changes you make (that would change your personal past and create a paradox) would instead create a new timeline, but you can also undo a branch by reversing your changes soon enough to damp down the ripples before they affect your personal timeline, letting the nascent branch remerge with the original timeline.


Spoiler:
This is how I interpreted it too. It's the only way "putting the stones back" to "fix" things makes any sense. If you put the stones back before anything that needed them happens you "restore" that timeline.

Now the problem is none of the timelines actually get restored properly except MAYBE the one where they took the Tesseract in 1970, if that's not the one Cap decides to live out his life in.

The powers stone/soul stone timeline is different because it's Thanos LEFT and never came back.

The reality stone timeline has to somehow have Cap re-inject the aether into Jane, and return Thor's hammer without any impact. Which means an extremely small window of time. Further, Frigga may survive after speaking with Thor.

The Battle of New York timeline is fucked because Loki got away with the Tesseract. Even if he returns the Time and Mind stones he's not getting the Tesseract back.

So there's at least 4 timelines out there now, probably 5, maybe 6:
Certain
1) Prime one with snap and unsnap (now no Infinity stones)
2) Loki getting away timeline (Returned Mind, Time stones)
3) Timeline with no Thanos in it (Returned Power, Soul stones)
4) Timeline where Cap lives out his life with Peggy (maybe different than the one where he stole the Tesseract)

Probably
5) Asgard timeline (in theory he might have been able to fix this one if he somehow returns the Reality stone)

Possible
6) 1970s timeline where Tesseract was stolen (if something like Tony talking to his Dad or Cap not being able to re-weld the container the Tesseract was in affects things)

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5100
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue May 07, 2019 8:57 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Spoiler from the trailer for the upcoming Spider Man: Far From Home RE: effects of the events in End Game
Spoiler:
Seems like The Ancient One and Bruce's understanding of timey-wimey-ness was inaccurate or incomplete and the Time Heist shenanigans did indeed split off multiple timelines. Seems probable to me that Phase 4 will be largely concerning this new 'Multiverse'

Spoiler:
I only watched the trailer once, did they say that's why there's a multiverse? I figured it's more related to Into The Spiderverse than anything else.
Edgar is referencing the newest trailer, which (endgame spoiler)
Spoiler:
explicitly talks about Beck/Mysterio being from another Earth and how "the snap tore a hole in our dimension".

I'm not ready to take that at face value just yet, though. Mysterio as a Spider-Man villain is known for being a trickster & con-man.

It might be true. But it might also be total bullshit that Mysterio made up for whatever scheme he's up to.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Zohar » Tue May 07, 2019 9:14 pm UTC

Yeah I watched the new trailer, just didn't remember that bit. I blame it on sleep deprivation.

Now that's a movie I'm much more excited to see than I was even before I went to Avengers. I do wonder though (Endgame spoilers again)
Spoiler:
How are they going to deal with the repercussions of it? As people mentioned previously, even though most everyone's back, the world is still definitely... apocalyptic. I'm not sure how they're going to create a status quo for the movies now. I guess they don't have to, but normally these types of movies start from an "everything's normal" standpoint, and particularly, everything is relatively similar to our world. Even with alien invasion and so on, before the snap, most people in the Marvel universe weren't directly impacted by what was going on. I mean obviously if the heroes weren't there the Earth would have been doomed etc., but most people didn't notice, and this was stuff that was happening all the way in New York, or San Francisco, or Wakanda, etc.

Now, literally everyone has been affected by it. There's no way to claim the world is similar to ours, unlike the vast majority of the Marvel movies (even exceptions like Captain Marvel assume the world is close enough to us).

So I'm wondering what their strategy is for future films for this. We'll see I guess.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5440
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue May 07, 2019 10:52 pm UTC

On a related note I'm wondering
Spoiler:
if Spider-Man: Far From Home and all other future Marvel movies are going to be set in 2023 and onward instead of the year that they are released? Will cars and phones be "near-future" in design, instead of whatever people are using right now? I remember kids texting (with on-screen bubbles?) in Spider-Man: Homecoming, but I don't remember if we saw what kind of phones they used, and I don't care enough about cars to notice if it was ever obvious what kind of car anyone was driving. I guess even without being in the future, they're all already living in a world with Stark tech in it so maybe they all use ironPhones instead of iPhones anyway.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby SecondTalon » Wed May 08, 2019 2:43 am UTC

Chen wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:I have one big question about your ideas here:

Spoiler:
What determines an "Official Return Trip"? The obvious possibility is that it's when you are brought back by the portal that launched you into time, but that wouldn't explain Cap's return.

Another obvious question is what happens if they don't make an ORT?

It may also be worth revisiting Doctor Strange where there's more discussion of the dangers of messing with time - which may or may not line up with your model.

Personally, I prefer the idea that time branches when a time-traveler would create a paradox - such as by removing an Infinity Stone that was present in their original future - but so long as you don't make too big a splash, you can continue in the past of your original timeline - so you can't change the future (your past) and any changes you make (that would change your personal past and create a paradox) would instead create a new timeline, but you can also undo a branch by reversing your changes soon enough to damp down the ripples before they affect your personal timeline, letting the nascent branch remerge with the original timeline.


Spoiler:
This is how I interpreted it too. It's the only way "putting the stones back" to "fix" things makes any sense. If you put the stones back before anything that needed them happens you "restore" that timeline.

Now the problem is none of the timelines actually get restored properly except MAYBE the one where they took the Tesseract in 1970, if that's not the one Cap decides to live out his life in.

The powers stone/soul stone timeline is different because it's Thanos LEFT and never came back.

The reality stone timeline has to somehow have Cap re-inject the aether into Jane, and return Thor's hammer without any impact. Which means an extremely small window of time. Further, Frigga may survive after speaking with Thor.

The Battle of New York timeline is fucked because Loki got away with the Tesseract. Even if he returns the Time and Mind stones he's not getting the Tesseract back.

So there's at least 4 timelines out there now, probably 5, maybe 6:
Certain
1) Prime one with snap and unsnap (now no Infinity stones)
2) Loki getting away timeline (Returned Mind, Time stones)
3) Timeline with no Thanos in it (Returned Power, Soul stones)
4) Timeline where Cap lives out his life with Peggy (maybe different than the one where he stole the Tesseract)

Probably
5) Asgard timeline (in theory he might have been able to fix this one if he somehow returns the Reality stone)

Possible
6) 1970s timeline where Tesseract was stolen (if something like Tony talking to his Dad or Cap not being able to re-weld the container the Tesseract was in affects things)


Spoiler:
I only count 3.

The one where Capt. lived his life and stopped Hydra.

The one we saw.

The one where Thanos left early. This is also the one where Loki fucked off to wherever.

Mjolnir was returned to one of those - no idea which one, doesn’t matter as it existed in all three until destroyed by the events of Ragnarok.

It’s also possible the one where Thanos left early and the one where Captain lived his life were the same timeline, making it two.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed May 08, 2019 6:57 am UTC

Spoiler:
If I'm remembering correctly and doing the math right, there's a maximum of 10 possible timelines including the prime timeline (the primeline if you will)
Each of the three teams that travel to different years has the potential to create a branch timeline (4). Then, there's an additional potential branch when Tony and Steve take a detour to the 70's (5).
Now if we use strict rules where every instance of past-directed time travel creates an additional timeline, then we have to consider that Steve returning the stones creates four additional timelines (9), and Steve 'overshooting' his return trip constitutes a separate instance of time travel and thus a final separate timeline (10).

That's the max. Minimum is 2 as ST says, The primeline and the Thanos-less one. Steve could theoretically have lived in either one, though it makes more sense to assume it wasn't the primeline.

Depending on how you figure the 'rules' and how Steve structured the return trips, pretty much any number of timelines between 2 and 10 seems plausible to me.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5440
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed May 08, 2019 7:57 am UTC

Spoiler:
Steve returning the stones doesn't have to be four instances of backwards time travel; he could go back to 1970 to return one of them, then forward to 2012 to return another two, then forward to 2013 to return another, and forward to 2014 to return two more. Also, since he lived a long life back there in the past, he could have just gone back to 1940-whenever, then taken the slow route to 1970, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Although that's kinda risky just hanging on to the stones that whole time. And in any case, it's really not clear how he's getting to Asgard, Morag, or Vormir for the last three stones, unless he brought along the miniaturized Guardians' ship with him when he went?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Chen
Posts: 5576
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 12:38 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Spoiler:
I only count 3.

The one where Capt. lived his life and stopped Hydra.

The one we saw.

The one where Thanos left early. This is also the one where Loki fucked off to wherever.

Mjolnir was returned to one of those - no idea which one, doesn’t matter as it existed in all three until destroyed by the events of Ragnarok.

It’s also possible the one where Thanos left early and the one where Captain lived his life were the same timeline, making it two.


Spoiler:
Loki fucking off is a different timeline. It's the one with the battle of New York where they went to get the Mind and Time stones. The one Thanos leaves from is the one with the Power and Soul stones were taken from.

I granted the Asgard timeline theoretically could be returned to "normal" but the problem is how? I guess maybe he could return right after Rocket left the room and re-inject Jane with the aether, at the same time throwing the hammer out the window (and hoping Thor doesn't somehow call two hammers) and then disappearing. As long as Frigga still dies and the commotion caused by Rocket/Thor doesn't cause anything to diverge I guess it could be ok. I'm not sure how injecting the aether would actually work but I guess we can handwave that away.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Avengers: Endgame

Postby SecondTalon » Wed May 08, 2019 1:09 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:
Spoiler:
I only count 3.

The one where Capt. lived his life and stopped Hydra.

The one we saw.

The one where Thanos left early. This is also the one where Loki fucked off to wherever.

Mjolnir was returned to one of those - no idea which one, doesn’t matter as it existed in all three until destroyed by the events of Ragnarok.

It’s also possible the one where Thanos left early and the one where Captain lived his life were the same timeline, making it two.


Spoiler:
Loki fucking off is a different timeline. It's the one with the battle of New York where they went to get the Mind and Time stones. The one Thanos leaves from is the one with the Power and Soul stones were taken from.

I granted the Asgard timeline theoretically could be returned to "normal" but the problem is how? I guess maybe he could return right after Rocket left the room and re-inject Jane with the aether, at the same time throwing the hammer out the window (and hoping Thor doesn't somehow call two hammers) and then disappearing. As long as Frigga still dies and the commotion caused by Rocket/Thor doesn't cause anything to diverge I guess it could be ok. I'm not sure how injecting the aether would actually work but I guess we can handwave that away.
Spoiler:
So it's been a bit since I've seen Thor 2. Reading over the synopsis of the plot on Wikipedia and... I honestly don't see how it changes much. It changes what they use as bait, but it doesn't have to change much of the overall plot for it to no longer be in Jane.

My point being - those are the only three events that actually change things. 2014 Thanos dying early, Capt. living his life and presumably telling goddamn everyone about Hydra to root them out in the late 40s/early 50s, and the timeline we saw (or hell, going nuts and Hydraing Hydra - that is, infiltrating the evil organization in the good organization and making it secretly good). Everything else that people bring up - But what about the Aether in Jane how do they get it blah blah doesn't fucking matter if it's in Jane, Jane was just a plot device. A stone inna tube is also a plot device. You could replace Jane in the film with the stone in a tube and the same basic beats will still happen (probably one of the reasons why Portman bailed on the thing too). And depending on whether or not time is self-correcting, two timelines as the one where Thanos gets killed early and the one where Capt. spends his life do not interact with each other in any meaningful way. We don't hear Thanos talk about his first attempt to invade Earth by use of Loki in the 2014 instance. It may have been an even larger rout than it was in the version we saw, though it ultimately doesn't matter.

My point being - people keep using the Ancient One's speech as 100% irrefutable proof that each time they took a stone a whole different reality was created. My point is - I'm not saying Banner's explanation was perfect, but it was good enough - the difference between a timeline where a stone was always there and a timeline where a stone was removed for a couple of seconds is zero. The 2011 Battle of New York we saw played out differently (Loki escaped), so it's in a different timeline But I see no reason to believe the 1970 we saw was not the 1970 that happened for the 2023 Avengers.

Basically -

Original timeline - events play out as we saw on the screen.
Diversion Point 1 - Steve Rogers returns to 194X and lives to some future time.
Diversion Point 2 - Loki grabs the Space Stone and fucks off to wherever.
Mystery Moment - Thanos travels from 2014 to 2023.

The Mystery Moment could have happened on the same line as Diversion Point 1 or 2, though I accept that it could be its own diversion point. Either way, we're dealing with as few as two timelines and as many as four. I simply cannot see anything significant enough happening elsewhere to warrant a whole new timeline without also accepting that every single instance of momentary indecision by anyone in any of the films - on or off camera - birthed a whole new timeline in which one minor fact was slightly different and nothing else changed and that's quite frankly boring and unnecessary. Everything "new" we saw - Aether getting pulled from Jane, Peter being knocked out before he gets the Power Stone, Loki fucking off with the Space Stone, Captain America kicking Captain America's ass - can all fit on Diversion Point 2's timeline without any issues. And if we allow for Steve Hydraing Hydra, all the differences fit on one other timeline.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests