Page 8 of 9

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 4:11 am
by Victoria Raverna
Punisher wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 pm
Paingod wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 7:33 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 12:36 pm So many families destroyed because Tony wanted to preserve his.
To be fair, Tony also preserved millions of other families that had emerged in the five years since the original dusting. At the cost of royally messing with the heads of everyone on both sides when lost loved ones re-materialized. All the people on planes that died when the planes fell out of the sky after the first dusting? Still dead. I don't think there was any good answer by the movie's logic - but what they did was the best answer.
I dont think this was the best answer. I think reverting the original snap so that it never happened is the best option because then it messes with nobody...technically...
the way they did it messes with everyone. both the survivors and the ones brought back. you have things were people have moved on and re-married (ala The Manifest), people have died naturally and the returnees didnt get to say their goodbyes. you have the people that were on the plane that crashed where half of them were snapped, and now they are back and lost their loved ones from the crash.

If they revert, then NONE of it happened. Including the new families and NO ONE would realize anything was wrong since the snap never happened. They wouldn't realize they lost any new family members. Yes it would suck that some of the new children would vanish, but the over all best thing is to have it so that everyone forgets permanently.
But that won't work with Endgame's version of time travel. That'll require them to change the past which will create an alternate future but won't change MCU's timeline.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:44 am
by Paingod
Jaymann wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 11:33 pmNot to mention the people who snapped back in at 10,000 feet.
I automatically assumed the result would have a stipulation "... safely back at home"

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 10:27 am
by Blackhawk
Yeah, I sort of agree. I still think the stones would have to work by interpreting intent rather than specific instructions, as the actual instructions would take far more than a human mind - even Stark's - could manage, especially in a single second on a battlefield while injured.

His intent would simply be to have all that was vanished by the first snap back safe and sound. The stones would make sure that happened.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 10:38 am
by dbt1949
So these stones are another form of life?

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:18 pm
by Blackhawk
dbt1949 wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 10:38 am So these stones are another form of life?
In the MCU, some of them are almost certainly sentient. The Mind and Soul stones for sure, and the Space stone seems to have used judgment when it sent Red Skull off to be the guardian for the soul stone. I'm told the comics are a little different.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 1:41 pm
by dbt1949
So they're sentient beings that allow themselves to be used by other sentient beings for whatever purpose they want as long as they are powerful enough. Otherwise they burn em to a cinder.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:38 pm
by El Guapo
Punisher wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 12:40 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 11:53 am
Punisher wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 1:31 pm
Paingod wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 7:33 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon May 06, 2019 12:36 pm So many families destroyed because Tony wanted to preserve his.
To be fair, Tony also preserved millions of other families that had emerged in the five years since the original dusting. At the cost of royally messing with the heads of everyone on both sides when lost loved ones re-materialized. All the people on planes that died when the planes fell out of the sky after the first dusting? Still dead. I don't think there was any good answer by the movie's logic - but what they did was the best answer.
I dont think this was the best answer. I think reverting the original snap so that it never happened is the best option because then it messes with nobody...technically...
the way they did it messes with everyone. both the survivors and the ones brought back. you have things were people have moved on and re-married (ala The Manifest), people have died naturally and the returnees didnt get to say their goodbyes. you have the people that were on the plane that crashed where half of them were snapped, and now they are back and lost their loved ones from the crash.

If they revert, then NONE of it happened. Including the new families and NO ONE would realize anything was wrong since the snap never happened. They wouldn't realize they lost any new family members. Yes it would suck that some of the new children would vanish, but the over all best thing is to have it so that everyone forgets permanently.
But by the time travel logic established in the movie, they *can't* really undo the snap - that was the point of the "strangling baby Thanos" discussion. If they tried that all that they would do is create a new divergent timeline where the snap never happened - it wouldn't fix the timeline where it did. So the Avengers could basically go live in a universe / timeline where the snap wouldn't happened, but in their original timeline (where the snap happened) everyone would still be missing half the population. By bringing things forward into the future they basically fixed the future (what hadn't happened yet), which does fix their timeline.

To the extent that any of this makes actual logical sense, anyway.
I could have sworn they didnt undo the snap only because Tony said not to because he didnt want to lose his family. I'll have to watch again I guess.
That was Tony's condition for getting involved in the time travel scheme planning - he was understandably freaked out about the potential implications of annihilating his daughter from the space-time continuum. After that point the Avengers as a group (and later Banner / Hulk with the Sorceress Supreme) discuss the time travel / timeline rules for the movie, which basically establish that any significant change in the past breaks off a new timeline but doesn't change the original timeline (which is why they have to go back and put the stones back exactly where / when they found them).

So it is both true that Tony was only involved on the condition that they not undo the snap, and also that it turned out that they couldn't really have undone the snap regardless.

I suppose that there's a possible scenario where: (1) the Avengers undo the snap, thus breaking off a timeline where the snap doesn't happen; and (2) Tony Stark is in that new timeline rather than the Prime timeline, and potentially (depending on what happens with Pym particles and whatnot) gets 'stuck' in that timeline, and thus is separated from his daughter. So I suppose Tony would still have a concern about trying to undo the snap even though they can't really undo it.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 3:20 pm
by Jaymann
So how did Captain America travel to other planets to return the stones?

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 pm
by Isgrimnur

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 3:54 pm
by El Guapo
Jaymann wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 3:20 pm So how did Captain America travel to other planets to return the stones?
Well, the Pym particles / quantum realm contraption lets them travel through space and time. Which is how they got all the stones to begin with - they went to the past at different locations / planets.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:52 pm
by Zarathud
Stark figured out time travel and had the stones which alter everything. I would expect Stark took time before to consider how to word the direction, then a few seconds with the time stone to check it worked out ok, and then tweaked the ask. Well within the fictional character's capabilities as a genius to figure out.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 8:04 pm
by hentzau
Zarathud wrote:Stark figured out time travel and had the stones which alter everything. I would expect Stark took time before to consider how to word the direction, then a few seconds with the time stone to check it worked out ok, and then tweaked the ask. Well within the fictional character's capabilities as a genius to figure out.
Except Banner did the first snap. Tony snapped away Thanos and goons.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 5:28 pm
by Jaymann
So when Iron Man was snapping out Thanos and crew, couldn't he have also included Loki, Dr. Doom, Ultron and Paste Pot Pete?

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 10:22 pm
by hentzau
In the middle of seeing this for a third time with my middle kid that didn’t have a chance to see it while she was in college.

They just stopped the movie for a tornado warning. We’re hunkered down between the seats.

Most exciting screening ever.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:04 pm
by Blackhawk
Oh snap!

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:22 pm
by Suitably Ironic Moniker
Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 24, 2019 11:04 pmOh snap!
THREAD IS NOW LOCKED

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:44 pm
by Isgrimnur
The Verge
Avengers: Endgame is finally getting an official post-credits scene, with a limited-time rerelease in theaters this weekend.

Marvel Studios co-president Kevin Feige told Screen Rant that a new version of Endgame will appear in theaters that has a couple of additional scenes not in the original. Feige said if people “stay and watch the movie, after the credits, there’ll be a deleted scene, a little tribute, and a few surprises.”
...
Endgame marked the end of a 22-movie journey through the Marvel Cinematic Universe over the last 11 years. The film brought in more than $2.7 billion worldwide — and is approximately $45 million away from beating Avatar as the top-grossing movie of all time. Could that also be why Disney and Marvel Studios are sending the film back to theaters? Maybe.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:33 pm
by msteelers
I’ll be going back to see it again.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:18 pm
by rittchard
I wanted to too but there are so few showtimes near me and the one good time they put it in a tiny tiny theater :x

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:46 pm
by Kelric
Of course they want the record. I'll need more than just end scenes to get me back in theater, though.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:37 am
by Isgrimnur
Comic Book
Avengers: Endgame was re-released in theaters this past weekend, with the promise of offering fans exclusive new bonus footage. Well, it didn't take long for Marvel fans to head out and see the Avengers: Endgame re-release and immediately take to social media with their complaints about the so-called "extras."

As it turns out, the Avengers: Endgame re-released included just one deleted scene of Smart Hulk saving a group of people - a scene that wasn't even fully finished in terms of the visual effects. That underwhelming reward now has some Marvel fans crying foul

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:40 pm
by AWS260
I went back to see it, and enjoyed it just as much as the first time. It's not as good as Infinity War, but still plenty of fun.

The after-credits content consists of one nice thing and two throwaway things. The nice thing:
Spoiler:
A sweet tribute to Stan Lee
The throwaway things:
Spoiler:
A deleted scene with the Hulk saving people from a burning building. I don't know why they chose to include it. It has Mark Ruffalo doing his great-as-usual acting, but adds nothing to the story or the character.
Spoiler:
A very brief clip from the new Spider-Man movie, showing Fury and Hill meeting Jake Gyllenhaal.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:34 pm
by rittchard
Just checked out the deleted scenes from the digital release. All of them were OK, but one of them it seems like a real shame was cut.
Spoiler:
It's an extended moment during Tony's death, showing more characters' reactions and many of them bending a knee in honor of him. I thought it was incredibly moving even watching it out of context, and it brought a tear to my eye. I remember when I watched the movie I felt like that moment got inexplicably cut short but it was such a long movie and they had the funeral later so it didn't bother me too much. This really fills that void for me; I really wish we could watch the whole sequence with the shot edited back in. It's not too long but it just felt like a needed moment that was missing.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:03 pm
by AWS260
I saw that clip online, and had pretty much the opposite reaction. Overwrought and unnecessary.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:14 pm
by McNutt
I agree. Too forced.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:18 pm
by msteelers
I hate having to wait two weeks to get this on Blu-ray.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:23 pm
by Isgrimnur
I’m waiting for the phase 3 box set. You can wait.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:09 pm
by dbt1949
I finally got to see this. Altho I liked it, it was no where near my favorite. Started off kind of slow but was jam packed with action at the end. The return of the missing Avengers was awesome.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:53 pm
by Zaxxon
Not sure why this entertains me greatly, but it does...


Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:02 pm
by stimpy
Wait until rittchard gets a load of this.....

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:51 am
by hepcat
So I finally got around to buying this on a streaming service last week, and I watched it last night. I had already caught a 3D show at the theater, so this was my second viewing. A few things STILL stick out for me though:

1) Putting a guy from 2019 on a starship with a hyperdrive, even if that man is Tony Stark, and then having him seemingly "work on it" in such a capacity that the advanced cyborg he's stranded with is taking orders from him in such repairs, is like putting Thomas Edison on the Apollo space capsule and then watching him upgrade it. Even if he WASN'T successful, it's still a stretch for me. To be faaaiiirrr, this happens a LOT in these types of films. An auto mechanic from Boise, Idaho gets stranded in space and picked up by a starship, then the following episode he's the chief engineer or something.

2) When Black Widow and Hawkeye Pierce land on Mordor Vormir, could they (or more precisely, Nebula) have landed the damn ship closer than 27 miles from the bloody mountain?

3) Did Hope (Wasp) speak even once in that entire film?

4) I still can't stand Pepper Potts. Probably because I can't stand Gwyneth Paltrow. I kept wondering if she was wearing GOOP brand products under the suit. Hopefully Tony's death means no more of her.

5) Why would you make Hulk take the stairs/elevator to the ground floor? Just jump out one of the 39 broken windows in that office, dude.

6) I think they're trying to hard to mold Captain Marvel into a masculine stereotype of a super hero. I think Marvel has a chance to do something truly interesting with her character in light of her immense power. Just making her a female version of Thor/Hulk is too lazy, IMHO.

Still, it's a wonderful film overall and I still enjoyed it. Even if it was less watchable for me the second time around than it was the first.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:54 am
by Zaxxon
hepcat wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:51 am1) Putting a guy from 2019 on a starship with a hyperdrive, even if that man is Tony Stark, and then having him seemingly "work on it" in such a capacity that the advanced cyborg he's stranded with is taking orders from him in such repairs, is like putting Thomas Edison on the Apollo space capsule and then watching him upgrade it. Even if he WASN'T successful, it's still a stretch for me. To be faaaiiirrr, this happens a LOT in these types of films. An auto mechanic from Boise, Idaho gets stranded in space and picked up by a starship, then the following episode he's the chief engineer or something.
Thankfully, the MCU is otherwise devoid of ridiculous technological leaps of faith.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:06 am
by hepcat
:lol: :lol:

I think my complaint about this mainly comes from the wealth of offenders out there in films. It's a common trope. It's not "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" bad for me, but it's getting there.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:16 pm
by Jaymon
hepcat wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:51 am

6) I think they're trying to hard to mold Captain Marvel into a masculine stereotype of a super hero. I think Marvel has a chance to do something truly interesting with her character in light of her immense power. Just making her a female version of Thor/Hulk is too lazy, IMHO.
I think they had trouble deciding what to do with her in general. Her power level is not on scale with the other folks. She can destroy interstellar warships with seemingly little trouble and fly at warp speeds. So its unclear how exactly that lady with the spear was going to "clear the way" for her.

I thought it was good to have her in there, after all she is listed as "Earths mightiest hero" and she was an Avenger but they may have overdone her power for the MCU.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:55 pm
by hepcat
I wasn't a close follower of her character in the comics. Was she ever at the level they put her in the MCU? I always thought she was supposed to be on scale with a Thor or Hulk.

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:26 pm
by Jaymon
the comics constantly fiddle with things, as you know but generally,

she can survive in space unaided, can exceed light speed flight
her photon blasts cut through all but the strongest materials (such as vibranium or adamantine, etc)
she can absorb various types of energy and become stronger from them
she sheathes her body in the photons and becomes nearly indestructible, which also give her strength, thus she is an excellent hero to call when you need to have a fleet of attacking space ships defeated. she literally just flies straight through them.


she doesn't have any particular defense against magic or psionics
her personal combat skills are typical for a well trained human
she is vulnerable while distracted, if her photons are not "up"

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:31 pm
by Jaymon
so this is the theory.
we know that Thanos can be damaged, and that he has a mortal level of reaction time. After all, he gets hit from Thors axe without dodging it, and its a very serious wound.


What is to stop Captain Marvel from flying at near light speed, slamming straight through Thanos, and ending the fight in a spray of atomized gore?

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:37 pm
by disarm

Jaymon wrote:so this is the theory.
we know that Thanos can be damaged, and that he has a mortal level of reaction time. After all, he gets hit from Thors axe without dodging it, and its a very serious wound.


What is to stop Captain Marvel from flying at near light speed, slamming straight through Thanos, and ending the fight in a spray of atomized gore?
You're forgetting that Thanos wears special plot armor with resistance that varies according to the needs of the story...

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:46 pm
by Punisher
Jaymon wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:16 pm
hepcat wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:51 am

6) I think they're trying to hard to mold Captain Marvel into a masculine stereotype of a super hero. I think Marvel has a chance to do something truly interesting with her character in light of her immense power. Just making her a female version of Thor/Hulk is too lazy, IMHO.
I think they had trouble deciding what to do with her in general. Her power level is not on scale with the other folks. She can destroy interstellar warships with seemingly little trouble and fly at warp speeds. So its unclear how exactly that lady with the spear was going to "clear the way" for her.

I thought it was good to have her in there, after all she is listed as "Earths mightiest hero" and she was an Avenger but they may have overdone her power for the MCU.
I thought the same thing.. Captain Marvel doesn't need any help. She should be able to just fly right through the opposition.
She is powerful enough to take a hit from Thanos and just smile like nothing happened.
They could have just made time limits or something along the lines of "she cant maintain the power indefinitely"

Re: Avengers: End Game

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:57 pm
by El Guapo
disarm wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 7:37 pm
Jaymon wrote:so this is the theory.
we know that Thanos can be damaged, and that he has a mortal level of reaction time. After all, he gets hit from Thors axe without dodging it, and its a very serious wound.


What is to stop Captain Marvel from flying at near light speed, slamming straight through Thanos, and ending the fight in a spray of atomized gore?
You're forgetting that Thanos wears special plot armor with resistance that varies according to the needs of the story...
That is one thing that bothered me marginally about End Game. In Infinity War the Avengers almost defeated Thanos a couple times (most notably when the Guardians, Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Dr. Strange succeed in binding Thanos and almost getting the gauntlet off) yet those Avengers + more + Captain Marvel (who can fly through spaceships) somehow can't defeat Past Thanos in combat.

But you know, superheroes, I guess.