Avengers: Endgame [** SPOILERS FROM POST 613 **]

johnny_ultimate

Foxtrol wrote: »

I feel you’re really speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. I don’t get how you claim to accept that TV and films are different mediums but then judge the complexity of the MCU blockbuster to two of the most critically acclaimed shows in history.

I don't think the MCU should be 'TV, but films', don't get me wrong - but equally don't really feel it's taken advantage of being a long-form, multi-faceted story in any particularly interesting way beyond regular crossovers of escalating scale

You also seem to see it as a negative that it is possible to dip into most of the MCU movies without the requirement of watching all of the others.

This goes both ways in my view. Sometimes it's cool that they're standalone - I have no problem with Black Panther or Thor Ragnarok being somewhat their own things. Other times - like Captain Marvel or Thor 2 - I find it frustrating. I guess from my perspective it's a two-fold problem: 1) that they don't diverge enough from each other to be completely unique, interesting standalone entities and 2) that they don't combine in interesting enough ways to justify what's often stylistic and structural homogeneity. What you're left with is sort of a bland middle ground.

Are Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul also ‘pretty straight forward’ because you can easily enjoy the latter without necessarily watching the former?

Definitely not straightforward, because they're both interesting, ambitious and complex pieces of work, and BCS is designed to be its own thing while also expanding on the world of BB in rich and fascinating ways. I don't think a prequel like Captain Marvel tells us anything much of substance about the other films, in comparison.

Attempting to downplay the link between many of the movies to a ‘post-credit teaser’ is just wrong. I agree each movie has a differing impact on the MCU but characters regularly cross paths throughout, their actions impact the universe they all live in, these impacts drive the narratives of later movies, items that appear in earlier movies become key in later movies (e.g. infinity stones and quantum realm), and we see characters develop throughout the movies.

I guess we're bound to disagree here - I will happily admit to my major problem with the MCU is that most of the films IMO aren't particularly good, and certainly none of them are great (Black Panther and Ragnarok being the closest). I've just never really felt the events of the individual films complicate what comes next in anything other than a surface level way. Sure, McGuffins, characters and plot details are shared to varying degrees, no doubt about that. But to take one example: I don't really feel any of the films after Civil War really expand on the conflicts or dynamics that emerge at the end of that film - everything's tidied up rather nicely by the time Infinity War and Endgame roll about (credit, to be fair, to Endgame for finding the time for stuff on Tony Stark meeting his father - one of the few worthwhile advantages of the time travel gimmickry).

Just because the complexity doesn’t reach the levels of top TV shows doesn’t lessen the acheivement in storyteling and audience engagement.

Audience engagement, sure - my personal view that most of the films are a bit meh is a minority one given the passionate following they've garnered. Some of that is surely helped by the infinite marketing budget (much of the MCU is the result of *staggering* amounts of money), but I also don't doubt the sincerity of many fans' fondness for the films. And sure, other 'shared universes' have fallen flat on their faces (still chuckle occasionally at the 'Dark Universe' :P). Storytelling, though... I'll have to agree to disagree with out there

batgoat

Think you're pretty much spot on Johnny, that one about the impact of Civil War particularly. It came out the ideal time given the situation in the US but didn't manage to continue that politicised narrative around it. And the comics did have that to some extent. Instead it just rapidly progressed into hero unit back together.

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't think the MCU should be 'TV, but films', don't get me wrong - but equally don't really feel it's taken advantage of being a long-form, multi-faceted story in any particularly interesting way beyond regular crossovers of escalating scale

Again, to me when you accept that they are a different mediums, with different requirements, then it is completely unfair to grade MCU blockbusters against the complexity of the most acclaimed TV shows. You are entitled to feel that it hasn’t met what you think is possible but it doesn’t downplay the achievement of what they accomplished.

This goes both ways in my view. Sometimes it's cool that they're standalone - I have no problem with Black Panther or Thor Ragnarok being somewhat their own things. Other times - like Captain Marvel or Thor 2 - I find it frustrating. I guess from my perspective it's a two-fold problem: 1) that they don't diverge enough from each other to be completely unique, interesting standalone entities and 2) that they don't combine in interesting enough ways to justify what's often stylistic and structural homogeneity. What you're left with is sort of a bland middle ground.

I understand that some have issues with the stylistic and structural content of the MCU, but this issue is completely different to what you disagreed with in your OP.

Definitely not straightforward, because they're both interesting, ambitious and complex pieces of work, and BCS is designed to be its own thing while also expanding on the world of BB in rich and fascinating ways. I don't think a prequel like Captain Marvel tells us anything much of substance about the other films, in comparison.

Many of the complaints thrown at MCU movies can be used against those two shows - at times only surface level connection to each other, unnecessary characters forced in for fan service, pointless easter eggs, ability to dip into one show and not the other… To me it is hypocritical to look at only the positives in one and the negatives in the other.

I’d argue there is plenty of substance added in Captain Marvel – it introduced us to a key new character that would become pivotal in later movies, expands on the backstory of other characters we did know, and looks to have set up key elements of Phase 5 and beyond.

I guess we're bound to disagree here - I will happily admit to my major problem with the MCU is that most of the films IMO aren't particularly good, and certainly none of them are great (Black Panther and Ragnarok being the closest). I've just never really felt the events of the individual films complicate what comes next in anything other than a surface level way. Sure, McGuffins, characters and plot details are shared to varying degrees, no doubt about that. But to take one example: I don't really feel any of the films after Civil War really expand on the conflicts or dynamics that emerge at the end of that film - everything's tidied up rather nicely by the time Infinity War and Endgame roll about (credit, to be fair, to Endgame for finding the time for stuff on Tony Stark meeting his father - one of the few worthwhile advantages of the time travel gimmickry).

The impact of Civil War was in no way nicely tidied up by IW and Endgame. The Avengers were completely fragmented, some on the run and others under house arrest, and there was clearly continuing animosity between characters right into Endgame. Civil War itself is a great example of how the events of the other movies impact well beyond the surface, with the arcs that IM and CA take across several movies driving their actions and the world itself - Tony’s carefree days before he put on the suit in IM1 to becoming increasingly paranoid through Avengers, IM3, and AoU; CA’s yearning to follow orders in CA1 to becoming distrusting of power through Avengers, CA2, AoU, and a world that originally saw Iron Man as a hero in IM1 but throughout the later movies become increasingly worried about the collateral damage the ‘heroes’ have caused.

Audience engagement, sure - my personal view that most of the films are a bit meh is a minority one given the passionate following they've garnered. Some of that is surely helped by the infinite marketing budget (much of the MCU is the result of *staggering* amounts of money), but I also don't doubt the sincerity of many fans' fondness for the films. And sure, other 'shared universes' have fallen flat on their faces (still chuckle occasionally at the 'Dark Universe' :P). Storytelling, though... I'll have to agree to disagree with out there

Yeah, it’ll definitely be agreeing to disagree. I don’t see how a person, even one who may have liked things done differently, doesn’t see storytelling at a scale never before seen in film, and likely never again in our lifetimes, as not being an achievement.

Dades

I finally watched this recently.

I'll fess up, though, I'm worn out with superhero movies, and just wanted to complete the set. They've been to the well too many times for me.

Black Panther was different, Ragnarok was great and Infinity War was a spectacle. Endgame was really just more of the same though we're being coaxed into believing this is some sort of emotional finale. It's well made. But there's way too many characters to give a crap about.

I'm bemused at the high profile critics/fans talking openly about the amount of times they cried. Crying during a superhero movie? Really? That said, Toy Story 3 did it for me.

To each their own!

EagererBeaver

Foxtrol wrote: »

I feel you’re really speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Some people take this **** way too seriously.

Foxtrol

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Some people take this **** way too seriously.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think it's a pop at Johnny, cos, you know, imagine having an opinion on the largest film series on the planet, spanning 50+ hours of story and character. Crazy stuff :rolleyes:

Joao Cancelo

Dades wrote: »

I finally watched this recently.

I'll fess up, though, I'm worn out with superhero movies, and just wanted to complete the set. They've been to the well too many times for me.

Black Panther was different, Ragnarok was great and Infinity War was a spectacle. Endgame was really just more of the same though we're being coaxed into believing this is some sort of emotional finale. It's well made. But there's way too many characters to give a crap about.

I'm bemused at the high profile critics/fans talking openly about the amount of times they cried. Crying during a superhero movie? Really? That said, Toy Story 3 did it for me.

To each their own!

Ragnorak was spoiled by trying too hard to be funny, Valkyrie flipped from a badass antagonist to a comic relief character faster than you can snap your fingers!

Dades

Joao Cancelo wrote: »

Ragnorak was spoiled by trying too hard to be funny, Valkyrie flipped from a badass antagonist to a comic relief character faster than you can snap your fingers!

The humour was what made it for me. I'm tired of poe-faced lads in capes being all Lawrence Olivier whilst chasing a cartoon bad-guy who's trying to find jewels for his magic gauntlet.

El Duda

You can tell when people have started watching new releases via dodgy, poor quality download can't you?

Its funny when there is a sudden spat of negative reviews miraculously appearing inbetween the end of the cinema run and the release of the DVD. It happens in most threads on here.

Homelander

Joao Cancelo wrote: »

Ragnorak was spoiled by trying too hard to be funny, Valkyrie flipped from a badass antagonist to a comic relief character faster than you can snap your fingers!

I don't think it tried too hard, it just was genuinely funny in the best way possible. All the little quirks really got me.

Like the scene where Thor tries, and fails, to lean on the shelf.

batgoat

El Duda wrote: »

You can tell when people have started watching new releases via dodgy, poor quality download can't you?

Its funny when there is a sudden spat of negative reviews miraculously appearing inbetween the end of the cinema run and the release of the DVD. It happens in most threads on here.

It's out in the US already so people could be watching it perfectly legally depending. Bluray is generally region free as well. Plus it's been in cinemas pretty indefinitely.

Tazzimus

Thor is generally funny, they just never really leaned into that part like Taika did.
Hemsworth does a good job on that front as well

ManOfMystery

El Duda wrote: »

You can tell when people have started watching new releases via dodgy, poor quality download can't you?

Its funny when there is a sudden spat of negative reviews miraculously appearing inbetween the end of the cinema run and the release of the DVD. It happens in most threads on here.

If someone reviewed a film badly based solely on the quality of the medium which they watched it via, then I wouldn't have much faith in any of their opinions.

I'd say it's more to do with the fact that DVD/Digital/Blueray allows for closer inspection of the film. They can pause, rewind and rewatch to their heart's content. Coupled with watching it in your living room as opposed to the full cinematic experience, I imagine a lot of viewers get a bit more picky and less enthralled.And as you say, that can apply to any film once it comes out for general release after it's cinematic run.

EagererBeaver

El Duda wrote: »

You can tell when people have started watching new releases via dodgy, poor quality download can't you?

Its funny when there is a sudden spat of negative reviews miraculously appearing inbetween the end of the cinema run and the release of the DVD. It happens in most threads on here.

The official 1080p copy has been out for a week.

Some people don't like the film, that's all it is.

Dades

Yeah, I missed it in the cinema and had no interest in some watching some crappy rip.

I don't think you can discount recent reviews on the basis of whether it was watched on the big screen or not.
I have three kids, so 3+ hour movie dates are rare.

On the other hand it might be reasonable to say those who made the effort to go to see it might be more disposed to liking it than those who didn't. I'm pre-disposed to liking Star Wars and Bond instead.

Foxtrol

Dades wrote: »

Yeah, I missed it in the cinema and had no interest in some watching some crappy rip.

I don't think you can discount recent reviews on the basis of whether it was watched on the big screen or not.
I have three kids, so 3+ hour movie dates are rare.

On the other hand it might be reasonable to say those who made the effort to go to see it might be more disposed to liking it than those who didn't. I'm pre-disposed to liking Star Wars and Bond instead.

I feel the opposite is just as valid, those who don't make an effort to see certain movies in the cinema are more pre-disposed to disliking them.

There are understandable reasons that some couldn't make it, like health, but on the most part if they didn't have the interest to get the full experience in the theatre for a key movie that had such a long run then they likely aren't fans of the genre, the MCU approach, or have superhero fatigue.

Yes, their views shouldn't be automatically discounted but need to be looked at in a certain light, which the person commenting should really have self-reflected on before posting (like at least one poster did). For example, I'm not a fan of horror movies so I don't really feel the need, nor feel that my opinion should be given the same value, to go into a horror movie thread and post 'finally got around to watching...' and make extremely broad surface level negative comments about it after watching it on a crap stream while hungover.

The Golden Miller

Foxtrol wrote: »

I feel the opposite is just as valid, those who don't make an effort to see certain movies in the cinema are more pre-disposed to disliking them.

There are understandable reasons that some couldn't make it, like health, but on the most part if they didn't have the interest to get the full experience in the theatre for a key movie that had such a long run then they likely aren't fans of the genre, the MCU approach, or have superhero fatigue.

Yes, their views shouldn't be automatically discounted but need to be looked at in a certain light, which the person commenting should really have self-reflected on before posting (like at least one poster did). For example, I'm not a fan of horror movies so I don't really feel the need, nor feel that my opinion should be given the same value, to go into a horror movie thread and post 'finally got around to watching...' and make extremely broad surface level negative comments about it after watching it on a crap stream while hungover.

It's the latter for me...superhero fatigue. Big fan of the genre but stopped going after Spider-man Homecoming. I thought Endgame was quite good, but the ending didn't do it for me. Simple didn't hit the epic notes they were going for, the way "Return of the King" did for example. Was abit cringe-inducing, the whole line-up of characters coming back from the snap to save the day tbh. It was always going to happen, but the execution was poor I thought

B.A._Baracus

I say a lot of people have superhero fatigue right now.
I saw Spider-man Far From Home in the cinema and thought it was alright but not as good as the first.... and now after endgame is over and done with. Kind of feels like a book finished than a chapter closed.

Of course Disney want to keep going but everything comes to an end. Just like diaster movies were the big blockbuster of the mid to late 90s. Everything comes to an end.

pixelburp

Endgame was a perfect chance to put the series to bed for a few years. Just 4,5 maybe, enough time to rekindle the hype and desire. Nope, straight into new films not 6 months later - and that timeline during Comic Con showed the production line in full effect (the audience seals of course clapping with joy)

Then again, Far From Home made a billion so what do I know?

Ethereal Cereal

Rewatched it at the weekend there hoping I would see something I missed in the cinema release.

The whole thing still didn't make any sense. I think what Banner is trying to explain about time travel, is Novikov self-consistency principle. That is to say, you can travel back in time, but you can not do anything that will change the future, the future is immutable. Anything you do in the past, is part of your past, and can be the reason an event occurs in the future. Some movies that followed this principle are 12 Monkeys, Terminator (1), Primer, The Time Travelers Wife.

So in effect, the Snap event could not be avoided. But then why did Tony instruct Banner not to change anything about the last 5 years, was that an option? Could they have undone the massive collateral damage of the snap? How did everyone suddenly agree the future can not be changed, they had no experience with time travel before that. Are they infinity stones from the past, or from alternate realities (as per the Ancient One)

I think a movie thats introducing a concept such as time travel to the MCU should have very strong internal logic. This movie did not, and I was really surprised it didnt, the Ruso brothers have generally been very good with that stuff up to date.

TherapyBoy

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

But then why did Tony instruct Banner not to change anything about the last 5 years..

He was protecting the life of his daughter.

Autecher

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

Rewatched it at the weekend there hoping I would see something I missed in the cinema release.

The whole thing still didn't make any sense. I think what Banner is trying to explain about time travel, is Novikov self-consistency principle. That is to say, you can travel back in time, but you can not do anything that will change the future, the future is immutable. Anything you do in the past, is part of your past, and can be the reason an event occurs in the future. Some movies that followed this principle are 12 Monkeys, Terminator (1), Primer, The Time Travelers Wife.

So in effect, the Snap event could not be avoided. But then why did Tony instruct Banner not to change anything about the last 5 years, was that an option? Could they have undone the massive collateral damage of the snap? How did everyone suddenly agree the future can not be changed, they had no experience with time travel before that. Are they infinity stones from the past, or from alternate realities (as per the Ancient One)

I think a movie thats introducing a concept such as time travel to the MCU should have very strong internal logic. This movie did not, and I was really surprised it didnt, the Ruso brothers have generally been very good with that stuff up to date.

Yeah but when dealing with something like time travel they can make up their own logic because it's not real. They can make up their own logic anyway of course but especially when dealing with entirely fictional scenarios.

Penn

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

Rewatched it at the weekend there hoping I would see something I missed in the cinema release.

The whole thing still didn't make any sense. I think what Banner is trying to explain about time travel, is Novikov self-consistency principle. That is to say, you can travel back in time, but you can not do anything that will change the future, the future is immutable. Anything you do in the past, is part of your past, and can be the reason an event occurs in the future. Some movies that followed this principle are 12 Monkeys, Terminator (1), Primer, The Time Travelers Wife.

So in effect, the Snap event could not be avoided. But then why did Tony instruct Banner not to change anything about the last 5 years, was that an option? Could they have undone the massive collateral damage of the snap? How did everyone suddenly agree the future can not be changed, they had no experience with time travel before that. Are they infinity stones from the past, or from alternate realities (as per the Ancient One)

It's not that the future is immutable or that the Snap couldn't have been avoided, it's more so that the Snap already happened, and so any changes to the timeline they made would have prevented the Snap happening in that new alternate reality, but wouldn't have changed their reality, because when they travel back to the point in time they left from (5 year post-Snap), they're back in a reality where the Snap happened which caused them to have to go back in time. They're not changing their past or future, just creating an alternate one.

So the infinity stones they used are still from their reality but from their past, and Cap returns them to the point they were taken from in order to prevent the creation of alternate realities. For example, if they didn't return the Time Stone to the Ancient One, Doctor Strange wouldn't have been able to use it to defeat Dormammu, and Dormammu would have destroyed the universe even before the Snap could happen.

The reason they decided to only bring everyone who was snapped away to the present is mostly because Tony didn't want to lose his daughter. I would think they all agreed on that as the same would go for many other people in the world who, after the Snap, moved on. Whether they also had children or made new relationships etc, the Avengers wouldn't have the right to decide to just wipe that all away from people. So they were just bringing everyone back, and the choice on how to deal with all that lies with the individuals. If they just undid the Snap and rewound time to immediately after the Snap, they'd essentially be Snapping away anyone born in those 5 years themselves.

While there's obviously still huge ramifications of 3.5billion people suddenly reappearing on Earth and the consequences of what happened over those 5 years, it was also the fairest way. Bring back the lives lost in the Snap, and people just have to deal with the consequences of that, same way they had to deal with the consequences of those people being snapped away in the first place. The Avengers wouldn't have the right to make such a huge choice for them, which we've seen given how Tony didn't want to lose his daughter (and only agreed to help based on same), but also Cap's general attitude in that regard when it came to the likes of Hydra, Loki, or the Sokovia Accords.

ManOfMystery

Ethereal Cereal wrote: »

Rewatched it at the weekend there hoping I would see something I missed in the cinema release.

The whole thing still didn't make any sense. I think what Banner is trying to explain about time travel, is Novikov self-consistency principle. That is to say, you can travel back in time, but you can not do anything that will change the future, the future is immutable. Anything you do in the past, is part of your past, and can be the reason an event occurs in the future. Some movies that followed this principle are 12 Monkeys, Terminator (1), Primer, The Time Travelers Wife.

So in effect, the Snap event could not be avoided. But then why did Tony instruct Banner not to change anything about the last 5 years, was that an option? Could they have undone the massive collateral damage of the snap? How did everyone suddenly agree the future can not be changed, they had no experience with time travel before that. Are they infinity stones from the past, or from alternate realities (as per the Ancient One)

I think a movie thats introducing a concept such as time travel to the MCU should have very strong internal logic. This movie did not, and I was really surprised it didnt, the Ruso brothers have generally been very good with that stuff up to date.

There were 2 different approaches to the manipulation of time in the film.

To go back in time and get the stones, the Avengers used the Quantum realm. And in doing so, they followed the rules (loosely!) as described in the film by the ancient one - each time they took a stone, that particular timeline veered off in a different direction because they had just altered it. They later returned the stones to these exact points to undo this and ensure that the timeline continued as it would have.

Once they had the stones, and they were used by the Hulk when he clicked his fingers, they would no longer be using the quantum realm to change past events but the Time stone instead. Rather than travelling through time, they would be controlling time externally. Tony was worried that this method of returning those trillions of beings would effectively undo the last 5 years and return the universe to a point prior to Thanos clicking his fingers (thus undoing his daughter's existence) so instead he instructed Banner only to bring the missing people back, in the present. They didn't really change time at all in the end.

One thing I'm curious about are the alternate realities. Do we know if Thanos finger-click wiped out half the inhabitants of all realities, or just the one he was in? If Dr Strange foresaw 14 million + realities where Thanos wins and only 1 where the Avengers win, there are either a lot of universes with inhabitants still missing or else Tony's actions restored every reality.

El Duda

It seems that some people would've preferred Endgame if at the first mention of time travel, they all sat down for an in depth, 5 hour discussion about the logic involved. Going into great detail with complex insights to quantum physics. Diagrams would appear on screen with detailed analytical information. All potential plot holes would be explored and every character would have to agree on EVERYTHING before they could proceed.

The mid credits sting would be Tony and Bruce hosting a 2 hour TED talk and the end of credits sting would be 5 hour Q & A with the fans.

conorhal

TherapyBoy wrote: »

He was protecting the life of his daughter.

The whole debacle kicked off with a father sacrificing his daughter to, as Thano's saw it, right the universe.
I think it would have had more emotional heft and a more lyrical narrative structure if this was mirrored by Tony facing the same moral dilema to save the universe from his own perspective.

Ethereal Cereal

conorhal wrote: »

The whole debacle kicked off with a father sacrificing his daughter to, as Thano's saw it, right the universe.
I think it would have had more emotional heft and a more lyrical narrative structure if this was mirrored by Tony facing the same moral dilema to save the universe from his own perspective.

As soon as I saw he had a daughter under 5 years old, I thought this is exactly the route the plot would take. Tony would be able to undo the snap, but would have to erase his own daughter. One final great sacrifice.

As ManOfMystery mentioned above, undoing the last 5 years might be unfair to anyone born in those 5 years, but with the disaster that would immediately follow half of the entire universe snapping out of existence, I'm sure the birth rate plummeted, to much less than the collateral causalities from the snap.

Dades

Foxtrol wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

it might be reasonable to say those who made the effort to go to see it might be more disposed to liking it than those who didn't.

I feel the opposite is just as valid, those who don't make an effort to see certain movies in the cinema are more pre-disposed to disliking them.

That's not really an opposite, it's a corollary!

You need to be careful of discounting opinions of those who are not "fans". Everyone has a right to review a 3+ hr movie they've watched, even if they're suffering from superhero fatigue, or couldn't make it to theatres.

Of course you will get those who are determined to crap on a movie because of the genre, and those "reviews" are pointless.

brianregan09

pixelburp wrote: »

Endgame was a perfect chance to put the series to bed for a few years. Just 4,5 maybe, enough time to rekindle the hype and desire. Nope, straight into new films not 6 months later - and that timeline during Comic Con showed the production line in full effect (the audience seals of course clapping with joy)

Then again, Far From Home made a billion so what do I know?

But that's your opinion which your entitled , take a break from them , the comic con timeline that was showed I'm hyped for those so I'm a seal ........this is what I don't like about threads like this people have opinions but then insult others who don't share it ...