Drumpot wrote: » I’ve not spoken much about the shot much, moreso the people trying to make out that those who disliked it have some sort of hidden agenda. If you valued self reflection so much you wouldn’t make so many presumptions and generalize people with a different view to yourself.
Foxtrol wrote: » What presumptions and generalizations am I making about you, all I did was quote your post? You are free to correct me if I am misunderstanding, but your post clearly states that a key problem you have is the people who are involved in the shot rather than the shot itself.
pixelburp wrote: » Only got around to seeing it tonight, so finally pop back in to see what people have been saying, and .... ... it's whinging about that passing moment with all the women heroes. FFS. Why am I not even surprised at this point. There's always something to be indignant about... 3 hours of film but let's harrumph over a silly audience nod.
McDermotX wrote: » FWIW....the 'all-women scene' is old news....yes it's probably the worst shot in cinema history, but some of us have moved on. I'm sitting here impatiently waiting on all the hysterical Green Book haters to get their arse in gear, and tell me how inappropriate is was for Wilson looking to Bucky for the go-ahead to accept Rodgers' shield. Triggered !!!!!
Drumpot wrote: » TBH I can’t think of a more contrived scene in any other marvel movie. There have been stupid and cringeworthy moments in marvel movies but few as bad as that and the fact its the biggest most important battle of the franchise possibly made it more annoying.
pixelburp wrote: » * By taking the decision to return everyone 5 years after The Snap, all for the sake of Stark's daughter, the script basically condemned humanity to struggle; the first act clearly established a world without hope, one of chaos and collapse. Restoring those 4+ billion people into a world with crumbling infrastructure - farming, political, economic and so on - would surely bring mass poverty, conflict and starvation to the world (not to mention all those personal tragedies with siblings, spouses and friends having to readdress their relationships). Oh, but Stark's daughter can still exist so that's OK?
pixelburp wrote: » By taking the decision to return everyone 5 years after The Snap, all for the sake of Stark's daughter, the script basically condemned humanity to struggle; the first act clearly established a world without hope, one of chaos and collapse. Restoring those 4+ billion people into a world with crumbling infrastructure - farming, political, economic and so on - would surely bring mass poverty, conflict and starvation to the world (not to mention all those personal tragedies with siblings, spouses and friends having to readdress their relationships). Oh, but Stark's daughter can still exist so that's OK?
Sonics2k wrote: » I think it's safe to say it was for more than just Stark's daughter, but all the children born in that time.
pixelburp wrote: » Maybe, but the plan was hatched by dint of Stark's explicit comment about losing his daughter, so it's fair (end)game to hang it on our heroes. They literally had the power to change the universe; presumably the writers were keen to avoid a total "it never happened" conclusion 'cos nobody likes those, but the choice they made feels like the world is going to have a lot of unintended, nasty consequences for everyone. Starting with famine.
pixelburp wrote: » Starting with famine.
Victor wrote: » Not necessarily. There is now 50-100% more animals to eat.
Worldwide: $1,764,251,786
pixelburp wrote: » Well. That felt like an extended victory lap as much a resolution to a cliffhanger: the plot was little more than a thin window dressing to indulge in sequences of cameos, callbacks and revisits across the last 10 years of MCU films. Some of those cameos were a genuine surprise and delight - Robert Redford was my personal highlight, as was the subversion of Winter Soldier's elevator scene - while others more expected but no less emotionally impactful. It has been suggested - and I've been inclined to agree - that the MCU has effectively functioned as a long series of "hangout" films, the joy being in the characters, their interactions and crossovers, rather than the (sometimes subpar) action and adventure: Endgame felt like the final proof of this, where the 3 hours consisted of one long roll-call and check-in with this ragtag group of characters. In making Endgame an ostensible 'series finale', genetically similar to the big final episode of a TV show, the growing feeling as I put distance between it and myself is that I might be done with the MCU. For now at least: like how we wait a year before the next season of our favourite show, Endgame was the closing of a chapter, a narrative full-stop - or at least a semi-colon anyway. Goodbyes were said, sunsets watched or walked into, and so on. The Spider-Man sequel, coming fast down the tracks and a few months away, arrives too soon after such a big emotional climax and it may go unseen. Part of that apathy may also be the creeping belief that the newer MCU characters just don't resonate to the same extent as the Phase 1 crew (or even Phase 2, with the Guardians); while I was keen to follow Thor, Cap, Quill, Gamora et al by dint of those arresting characters & performances, the likes of Captain Marvel just don't grab me (indeed, so far she comes off a bit of charisma vacuum). We shall see what the future holds in that respect. As to the plot itself? Well, it was gubbins of the highest order, and like I said a mere excuse to put the players on the board; potential contradictions glibly brushed aside with writing that stopped short of turning to the camera and asking the audience to just go with it[*]. And like a lot of two parters, the pay-off just couldn't maintain the momentum and tension accrued in the first half (though the "left behind" aspects were a success). The last act also descended into another big battle, but kudos to the Russos are due, as it was a better staged and balanced set-piece than the visually bland, rote version we got in Infinity War. Indeed, a couple of scenes had some genuinely fist-pumping moment sorely lacking in that first part. * By taking the decision to return everyone 5 years after The Snap, all for the sake of Stark's daughter, the script basically condemned humanity to struggle; the first act clearly established a world without hope, one of chaos and collapse. Restoring those 4+ billion people into a world with crumbling infrastructure - farming, political, economic and so on - would surely bring mass poverty, conflict and starvation to the world (not to mention all those personal tragedies with siblings, spouses and friends having to readdress their relationships). Oh, but Stark's daughter can still exist so that's OK?
silverharp wrote: » did it ever come up what the US military is supposed to be doing when part of upstate New York is being invaded?
jaxxx wrote: » Did anyone else cry when Tony died ? No? Just me? Okay...............
Kirby wrote: » In an actual event like that, fighter jets would be scrambled immediately but proper mobilization of troops and ground assets takes several hours. Sure it's over by then. But yes, seeing no aircraft is a bit odd. Artistic license I guess.
Sad Professor wrote: » I came out of this thinking I had been overly harsh on many of the previous Marvel films, which as bland and forgettable as I often found them rarely felt as clunky and poorly made in places as this. As the conclusion to a 20 odd movie series I can recognise the achievement many feel this represents, but I had so little investment in these characters and their mission in those movies that I can only judge this film as a standalone entity. And even compared to the middling Infinity War, I thought this was quite poor.
