Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Avengers: Endgame

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

How many of Dr. Strange's 12 million scenarios were essentially the same thing only without the random rat that turns on a piece of electrical machinery that somehow still has a battery charged after five years? 

I mentioned the rat briefly in my review, but the more I think about it, the more I believe this rodent to be the True Hero of Endgame. Mouse Ex Machina.

7 hours ago, Evan C said:

Ah, so the trapped in the ice version thawed out and still joined the Avengers in 2012. But wouldn't marrying Peggy have still been a violation of the rules the film established?

Oh, all sorts of violations occur with the time travel in this film. It's still unclear to me as to Loki's fate after he escapes with the Tesseract due to the botched time heist--even if their plan to go back to the 1970s and fix that mistake works, and they put back the Infinity Stones on that military base, I could see the writers finding a way to bring Loki back due to this thread. But regarding Steve, if he stays in the past to marry Peggy, does that mean *any* of the events of Avengers, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Age of Ultron, etc. ever occur? Or do they still occur with the frozen Steve (let's call him SteveB) while SteveA (that's the time-traveling Steve of Endgame) lives his life off the grid (albeit in the suburbs somewhere)--does he simply allow all the terrible things to happen with this prescient knowledge? And wouldn't this completely mess up the timeline's of the TV series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and Marvel's Agent Carter? But I've already thought about this too much.

3 hours ago, Overstreet said:

Must I preface this note with a 

SPOILER WARNING

or are we past that now?

Remember, the Russo-authorized "spoiler ban" lifts on Monday, which is today for me, as I'm presently in the UK and therefore living in your future. Because, time travel.

Edit: For whatever reason, Endgame has prompted some of my snarkiest A&F posts in recent history. I blame Tony Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
11 hours ago, Overstreet said:

Must I preface this note with a 

SPOILER WARNING

or are we past that now?

 

I think Jeff is asking tongue-in-cheek, but just in case....

My personal opinion is that posts made-pre general release (such as if a critic has seen the film or a festival is in advance of when people could see it) ought to be spoiler sensitive but that once a movie is out the spoilers cautions aren't necessary. I'll sometimes use them anyway if it is a "major" spoiler, but that's more out of habit than anything else.

That's not policy, though, just my thoughts. Anyone else have strong feelings on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

That's not policy, though, just my thoughts. Anyone else have strong feelings on this issue?

My feeling on spoilers is that the concern about them is way over-the-top, and if a film can't survive being "spoiled" then it's probably not a very good film. And if you don't want something spoiled, then the responsibility is on you not to read anything about the film before you see it. However, if refusing to have something spoiled is a scruple that someone deeply cares about, I try to respect it within reason. Hence, my excessive warning on my first post in this thread, just in case someone felt strongly about not wanting Endgame spoiled.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing Jeff's point that time travel ruins storytelling, this just dawned on me.

If Gamora cannot be brought back by the stones because Thanos killed her to obtain the soul stone, but 2014 Gamora can travel forward in time in order to be around for Guardians 3 without undoing the events of Guardians 1 and 2, then shouldn't it be possible to go back and get Tony and Natasha and still have them around the same way? So their deaths are really meaningless.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cindy wanted to see it, so being the dutiful husband that I was...

Who made the point that bringing everyone back after five years would be as disruptive as them disappearing? (Some survivors would have moved on and see their lives...complicated.)
Because that's the one that really bugs me. Everything else I can shrug off in the "fine-for-what-it-was-just-a-movie" response. But I felt like other plot holes they winked at or waved at. But other than Star Lord searching for Gamora (maybe) it felt like the film AND THE PEOPLE IN IT were like, yay, we *fixed* everything. 

I thought Rene Russo was great. Also, every time I see one of these movies, I keep thinking Tom Holland isn't this good, is he? And then I watch it again and am like, yeah he really is. Peter's introduction to Captain Marvel remains my favorite moment in the whole film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the article you're referring to: https://screenrant.com/avengers-endgame-ending-implications-bad-thanos-snap/


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NBooth said:

I made the same point upthread. 

Yeah, that was it.

Postscript -- I noted too during Thanos's speech about starting over from scratch so that life born in blood had no memory, that, well, aren't we overdue for a debate between Peter and some random dude on the Internet about gnosticism in movies?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:
: EDIT: Does no one think of the fact that de-dusting all those dusted people would be at least as catastrophic for the world as dusting them in the first place?

I believe I mentioned this on Facebook, but: yes, in a world where people have had five years to Get On With Their Lives, the fact that all their dear departed dusted loved ones have suddenly returned would be a major shock. You're in a new relationship, new marriage, etc.? Here's your former spouse! You are now older than your big brother ever got to be? Surprise, he's back, and now he's younger than you because he never aged! Then there is the fact that the Avengers brought back *only* the people who had been *dusted*. The people who were killed by falling airplanes and derailed trains immediately *after* the dusting are presumably still dead. And of course the people who committed suicide or died for other dusting-related reasons after the dusting are presumably still dead, too. So merely bringing back all the dusted people does not even remotely *begin* to fix all the damage that was done by Thanos, and it arguably introduces a lot *more* damage, too. (Still, all that being said, I do respect that Tony Stark did not want to erase the timeline of the past five years, because that would mean erasing his daughter and presumably lots of other good things too. It's kind of annoying to me how the Star Trek franchise -- including the Voyager finale, which was also called 'Endgame'! -- often showed the heroes going back in time and changing the past, which meant not only changing *their own* pasts but *everyone else's too*.)

Evan C wrote:
: Why do Hawkeye's kids age five years, but Peter Parker stays the exact same age? Also why are Peter and his friends all still in high school after five years?

Hawkeye's kids didn't age. But Ant-Man's did, because they were never dusted.

: Steve Rogers' going back in time to marry Peggy definitely violates the time travel rules stipulated by the movie. Also, wouldn't he have had to kill the other version of himself for that to work?

I don't know that merely marrying her in the past violates the rules, per se. I think he would have simply branched off onto a new timeline by doing that. But then, he should *not* have been able to pop up on the original timeline again.

The bigger issue, I think, is how he could be married to Peggy Carter for all those years without revealing to her that the organization she was running had been infiltrated by HYDRA from its very inception.

I also wonder when Captain America became such a 21st-century figure. The scene where he's leading a counseling session with an openly gay participant got me wondering when, exactly, Steve Rogers discovered how incredibly mainstream homosexuality has become since the 1940s, and how he dealt with it. And the scene where he says "You've got to be shitting me" seemed out of character for someone who chided Tony Stark for saying "shit" just two Avengers movies ago.

: Also, isn't wiping out Thanos' entire army excessive (and arguably genocide)? I mean, eliminating Thanos and his adviser and maybe a few of the space ships should have been enough to stop the attack, so killing all his soldiers (who would presumably stop fighting once their leaders were dead) is surely excessive violence.

Well, it wasn't Thanos's *entire* army. Gamorra is still around. Given that Tony was expecting to die, I don't think he wanted to take any chances; he knew he had only one chance to stop Thanos & co. in their tracks. (And the whole thing of killing one person and expecting everyone else to stop is kind of a sci-fi cliche anyway. Then again, as we saw in The Last Jedi, killing Snoke didn't stop *his* bodyguards from fighting Rey and Ren to the death, now, did it.)

Overstreet wrote:
: As I exited the theater from Infinity War, I turned to my friend Danny and said, "Welp, Ant-Man will save the day. Quantum Realm makes anything possible. And so the next one will be all about time travel to fix things."

How did you know Ant-Man would use the Quantum Realm? He didn't get stranded in the Quantum Realm until Ant-Man and the Wasp, which came out a few months *after* Infinity War.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

Evan C wrote:

: Why do Hawkeye's kids age five years, but Peter Parker stays the exact same age? Also why are Peter and his friends all still in high school after five years?

Hawkeye's kids didn't age. But Ant-Man's did, because they were never dusted.

Unless my memory is really wrong, after everyone comes back, when Hawkeye is reunited with his family at the end, he embraces two kids who are both young adults, which is substantially older than his kids were in the first scene.


"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides all the continuity issues you all are mentioning, my annoyance with the MCU series is mainly on the character level.

1. Spider-Man looking up to Stark as a mentor flat out doesn't work for me. And more annoying is the fact that his Stark suit makes his superpowers a moot point, as he becomes a clone of Iron Man with a different coat of paint.

2. Peter has already noted the inconsistent development of Captain America in this film. It's played for cheap laughs here.

3. Over the course of the MCU, Thor has less of a character arc, and more of a character rollercoaster. In every movie they opportunistically change not just his look, but his mannerisms, speech style, and fundamental personality, somewhat in order to serve time plot, but mostly again for cheap laughs. I've seen the same phenomenon in high school plays from young actors a thousand times. Getting a cheap laugh is easy (especially when the audience is already your fan), but building real characters is hard.

4. I think they did more or less the same thing with Pepper's character. In her case it was more of a gradual thinning out until she really only served the purpose of making Tony's death more "heroic" and "poignant." The fact that she has an Iron Woman suit at the end is stupid, but you can see that it was the only way for them to get her to the battlefield for Tony's death scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend wondered aloud before Spider-man screening if Adrian Toomes (or some other criminal) had been dusted while in prison and then brought back five years later, if he still had to serve his entire sentence or whether those five years counted towards time served. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 11:51 AM, Christian said:

This is something I wonder about frequently. Have the movies changed or have I changed? I certainly hardly ever feel the thrill from summer blockbusters that I felt from movies through my teen years. (That was the 1980s.) I've sometimes returned to those films to show them to my own kids now, but it's not unusual for me to feel some disconnect with the material, even as I still enjoy the films.

So it must be me, not the movies, right? 

No. The blockbusters of today are worse, and the kids just don't have my endless wisdom and experience to inform their Marvel-crazed opinions.

I popped Endgame into the DVD player yesterday while doing some chores. I didn't make it all the way through. 

I used to be able to rewatch movies. I still do. But I haven't felt a particular desire to go see Star Wars again. (I think I watched Return of the Jedi three times on opening day...and enjoyed it.) I know re-watching movies isn't the end all be all, but the modern blockbuster feels so...disposable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was shocked that this won 'best special effects' in our film critics association.  I guess I have different criteria, but I think a film should be non-disposable to win in any category.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

http://secularcinephile.blogspot.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrew said:

Yeah, I was shocked that this won 'best special effects' in our film critics association.  I guess I have different criteria, but I think a film should be non-disposable to win in any category.

 

FWIW: SPOILERS FOR Aliens, Alien3, and Jojo Rabbit. 


To make a gesture towards fairness, I will say I shut it off before the second half, and I assume those who voted for SFX were thinking in terms of the big battle scenes. 

I am more pondering my changing evolving enthusiasm towards re-watching movie, especially popular ones. I guess possible explanations include:

  1. My own tastes have evolved.  (So I don't want to re-watch or take pleasure in what I once did.)
  2. I'm busier. (Other, more pressing things take precedence.)
  3. There are more choices. (I have access to more films and there are more films. Easier to rewatch when you have limited choices.)
  4. There is something materially different about the films themselves -- they are made to be disposable. 
  5. None of the above. (Something else.)

I don't think it is 2 or 3 since when I do decide to re-watch something like Avengers, it feels like a chore. So it's not that I would rather be watching something else, it's that I'd rather be doing anything else. But I don't know that it's #1 because, honestly, I enjoy these movies *enough* on first viewing. (Most of them anyway. I found Infinity Wars a slog, but Endgame was okay, and I think I liked Captain Marvel more than some of my peers. As my comments in the Rise of the Last Skywalker thread indicate, I was genuineley surprised by the people who disliked it (since I'm used to being cooler towards those films) or found it materially different from other iterations of the franchise (though your all's comments helped me understand that.)

So I am wondering about #4. I know I'm a story guy, and I've long resisted MCU because the hook of teasing the next film really made each film and its story seem inconsequential, without stakes or emotional drive. I'm interested enough to see *what* happened, but how they get from point A to point B seems...immaterial...and as likely as not to be reversed in the next film. Ditto Star Wars where a triumphant victory or the end of a quest can simply be undercut with a scrawled text that says, "Well, whatever happened last movie has since gone terribly wrong..." Luke throwing away the Light Saber and then reversing course on his decision to run and hide struck me like the disposal of Newt in Alien3...a tell that previous material was something that had to be explained away rather than that it acted as a reliable foundation for what came next. 

Over the last year, mostly because of teaching, there are a handful of films that I've watched multiple times that I had seen previously. I guess there is a density about some of them that surprises me. I continue to notice new things about them that enrich the viewing experience. In contrast, the modern Blockbuster seems designed to be made for the modern audience. (I recently watched Jojo Rabbit, not exactly a hard-to-follow film, with someone on her phone the whole movie--at the end she was like "why did that thing happen to his mom?") Everything must be underlined in triplicate, so once the initial curiosity about "what happened" is satiated, the movies don't have much in the way of deeper meaning or surprises to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...