Well the GOT thread had Endgame spoilers thanks to yours truly. So i suppose it evens out the cosmic balance or something.
Spoilers Avengers: Endgame grade and discussion thread
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Well the GOT thread had Endgame spoilers thanks to yours truly. So i suppose it evens out the cosmic balance or something.
Just got to see it a second time and loved it just as much. I have to say, having gone out of my way to listen for the time travel stuff I find the Russo's claims hard to reconcile with the actual movie. Literally no one ever mentions alternate timelines outside of the Ancient One's conversation with Hulk which is both explicitly about removing a stone from the timeline and explicitly says creating an alternate timeline is a terrible fate for everyone living in it and explicitly says the Avengers are going to 'erase' the alternate timelines by returning the stones to their points of origin. The Ancient One even phrases it as (roughly) 'That may be great for your reality but for my *new* reality it would not be good', which to me pretty clearly implies that both of their realities are still the same while they're talking and will only be different after Hulk takes the stone.
But, thinking about it the past week, I'm fairly certain that Dr. Strange did mention alternate timelines as a possible repercussion of time travel somewhere in a previous movie and if this is what the Russos are saying, then it's probably going to be revisited (at least in the Loki series if not future movies) and will eventually be impossible to ignore, so I can live with it being the case. But I honestly like the idea of Endgame as one timeline with alternate realities that cease to exist after Cap returns the stones better, and I still think it fits better with what they actual put on screen in this particular movie.
But, thinking about it the past week, I'm fairly certain that Dr. Strange did mention alternate timelines as a possible repercussion of time travel somewhere in a previous movie and if this is what the Russos are saying, then it's probably going to be revisited (at least in the Loki series if not future movies) and will eventually be impossible to ignore, so I can live with it being the case. But I honestly like the idea of Endgame as one timeline with alternate realities that cease to exist after Cap returns the stones better, and I still think it fits better with what they actual put on screen in this particular movie.
Steel has barely been relevant in years.
All white.
Miles worked because there's still 616 Spidey around. Terry barely worked.
So make sure the new ones can never escape the shadow of the original.
She's a Mary Sue as much as Rey, if you want to be like that.
New heroes very rarely sell. That's historic fact. What's racist was making them all white to start with.
No, because when it happens the other way around it's the less advantaged getting some respect.
Usually its' just because they couldn't be bothered.
There was never a Hollywood rule that actors play their real age
Considering the popular heroes like Superman were created in 1938, it is no surprise the all white canvas they were painted on. The world of 1938 was dangerous for people who did not tick the right ethnic or racial box so there was fat chance they would have made it into a comic (unless they were the domestics). It would have destroyed the moral sensibilities of little (white american/english) johnny. Up to just 50 years ago someone like me sharing a toilet with a melanin challenged human would be scandalous!
Stan Lee and his colleagues of the 1960's were not perfect, but at least they broke the racial mold of all white superheroes.
He could be again. Just a matter of a choice. He got his own title, and a movie, even though the movie bastardized the source material. There are black characters created in the 1960s that are quite popular today, including Black Panther--a perfect example of my point. I wouldn't want an actor of a different race to play T'Challa for the same reasons.
So what? They were brand new, there were two female characters, and they were successful. That was a choice of the creators to make them white. The point is that new characters can work, and the Incredibles are a perfect example.
They both worked, and you touched upon why--the original characters were still around. Terry was a brilliant idea and the reason was because Bruce Wayne was there. He wasn't so much a replacement but a successor.
As for Miles, it's the same idea. On his world, Peter died, but the main Peter is still alive, so they didn't replace anything, they didn't kill anyone, and all they did was create a new character, that was successful. He showed there is room for more.
Do you watch Game of Thrones? Arya is a big time hero. I think she's much different than Rey. Much better written. Rey feels forced, pardon the pun. Arya is more like Xena or Wonder Woman--a hero that trained her whole life and used that training for the greater good. She's not the biggest, or the strongest, but she is the most motivated and skilled. They didn't have to weaken a male character to make her strong. They didn't have to prove her worth. They built it up. Arya is a brilliant hero, and an original character.
You seem to have a misguided definition of racism. And history has shown you are wrong. Every hero was new at one point. And there are plenty of non white heroes that have lasted over 50 years. That's the true historic fact.
This is wrong on multiple levels. Not only is it an attempt to justify racism, it is the exact opposite of respect. It's pandering and making a statement that X minority can't succeed on its own without some liberal white savior patting them on the head and giving them a token change. Respect would be to add new heroes and characters to the mix.
You have evidence of that? For example, do you have access to a comment by Bob Kane that Batman was white because he couldn't be bothered to make him black?
I apologize if this has been brought up here before. If you haven't done' so already, Google the word "Thanos". When you see the Infinity Gauntlet over by the character description, click on it. After it's done, click on it again. You're welcome.
Since things have become needlessly heated, I am closing this temporarily, so that you can see this comment.
Enough with the crap about who is and who isn't racist. Much of the commentary approaches baiting and does nothing but inflame tensions. If you truly want to go at each other hammer and tong like that, then maybe TNZ is the better venue.
I will re-open this after a reasonable amount of time so that the film can be discussed reasonably, and there are plenty of folks who have yet to even see "Endgame". That doesn't mean there is no place for strong opinions, but you will have to keep the emotions in check
Enough with the crap about who is and who isn't racist. Much of the commentary approaches baiting and does nothing but inflame tensions. If you truly want to go at each other hammer and tong like that, then maybe TNZ is the better venue.
I will re-open this after a reasonable amount of time so that the film can be discussed reasonably, and there are plenty of folks who have yet to even see "Endgame". That doesn't mean there is no place for strong opinions, but you will have to keep the emotions in check
Thread re-opened. Have fun
The problem is that that reason was generally that in the era the character was created, people wouldn't have accepted anything other than a white male as a lead character. That's especially true of the majority of the DC characters that were created in the 30's and 40's. Marvel ended up with more diversity because they were creating characters in the 60's and 70's where it was more acceptable. The simple truth is that for the vast majority of characters, their race doesn't matter. They were created white because of when they were created. If they'd been created a few decades later they may have been more diverse. But unless the race has a direct influence on the character the only reason it matters is because some people want the character to look exactly as they did in the comic.
And I'm not saying that new characters can't be created and can't be successful. Just that it's significantly less likely. And that's not just for comic book characters. There's a reason that most big budget movies these days are part of a franchise. There's much more risk in creating something new than there is building on an established franchise.
There's nothing I can think of that directly contradicts that idea. But indirectly, the idea that Steve Rogers could go back into the past and not make an impact on history by trying to right wrongs, seems unlikely to me. Given his abilities and his nature, for him to sit quietly back and let history pass by, seems out of character.
If there's a single timeline which can't be changed, then it wouldn't matter what he did. Things would still unfold in a way that would lead to the stories we've already seen. And that wouldn't have to mean he just sat quietly back and let history pass by. It would simply mean that whatever he may've tried to do for Bucky or against Hydra, to name the two most obvious examples (since by the time of Iron Man, he'd be too old to get involved in anything anymore anyway), wouldn't work or else wouldn't fully solve the problem. He could still do tons of things against other problems that we never knew existed, just like Ant-man had an entire career in the 70s that no one had ever heard of.
Even changing something awful could end in unintended results. If he tried to stop 9/11, Tony Stark may not end up in that cave building his first Iron Man suit.
I kind of like flawed characters who come good. She really has carried with her loss and I find that maybe more human and relatable. She isn't cardboard and her powers are just so cool.
Hardly "off the rails," but loyalty and mutual romantic interest.
According to? The expression "having someone's back" means supporting a person in whatever said person is doing or believing. Sharon consistently supported Steve at risk to her own life as her romantic feelings grew, which the scenes and dialogue clearly present. Steve was interested in her before he knew she worked for SHIELD. The set up for a relationship was clearly being set up, but the MCU handlers completely dropped that for a plot that caused more harm than good to Cap's character.
Trying to force "friends" to sign the accords to exorcise his own demons is not having anyone's back. Secretly finding and using a superpowered teenager as part his manipulative manner / never ending displays of hubris is not having anyone's back. Having someone's back is not trying to emotionally manipulate a "friend" into signing the accords by using a pen set once used by FDR. Its a manufactured olive branch.
Its supposed to be the same timeline--the one which leads to Sam and Bucky in 2019, but according to Banner, it cannot be, especially after Steve altered a number of significant events by having a relationship that never occurred in the First Timeline.
I'd just have wished to see that growth in the movies or the development from evil to good - because actually we don't.
As I say: Agree to disagree. Where did Tony force Steve to sign? No one was forced to do anything. He argued strongly (and Steve's only argument was that he knows better), he offered compromises to void the charges of Bucharest and get Bucky help. Wanda wasn't kept at the Compound to force her to sign. And again, Tony went to *back up* Steve and Bucky in Siberia (hence my "stupid" notion that he had their back).
And using Spider-Man is as contrived and manipulative as using Ant-Man (and Wanda to be honest since she's got a beef with Tony since the beginning). If you start about the pen, then please remember that Steve brought up Ultron. He isn't above manipulation, either. Citing flaws in a character is one thing, but missing out on another character's obvious flaws is a bit contradictory.
About the friends part... hm... I argue that the "team" never were friendly towards Tony. Exhibit A: The Avengers, pretty much the whole movie except for Bruce, exhibit B: Age of Ultron where no one intervenes when Thor attacks Tony, when Steve attacks Tony. From what I gather, the team factor was more of an issue in the comics with team nights etc - but they don't exist (save for one scene which was followed up by the Thor attack).
Overall, you really must have seen a different movie here. I know it's called "Captain America: Civil War" but just because Tony's cast as the bad guy here from Steve's point of view doesn't mean he necessarily is in the wrong and/or that Steve can't do any wrong.
It's not the same timeline, the Directors said that Cap created another alternate timeline by staying with Peggy and when she died he left it and came back to the Prime one to pass his Shield and title to Falcon.
Whether he went back to the alternate timeline he created to be with the family he had there or not, they haven't confirmed.
Whether he went back to the alternate timeline he created to be with the family he had there or not, they haven't confirmed.
Saw it for a third time with a different group of friends. Downgrading from B- to a C.
It could be the superhero movie burnout talking but something about this movie just doesn't work for me.
It could be the superhero movie burnout talking but something about this movie just doesn't work for me.
If that's the case, how did he come back without the.... time... sucky...platform thing?
Now that this thread is back posting this here as well:
Found this on the interwebs couple days ago. I think it explains most, if not all time-travel shenanigans?
Found this on the interwebs couple days ago. I think it explains most, if not all time-travel shenanigans?
Cap and Tony were able to jump back from 2012 to 1970 without one. It's not strictly needed if you have the time GPS watch thingy.
