Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Marsden]

Oh, the ripping Bucky's arm off was not meant for that?

Sorry, it escalated too quickly for me to believe it.

Did you even watch the movie? Bucky was using that bionic arm to rip Tony's power source for his armor out. That's actually how Bucky lost it, Tony used the Unibeam integrated into the reactor it really a self defensive move. There was no ripping of anyone's arm, it was destroyed.

 

[fireproof78]

Did you even watch the movie? Bucky was using that bionic arm to rip Tony's power source for his armor out. That's actually how Bucky lost it, Tony used the Unibeam integrated into the reactor it really a self defensive move. There was no ripping of anyone's arm, it was destroyed.

Yes, I did.

Thanks.

 

[Anwar]

To me, at every step, the conflict doesn't gradually increase. It goes from 10 to 20 to 30 and at each step I expected to believe these people working together are willing to beat on each (going easy or not) because they are being manipulated at every level. I left the film extremely confused, extremely annoyed and very much unconvinced that the conflict would escalate to the levels that it did.

It was hardly any different from Harvey and Batman becoming enemies in Dark Knight, except they didn't use that horrible "Woman he loved died" cliche in Civil War (unless you count Mrs Stark).

It all feels too forced that when we get to that scene with Iron Man, Cap and Bucky, it feels like it shot to 100 with little in the way of escalation.

Tony had been pushed to the razor's edge by everything, and finding out about Bucky and Steve keeping it from him was just the last straw. Would you have been happier if Tony had been burned and Zemo told him to his face to kill people?

 

[suarezguy]

Any worse than how Joker manipulated everything to a Godlike extent in Dark Knight?

I thought it was also badly unbelievable that the Joker had done next to nothing for a year, then suddenly made such a big impact in a yes overly-omnipotent way and then supposedly would be imprisoned forever and unable to escape.

I'm confused. I thought everyone was talking about people trying to kill each other in the airport scene (which is obviously nonsense), but the arm thing is from the Russian base, isn't it?

Of course Tony is trying to kill Bucky in that scene.

Although it is skimmed over in the film and often ignored, Tony and Natasha went into the airport fight to capture Bucky so that, or at least knowing that, he would be executed without a trial.

 

[fireproof78]

t was hardly any different from Harvey and Batman becoming enemies in Dark Knight, except they didn't use that horrible "Woman he loved died" cliche in Civil War (unless you count Mrs Stark).

I followed that better. It doesn't yank me out of the movie as badly as how this conflict escalates.

Tony had been pushed to the razor's edge by everything, and finding out about Bucky and Steve keeping it from him was just the last straw. Would you have been happier if Tony had been burned and Zemo told him to his face to kill people?

I would have been happier for them to not be beating the crap out of each other at the end of the film, thanks. There's self-defense, there's emotional distraught rage and then there is what is on screen in CW, which is "I'm going to kill you, my former friend."

 

[Anwar]

I followed that better. It doesn't yank me out of the movie as badly as how this conflict escalates

How? Dent went from normal to Psycho in the last 20 minutes.

I would have been happier for them to not be beating the crap out of each other at the end of the film, thanks. There's self-defense, there's emotional distraught rage and then there is what is on screen in CW, which is "I'm going to kill you, my former friend."

Dent did worse in TDK, he was gonna kill an innocent kid. Tony at least calmed down by the end of the movie instead of going after Steve and Bucky on some worldwide hunt.

 

[fireproof78]

How? Dent went from normal to Psycho in the last 20 minutes.

No, actually.

Dent did worse in TDK, he was gonna kill an innocent kid. Tony at least calmed down by the end of the movie instead of going after Steve and Bucky on some worldwide hunt.

Only after they all beat each other to point that I'm pretty sure it was no longer "pulling punches" or whatever. Again, escalating absurdly.

But, hey, heroes fighting is totally fine? My bad for questioning it...

 

[Christopher]

But, hey, heroes fighting is totally fine?

Of course it isn't. The whole point of the story is that it's a terrible situation.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course it isn't. The whole point of the story is that it's a terrible situation.

I just wish the story hadn't lost me halfway through. Maybe it will make sense on the second round.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Although it is skimmed over in the film and often ignored, Tony and Natasha went into the airport fight to capture Bucky so that, or at least knowing that, he would be executed without a trial.

That's not true. The police were ordered to shoot on sight at the beginning because he was 'too dangerous' for them to try to take him alive. It's serious govt. overreach and violation of his civil rights, but it doesn't mean he would be summarily executed if he were captured alive anyway. And he was captured alive and no one summarily executed him. They even brought in a psychologist to examine him, which they wouldn't do if is fate had already been sealed. Anyone captured at the airport would end up in the Raft, not the electric chair.

Although to be fair, Black Panther absolutely was trying to kill Bucky throughout the movie, and Tony and Natasha deliberately invited him to the airport with them. But that was more the arrogance of believing they'd be able to control the situation and stop T'Challa from going too far in the end.

 

[Reverend]

ETA: In the spirit of fairness I will rewatch this film and see if second viewing is any less confusing.

I was going to suggest that, but thought it'd sound a little too condescending.

 

[DigificWriter]

All of this Captain America talk has me laser-focused on a narrative element of a movie I haven't actually seen, Avengers: Endgame:
Cap going back to Peggy in the past.

Nothing that I've read about that moment convinces me that it created a "branched reality", especially not when the simplest - and far more meaningful - narrative is that Steve was always meant to be the man Peggy married and that he was interacting with her and his own lives without being aware of it when he sought her out in the 21st Century.

That narrative also fits the pattern of the MCU, for better or worse, being meticulously and oftentimes ridiculously interconnected.

I'm aware that the Russo Brothers have a different interpretation, but nothing that I've found convinces me that there's any actual evidence to support their viewpoint.

 

[kirk55555]

All of this Captain America talk has me laser-focused on a narrative element of a movie I haven't actually seen, Avengers: Endgame:
Cap going back to Peggy in the past.

Nothing that I've read about that moment convinces me that it created a "branched reality", especially not when the simplest - and far more meaningful - narrative is that Steve was always meant to be the man Peggy married and that he was interacting with her and his own lives without being aware of it when he sought her out in the 21st Century.

That narrative also fits the pattern of the MCU, for better or worse, being meticulously and oftentimes ridiculously interconnected.

I'm aware that the Russo Brothers have a different interpretation, but nothing that I've found convinces me that there's any actual evidence to support their viewpoint.

Yeah, I don't buy that being a "branching path". The whole explanation for Time Travel in Endgame is the one problem I have with it, it just muddies things and makes it more needlessly confusing then the films it tried to make fun of for their time travel rules. Its simpler to say that Cap marrying Peggy was always what had happened, which is a version of a fairly well known time travel travel trope and easily understandable.

Since this will probably never be addressed again in a movie anyway, I will personally continue accepting this interpretation of Cap's ending. Making it into complicated multi-timeline BS just takes away from the ending in my opinion.

 

[Reverend]

The *entire premise* of the second act is built upon the notion that changing past events has no effect on the present, it just creates a new branch timeline. They explain it like three times and The Ancient One even draws a diagram.

As for direct evidence: if BttF rules applied then when they got back to the present, literally everything would have been different, including them having acquired the five of the six stones. Just by removing the tesseract in the 70's alone would mean that none of the events we saw after that date would have played out the same. Hell, just the mere fact that Carol indirectly got her powers from the space two decades later means that both her and Tony would have popped out of existence and the stones along with them. Without Captain Marvel, Tony Stark gets freeze dried in the Benatar and never invents the space-time GPS. They didn't, he did, therefore that's not how it works. QED

Steve could not have been Peggy's unnamed husband. It's a (quantum) physical impossibility.

 

[Booji]

The writers say otherwise. I'll go with them.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The writers say otherwise. I'll go with them.

And the directors say something else entirely. I'll go with them because what they say makes much more sense.

 

[Christopher]

Steve going back into his existing past is physically allowable if he was part of the history all along and we just didn't know it; both classical and quantum physics allow self-consistent time loops. The important thing, physically speaking, is self-consistency, so an event causing itself is allowed whereas an event preventing itself (and creating an irresolvable paradox) is not. A self-consistent loop where the time traveler was part of the past all along is just as physically acceptable as a branching-timeline model, since both of them preserve the existing history.

The problem is that Steve being part of the MCU's past all along is narratively questionable -- it's hard to reconcile with the established history of the MCU or Peggy Carter, and it's out of character for Captain America.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The *entire premise* of the second act is built upon the notion that changing past events has no effect on the present, it just creates a new branch timeline. They explain it like three times and The Ancient One even draws a diagram.

As for direct evidence: if BttF rules applied then when they got back to the present, literally everything would have been different, including them having acquired the five of the six stones. Just by removing the tesseract in the 70's alone would mean that none of the events we saw after that date would have played out the same. Hell, just the mere fact that Carol indirectly got her powers from the space two decades later means that both her and Tony would have popped out of existence and the stones along with them. Without Captain Marvel, Tony Stark gets freeze dried in the Benatar and never invents the space-time GPS. They didn't, he did, therefore that's not how it works. QED

Steve could not have been Peggy's unnamed husband. It's a (quantum) physical impossibility.

Not if the stones were always going to go back into their proper place, so, they never "left."
It's like in Bill and Ted's and the keys. The keys were always there because they were always going to go back and put them there.

Steve going back into his existing past is physically allowable if he was part of the history all along and we just didn't know it; both classical and quantum physics allow self-consistent time loops. The important thing, physically speaking, is self-consistency, so an event causing itself is allowed whereas an event preventing itself (and creating an irresolvable paradox) is not. A self-consistent loop where the time traveler was part of the past all along is just as physically acceptable as a branching-timeline model, since both of them preserve the existing history.

The problem is that Steve being part of the MCU's past all along is narratively questionable -- it's hard to reconcile with the established history of the MCU or Peggy Carter, and it's out of character for Captain America.

Yeah, that's the one thing that I sorta get bumped with... that Cap wouldn't do anything and just "hide." He said in CW, when he sees something going wrong he can't sit back and just let it happen.

I get the ethical dilemma Past-Cap might face with mucking up the timeline... but, still... all the lives he could've saved if he got involved sooner...

 

[Booji]

And the directors say something else entirely.

They should have written the movie too then. If they couldn't properly interpret the scene, it's on them, not the writers.

 

[Turtletrekker]

They should have written the movie too then. If they couldn't properly interpret the scene, it's on them, not the writers.

The directors always have the final say in movie storytelling. It's their job to have the final say. And beyond the russos, there is Kevin Feige, who has his own opinion on the subject, that hasn't publicly shared it.