Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Set Harth]

I've got several things on my mind right now pertaining to the MCU:
1. It's baffling to me that even 6 years after the fact, there are still people who refuse to accept or believe the Canonical fact that Peggy Carter's husband on the Sacred Timeline was "Steve Rogers All Along".

...because it isn't true?

"One thing that's clear that Anthony and I have discussed, I don't know that we've discussed this publicly at all, Cap would have had to have traveled back to the main timeline. That's something that, yes, he would have been in a branch reality, but he would have to travel back to the main timeline to give that shield to Sam Wilson.

In our internal logic that we defined in the room, that was the choice that we made. Based on everything that happened, he would have been in a branch reality and then had to have shifted over to this, so jumped from one to the other and handed the shield off."

 

[Jayson1]

What I think happens is Captain America goes back in time and creates a second timeline but the TVA knows Sam Wilson has to get the shield so they let Captain America return to that timeline briefly to give it to him before taking him back to his new timeline.

 

[DigificWriter]

...because it isn't true?

"One thing that's clear that Anthony and I have discussed, I don't know that we've discussed this publicly at all, Cap would have had to have traveled back to the main timeline. That's something that, yes, he would have been in a branch reality, but he would have to travel back to the main timeline to give that shield to Sam Wilson.

In our internal logic that we defined in the room, that was the choice that we made. Based on everything that happened, he would have been in a branch reality and then had to have shifted over to this, so jumped from one to the other and handed the shield off."

The Russos didn't write Endgame's script, and the people who did - Markus and McFeeley - stated what actually happened and what they'd been building towards across every other script that they wrote (The First,Avenger, The Winter Soldier, Civil War, and Infinity War), which is what I described: Peggy's husband was always Steve.

So I remain baffled as to why there remains confusion over this when the evidence of five separate movies supports the writers' intentions and not the directors' personal opinions.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It’s the only thing that makes any sense. The movie in a humorous way says all of tv and movie tv travel theories are wrong to make their own questionable theory legitimate. But the most commonly excepted theory on Steve’s presence in history is based on nothing but huge leaps in logic not in the movie…

I think they should reveal Steve took alias Grant Gardner when he married Peggy to protect timeline. It’s Captain America’s name in 1940s movie serial.

 

[Mudd]

Something isn't canon just because the writers say it is.

Something isn't canon just because the directors say it is.

This is true and it's not complicated. Why do people have trouble getting it right?

Oh - to try to win arguments. I forgot.

 

[Christopher]

The movie in a humorous way says all of tv and movie tv travel theories are wrong to make their own questionable theory legitimate.

"Questionable?" Hell, no. The time travel model used by Avengers: Endgame is relatively well-grounded in what current scientific theory says about time travel (that no event can be erased from history, so there can only be either a single immutable timeline or coexisting parallel timelines), while the usual fictional model of time travelers "overwriting" history like an Etch-a-Sketch is utter fantasy and a logical impossibility. The problem is that audiences have been so conditioned to assume that the nonsense fantasy model of rewritable timelines is true that when they hear a scientifically plausible model, it sounds "questionable" to them.

Star Trek 2009 had the same problem with fans insisting that an altered timeline "had to" erase the original history rather than coexisting with it, which is exactly the opposite of what theory says. The writers made a choice to adopt a more scientifically plausible model than previous stories had used, and fans assumed it was wrong. (TV Tropes calls this "Reality is Unrealistic.")

 

[Set Harth]

The Russos didn't write Endgame's script, and the people who did - Markus and McFeeley - stated what actually happened

I suspect the Russos may have written some scenes of the film. Such a thing would not exactly be unheard of. In any event, through Banner, at one point Endgame valiantly tried to get the point across that everyone is brainwashed by movies like Back to the Future. Why bother to do that if you're just going to cave in and go back to the usual tropes by the end of the film? Specifically, when you suddenly show up in the past, it's not actually the past anymore because originally you weren't there!

The stultifying belief that any time travel must necessarily always have been part of the timeline just doesn't hold up in this instance. For example, Rhodey and Nebula going back to 2014 to get the power stone. That's not the way it happened the first time. How do we know? By watching Guardians of the Galaxy!

So I remain baffled as to why there remains confusion over this when the evidence of five separate movies supports the writers' intentions and not the directors' personal opinions.

That itself is a baffling statement. There is actually no evidence in the other movies which supports the writers' position in any way.

 

[DigificWriter]

I suspect the Russos may have written some scenes of the film. Such a thing would not exactly be unheard of. In any event, through Banner, at one point Endgame valiantly tried to get the point across that everyone is brainwashed by movies like Back to the Future. Why bother to do that if you're just going to cave in and go back to the usual tropes by the end of the film? Specifically, when you suddenly show up in the past, it's not actually the past anymore because originally you weren't there

The thing you quoted pretty explicitly specifies that the Russos never publicly discussed their interpretation of Steve's fate, which means that it existed purely as an internal conversation and is, as noted, at odds with Markus and McFeeley's stated intent as written.

There is actually no evidence in the other movies which supports the writers' position in any way.

The First Avenger, The Winter Soldier, and Endgame explicitly specify how important Peggy was to Steve, setting up his decision to go to her in the end of the latter.

Then, The Winter Soldier explicitly introduces Peggy's offscreen husband and deliberately covers up his identity.

Then, in Civil War, one of the pallbearers at Peggy's funeral is a dead match, physically, for Old Man Steve as he appears at the end of Endgame, but we only see said pallbearer from a distance.

 

[eschaton]

Watched Eyes of Wakanda this weekend. On the whole, it was good, but certainly non-essential viewing.

• Episode 1 was very basic from a story/character perspective, though it provided an (likely necessary) introduction to the premise of the show in general. Cool action scenes, and surprisingly graphic for a story that I thought (due to the animated nature) would have leaned a bit more PG.
• Episode 2 had a bit of a cheesy setup, due to its status as an Iliad retelling and all the fake accents (IMHO, unneeded - it's not like the ancient Greeks would have had modern Greek accents). However, on a character basis, it was far and away the most compelling of the four episodes, with a real downer, gut-punch of an ending which left me wishing that more stories ended this strongly. If only they were a gay couple, it would've been that much better.
• Episode 3 is the one getting all the buzz, since we see an (early) Iron Fist. However, it's tonally quite different from the remainder of the show. No one dies, and it's almost comedic at points in its presentation. These sort of stylistic swerves are often appreciated in episodic shows, but in a four-episode miniseries, I'm not sure this was needed.
• Episode 4 is pure fanwank, since unlike the others, it directly ties into things we've already seen in the MCU. I think it's fine, but much like the first episode, it really hinges on its action sequences. I do like the character arc that the young prince of Wakanda has to learn over the course of this episode, though with a 30-minute runtime (like all the episodes) there's not much space for him to do so.

In the end, I'm just left wanting more. I feel like "period piece MCU" is an area that we really haven't had a chance to explore much (outside of some of the What if...? alterworlds) and there was a lot of potential bringing in characters (the Eternals, Agatha, etc.) that could have been alive hundreds of years ago. This just gave us a tiny taste, and because there was barely a thematic link between the four (other than the whole War Dogs bringing back vibranium relics thing) so many more stories could've been ported in.

 

[Jayson1]

"Questionable?" Hell, no. The time travel model used by Avengers: Endgame is relatively well-grounded in what current scientific theory says about time travel (that no event can be erased from history, so there can only be either a single immutable timeline or coexisting parallel timelines), while the usual fictional model of time travelers "overwriting" history like an Etch-a-Sketch is utter fantasy and a logical impossibility. The problem is that audiences have been so conditioned to assume that the nonsense fantasy model of rewritable timelines is true that when they hear a scientifically plausible model, it sounds "questionable" to them.

Star Trek 2009 had the same problem with fans insisting that an altered timeline "had to" erase the original history rather than coexisting with it, which is exactly the opposite of what theory says. The writers made a choice to adopt a more scientifically plausible model than previous stories had used, and fans assumed it was wrong. (TV Tropes calls this "Reality is Unrealistic.")

Maybe back in the day but I think most people know about the Grandfather paradox these days. People have seen to much sci-fi by now and have grown familiar with the concept.

 

[Christopher]

Watched Eyes of Wakanda this weekend. On the whole, it was good, but certainly non-essential viewing.

• Episode 1 was very basic from a story/character perspective, though it provided an (likely necessary) introduction to the premise of the show in general. Cool action scenes, and surprisingly graphic for a story that I thought (due to the animated nature) would have leaned a bit more PG.

Given the existence of shows like Harley Quinn and the animated tie-ins to The Witcher, I think audiences today probably understand that animation can be just as graphically violent as anything in live-action. I mean, there was a fair amount of violence and death in What If...?, and some pretty intense horror stuff in their zombie episode, so there's precedent within the MCU.

• Episode 2 had a bit of a cheesy setup, due to its status as an Iliad retelling and all the fake accents (IMHO, unneeded - it's not like the ancient Greeks would have had modern Greek accents).

Well, they wouldn't have been speaking English either, so the accent is an interpretation for the audience's benefit in the same way that the dialogue is. Same for the Wakandan accent, for that matter -- the accent they use surely wouldn't have existed thousands of years ago.

• However, on a character basis, it was far and away the most compelling of the four episodes, with a real downer, gut-punch of an ending which left me wishing that more stories ended this strongly. If only they were a gay couple, it would've been that much better.

I got kind of a vibe that they were, although the standard in Ancient Greece was that the acceptable(ish) kind of same-sex pairing was between an adult man and a moderately younger teen or young adult.

I do find it a bit surprising that they called Achilles's friend Memnon instead of Patroclus, although in the Iliad, it was Patroclus who died and led to Achilles withdrawing from the war to sulk in his tent.

• Episode 3 is the one getting all the buzz, since we see an (early) Iron Fist. However, it's tonally quite different from the remainder of the show. No one dies, and it's almost comedic at points in its presentation. These sort of stylistic swerves are often appreciated in episodic shows, but in a four-episode miniseries, I'm not sure this was needed.

I feel just the opposite -- with fewer installments, it's even more important for each one to offer something different. I also liked this one because it actually showed us Wakanda, which the others only did briefly. Although we still didn't learn as much about the culture as I'd hoped.

• Episode 4 is pure fanwank, since unlike the others, it directly ties into things we've already seen in the MCU. I think it's fine, but much like the first episode, it really hinges on its action sequences. I do like the character arc that the young prince of Wakanda has to learn over the course of this episode, though with a 30-minute runtime (like all the episodes) there's not much space for him to do so.

I didn't really get what the pivotal event that changed history was until that closing shot tied it into the movie. I'm not quite sure the logic tracks there -- if it hadn't been that artifact, it would've probably been another one. Although maybe the implication is that it was the one vibranium artifact the War Dogs didn't recover, so it had to be that one.

In the end, I'm just left wanting more. I feel like "period piece MCU" is an area that we really haven't had a chance to explore much (outside of some of the What if...? alterworlds) and there was a lot of potential bringing in characters (the Eternals, Agatha, etc.) that could have been alive hundreds of years ago. This just gave us a tiny taste, and because there was barely a thematic link between the four (other than the whole War Dogs bringing back vibranium relics thing) so many more stories could've been ported in.

Good point. I was half-expecting an Eternal to show up in the Troy episode, or one of the Greek gods established as real in the Thor movies.

The show had a good opportunity to explore either MCU history or real-world non-Western history in interesting ways, but it barely touched on the history in favor of focusing on the character stories. Now, I do think stories should have a strong character focus, but it seems a waste to make a historical series if it's not going to focus on history too.

 

[eschaton]

Well, they wouldn't have been speaking English either, so the accent is an interpretation for the audience's benefit in the same way that the dialogue is. Same for the Wakandan accent, for that matter -- the accent they use surely wouldn't have existed thousands of years ago.

I suppose. Still, it's been a media staple for like a century now that people in classical settings have British accents, and I would've been fine with that.

I do find it a bit surprising that they called Achilles's friend Memnon instead of Patroclus, although in the Iliad, it was Patroclus who died and led to Achilles withdrawing from the war to sulk in his tent.

Memnon was a legendary king of Aethiopia in the Iliad, which is likely why they picked it. Of course, in the real legend he fought for the Trojans and was an enemy of Achilles from the start (who killed him) so it's pretty tortured. Particularly because Aethiopian was just used at the time as a term for anyone dark-skinned (the Greeks didn't distinguish Indians from Africans), and it's questionable where Memnon was supposed to be from.

I feel just the opposite -- with fewer installments, it's even more important for each one to offer something different. I also liked this one because it actually showed us Wakanda, which the others only did briefly. Although we still didn't learn as much about the culture as I'd hoped.

We didn't even get to leave the base, so it's not like we saw much.

In general, I feel like the lack of progression of Wakanda's tech really hurt the show. While Wakanda in the MCU has been shown as centuries ahead of the rest of the world, now it appears to canonically be stagnant for hundreds - if not thousands - of years. I think if Episode 3 showed Wakanda as more steampunk and less Afrofuturist, it would've hit better.

I didn't really get what the pivotal event that changed history was until that closing shot tied it into the movie. I'm not quite sure the logic tracks there -- if it hadn't been that artifact, it would've probably been another one. Although maybe the implication is that it was the one vibranium artifact the War Dogs didn't recover, so it had to be that one.

The final episode really did seem to imply that no War Dogs had ever failed in their mission up until that point.

Good point. I was half-expecting an Eternal to show up in the Troy episode, or one of the Greek gods established as real in the Thor movies.

The show had a good opportunity to explore either MCU history or real-world non-Western history in interesting ways, but it barely touched on the history in favor of focusing on the character stories. Now, I do think stories should have a strong character focus, but it seems a waste to make a historical series if it's not going to focus on history too.

I appreciate a good character arc, and I see an attempt was made across all four of these to create one. However, a 30-minute episode is very constrained for character-focused storytelling with each episode having its own protagonist. I think each of the episodes would've done better if (similar to Episode 2) they tried to involve something rooted in real-world history and/or legend, to get a bit of a higher concept going on.

That or one-hour episodes.

 

[Set Harth]

The thing you quoted pretty explicitly specifies that the Russos never publicly discussed their interpretation of Steve's fate

Of course they didn't discuss it publicly before the point when they did. Why would they have done so before the movie even came out? They didn't want to spoil their own movie... not exactly a meaningful observation.

which means that it existed purely as an internal conversation and is, as noted, at odds with Markus and McFeeley's stated intent as written.

And that intent is itself at odds with other things in the film.

The First Avenger, The Winter Soldier, and Endgame explicitly specify how important Peggy was to Steve, setting up his decision to go to her in the end of the latter.

And yet the indisputable fact of Peggy being important to him still in no way supports the contention that he would end up in the past of the main timeline.

Then, The Winter Soldier explicitly introduces Peggy's offscreen husband and deliberately covers up his identity.

And thus it fails to serve as evidence of either alternative.

 

[Christopher]

Memnon was a legendary king of Aethiopia in the Iliad, which is likely why they picked it. Of course, in the real legend he fought for the Trojans and was an enemy of Achilles from the start (who killed him) so it's pretty tortured. Particularly because Aethiopian was just used at the time as a term for anyone dark-skinned (the Greeks didn't distinguish Indians from Africans), and it's questionable where Memnon was supposed to be from.

Ohh... I probably knew that once, or should have. I just figured it was short for Agamemnon, weird though that seemed.

I guess maybe the intent in the episode was that the Greeks rewrote history to demonize Memnon as an enemy after he betrayed Achilles. Although I don't think anyone witnessed their final battle, so would they even know that had happened?

In general, I feel like the lack of progression of Wakanda's tech really hurt the show. While Wakanda in the MCU has been shown as centuries ahead of the rest of the world, now it appears to canonically be stagnant for hundreds - if not thousands - of years. I think if Episode 3 showed Wakanda as more steampunk and less Afrofuturist, it would've hit better.

I agree, it was too advanced too soon. It also bugged me that the sound effects for the tech, the electronic beeps and alert sounds, were so conventionally sci-fi. I would've liked a more imaginative approach to the sound design, something that suggested a separate, independent development process, maybe some kind of musical chimes or whistles or drum sounds or something. The signal device in the first episode was a good example of that sort of alternative technology, but it should've been put off until much later in the timeline.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wakanda tech should have been shown to be slightly ahead of the tech seen in each episode. Perhaps a Century or two,

 

[theenglish]

Something isn't canon just because the writers say it is.

Something isn't canon just because the directors say it is.

This is true and it's not complicated. Why do people have trouble getting it right?

Oh - to try to win arguments. I forgot.

Isn't it the creators decision on what is canon? Or are you saying that it is currently Feige, and only he, who determines canon?

 

[DigificWriter]

And that intent is itself at odds with other things in the film

Not really, because they were deliberately setting up one thing with the intention of undermining and subverting it at the end.

By the end of the movie, everything that Bruce says about how time travel works is revealed to have been wrong.

 

[UssGlenn]

The stultifying belief that any time travel must necessarily always have been part of the timeline just doesn't hold up in this instance. For example, Rhodey and Nebula going back to 2014 to get the power stone. That's not the way it happened the first time. How do we know? By watching Guardians of the Galaxy!

The Ancient One, when talking to Banner specifically talks about removing stones causing branching timelines. To me that seems to imply that traveling without stealing a stone doesn't change the timeline, you were always there. We also know that you can't change the past of your own timeline. So once Steve returns all the stones, he returns to his home timeline and there is no mechanism to split the timeline and he's fulfilling the role he had the whole time.

By the end of the movie, everything that Bruce says about how time travel works is revealed to have been wrong.

how so?

 

[eschaton]

Isn't it the creators decision on what is canon? Or are you saying that it is currently Feige, and only he, who determines canon?

I mean, at least in Trek, the standard is canon is what's in the official works. It's 100% the case that just because a creator says in an interview "this is what I really meant this to mean!" it doesn't just make that into something canonical. It has to appear onscreen to be canon.

 

[Christopher]

I mean, at least in Trek, the standard is canon is what's in the official works. It's 100% the case that just because a creator says in an interview "this is what I really meant this to mean!" it doesn't just make that into something canonical. It has to appear onscreen to be canon.

People worry too much about what is or isn't canon, but it's simpler than that: If it's not in the story, it's not in the story. If it's a deleted scene or an author commentary about their intent, it's still outside the narrative itself and thus isn't part of the work. The work speaks for itself. Anything outside it is peripheral.

It's also not uncommon for different creators of a collaborative work to have different opinions about what a part of it means. The cast and crew of Blade Runner have different opinions about whether Rick Deckard was a replicant. Patrick McGoohan and the producer of The Prisoner had different opinions about whether Number Six was John Drake, McGoohan's character from Danger Man (although I think the producer had to say it wasn't for copyright reasons). When the creators of the canon can't even agree about something, then there is no clear answer, and there probably isn't supposed to be.