Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[eschaton]

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.

Turning back to the MCU for a second, I do think it's a bit shortsighted for Disney+ to not release director's cuts, extended editions, or at least collections of deleted scenes from the past movies/TV shows.

Yeah, I understand stuff in deleted scenes isn't canon, but I think fans would eat them up anyway. And I'm sure in some cases the VFX and the like were complete, so it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the movies to see a longer take.

 

[theenglish]

Okay. So, if on canon is what is on screen then either interpretation of Steve Rogers appearance at the end of Endgame is acceptable until one of those interpretations is contradicted on screen.

 

[DigificWriter]

Okay. So, if on canon is what is on screen then either interpretation of Steve Rogers appearance at the end of Endgame is acceptable until one of those interpretations is contradicted on screen.

The problem with this idea is that only one of those two possible interpretations - the one intended by Markus and McFeeley - actually makes sense based on what were shown and told onscreen both in Endgame itself and in the four Markus/McFeeley-penned films that preceded it.

 

[theenglish]

I don't think that is correct. What is the onscreen evidence to contradict one of the interpretations?

 

[UssGlenn]

The problem with this idea is that only one of those two possible interpretations - the one intended by Markus and McFeeley - actually makes sense based on what were shown and told onscreen both in Endgame itself and in the four Markus/McFeeley-penned films that preceded it.

While I agree our Steve was there in 616 the whole time, there is one other possibility. Every multiversal Steve Rogers moved one universe over. So Sam's Shield actually cam from 617 Cap, and Our cap gave a Shield to 615 Sam. This is very convoluted so not a likely possibility narratively.

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't think that is correct. What is the onscreen evidence to contradict one of the interpretations?

Steve had just enough Pym Particles to return the 6 Stones and return to the present. The Russos' interpretation requires him being in possession of Pym Particles that he simply wasn't, and is also unnecessarily convoluted.

It also doesn't make any sense in light of the things that I listed as evidence of Markus and McFeeley building towards their intended resolution for Steve's storyline.

 

[Christopher]

Okay. So, if on canon is what is on screen then either interpretation of Steve Rogers appearance at the end of Endgame is acceptable until one of those interpretations is contradicted on screen.

Yes. Forget the word "canon" -- it's just a shiny object that distracts people from things that actually matter. It's simply a matter of what is and isn't in the story. Anything outside the actual text is just a conjecture or an interpretation. Even if the creators of the story intend it to mean one thing, there's nothing to stop the creators of a subsequent story from reinterpreting it.

 

[theenglish]

Steve had just enough Pym Particles to return the 6 Stones and return to the present. The Russos' interpretation requires him being in possession of Pym Particles that he simply wasn't, and is also unnecessarily convoluted.

It also doesn't make any sense in light of the things that I listed as evidence of Markus and McFeeley building towards their intended resolution for Steve's storyline.

Right. So there is no onscreen evidence.

EDIT: I should clarify my intention here. It was my original understanding of the film that by returning the Infinity Stones to their spot on the timeline that all the offshoot timelines collapsed leaving the main timeline (which wasn't called the Sacred Timeline back then). I believed that Rogers lived his life out in the past on the main timeline and waited until the right moment to give his shield to Sam.

At the time, people argued the multiple timeline idea.

In my head, I still consider my version to be what happened. There is no evidence that multiple interpretations don't exist, however.

 

[Christopher]

EDIT: I should clarify my intention here. It was my original understanding of the film that by returning the Infinity Stones to their spot on the timeline that all the offshoot timelines collapsed leaving the main timeline (which wasn't called the Sacred Timeline back then). I believed that Rogers lived his life out in the past on the main timeline and waited until the right moment to give his shield to Sam.

At the time, people argued the multiple timeline idea.

In my head, I still consider my version to be what happened. There is no evidence that multiple interpretations don't exist, however.

No, the timelines absolutely did not collapse. The whole reason they had to return the Stones, as the Ancient One explained to Banner, was that the people in those other branching timelines were just as real as the people in the main one, and if they lost their Infinity Stones, their versions of the heroes would not be able to defeat the threats that the "prime" heroes had used the Stones to defeat, so a lot more people would die in those timelines if they didn't get their Stones back. (Although that kind of falls apart when you consider that the Stones in the various movies usually created the crises in the first place.)

The whole point of the time travel theory in Endgame is that it's impossible to "collapse" or "erase" or "overwrite" a timeline as in the fanciful Back to the Future version. If an event happens, it happens, period. The same event happening and not happening is a contradiction, a physical and logical impossibility. The only valid way there can be two versions of an event is if they both exist in parallel. Endgame is one of the few time-travel stories in popular culture that gets that right.

And no, Loki doesn't contradict that, because it shows that the destruction of an entire timeline is something that has to be caused by time agents going in and setting bombs to destroy stuff within it. They don't undo the original branching, they just prevent it from continuing forward. Presumably all those alternate timelines still physically exist but are lifeless because the TVA murdered everyone in them. (Although Loki was annoyingly unclear over whether they just wiped out alternate versions of Earth or the entire universe. The latter is far harder to credit.)

 

[theenglish]

No, the timelines absolutely did not collapse. The whole reason they had to return the Stones, as the Ancient One explained to Banner, was that the people in those other branching timelines were just as real as the people in the main one, and if they lost their Infinity Stones, their versions of the heroes would not be able to defeat the threats that the "prime" heroes had used the Stones to defeat, so a lot more people would die in those timelines if they didn't get their Stones back. (Although that kind of falls apart when you consider that the Stones in the various movies usually created the crises in the first place.)

The whole point of the time travel theory in Endgame is that it's impossible to "collapse" or "erase" or "overwrite" a timeline as in the fanciful Back to the Future version. If an event happens, it happens, period. The same event happening and not happening is a contradiction, a physical and logical impossibility. The only valid way there can be two versions of an event is if they both exist in parallel. Endgame is one of the few time-travel stories in popular culture that gets that right.

This scene specifically says the timelines collapse and that it is the infinity stones that control the flow of time. Even if there are several versions of the timeline, they all flow in the same direction. So there is nothing to say on screen that the Rogers we see at the end of the movie hadn't just lived his entire life anonymously until he met up with Sam.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

This scene specifically says the timelines collapse and that it is the infinity stones that control the flow of time.

"If I give up the Time Stone to help your reality, I'm dooming my own... In this new branch reality, without our chief weapon against the force of darkness, our world would be overrun. Millions would suffer."

"Once we're done with the Stones, we can return each one to its own timeline at the moment it was taken. So chronologically, in that reality, it never left."

"I can't risk this reality on a promise."

None of that says the timelines collapse. It says the exact opposite -- that it's the continued existence of the timeline that has to be protected by returning the Stone to the moment it left so that it's like it's never gone. The whole point of their conversation is that returning the Stone will preserve the branch reality the Ancient One occupies, not that it will erase it. She doesn't want it erased or otherwise endangered, so Bruce promises to return the stone so that the separate reality will still exist safely.

Yes, Bruce says "we can erase it," but that contradicts what he says in the rest of his explanation, so it's just a poor choice of words. He just means they'll pre-emptively prevent the hypothetical doom that would happen in that reality if they didn't return the Stone. There's nothing to erase, because they return the Stone before it happens.

Even if there are several versions of the timeline, they all flow in the same direction.

Well, yes, that's the whole point, that alternate timelines coexist in parallel rather than "overwriting" each other. That's proven by the fact that taking the past Thanos and Gamora out of time doesn't erase what Thanos did in the original timeline; it just creates a new version of Thanos and Gamora that coexists with the original history. The plot of the movie absolutely depends on timelines coexisting as in real scientific theory, rather than replacing each other as in fantasy.

So there is nothing to say on screen that the Rogers we see at the end of the movie hadn't just lived his entire life anonymously until he met up with Sam.

Except that's horrifically out of character for Steve Rogers. It's as impossible for him to stand by and let an injustice go unconfronted as it is for a timeline to be erased. And the logic of the movie is that just going back in time creates an alternate timeline that you occupy from that point forward; therefore Steve was in an alternate past, and at some point he managed to cross from it into the so-called "Sacred Timeline" to wrap up the movie (perhaps in the same way that the Agents of SHIELD were able to cross back from the alternate timeline where they ended up in the final season).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Egad, why does anyone think motion smoothing looks good?

 

[theenglish]

Well, yes, that's the whole point, that alternate timelines coexist in parallel rather than "overwriting" each other.

This is the Sacred Timeline that exists up until Loki Season 1. It's a single timeline even though there are multiple realities/strands.

Except that's horrifically out of character for Steve Rogers. It's as impossible for him to stand by and let an injustice go unconfronted as it is for a timeline to be erased. And the logic of the movie is that just going back in time creates an alternate timeline that you occupy from that point forward; therefore Steve was in an alternate past, and at some point he managed to cross from it into the so-called "Sacred Timeline" to wrap up the movie (perhaps in the same way that the Agents of SHIELD were able to cross back from the alternate timeline where they ended up in the final season).

This is where we disagree. There is nothing in the movie that says Steve living in the past is not part of the sacred timeline, and I think it is totally feasible that Steve understands that he cannot "interfere" with the timeline as he lives out his life. His work was done and he can have his retirement. There is nothing in the movie that contradicts that possibility.

 

[DigificWriter]

Except that's horrifically out of character for Steve Rogers.

It isn't, though. He doesn't do anything to change the past because he knows that he can't.

Also, Steve creating a branched timeline is absolutely something that would've triggered the involvement of the TVA, leading to his arrest and erasure and the erasure of said branch writ large.

The Russo Brothers' interpretation of Steve's fate is just that: an interpretation, and,one that is wholly at odds with the storyline that Markus and McFeeley were explicitly setting up across 5 movies.

 

[theenglish]

It isn't, though. He doesn't do anything to change the past because he knows that he can't.

Also, Steve creating a branched timeline is absolutely something that would've triggered the involvement of the TVA, leading to his arrest and erasure and the erasure of said branch writ large.

The Russo Brothers' interpretation of Steve's fate is just that: an interpretation, and,one that is wholly at odds with the storyline that Markus and McFeeley were explicitly setting up across 5 movies.

I agree with your interpretation of what happened. And to add that, in that interpretation, the events in the past such as Gamora being kidnapped from the timeline are "repaired" in every reality. So, in this case, if Steve lived his life in the past, it would happen in every reality. Many realities, one timeline.

That said, another interpretation of the movie such as Christopher's is valid as well as there is nothing in the movie that would contradict it.

 

[Turtletrekker]

This is where we disagree. There is nothing in the movie that says Steve living in the past is not part of the sacred timeline, and I think it is totally feasible that Steve understands that he cannot "interfere" with the timeline as he lives out his life. His work was done and he can have his retirement. There is nothing in the movie that contradicts that possibility.

I agree with Christopher that that would just be horribly out of character for him. This is the same character who in Civil War, not incidentally written and directed by the same people, said "If I see a situation going south, I can't ignore it. Sometimes I wish I could."

Not only that, but he would have to spend his entire life with Peggy deceiving her about how and why he is back in her life and what he knows. Then, there's the shield. Steve's shield was destroyed in the battle with Thanos, and yet it, or one just like it, appears at the end of the movie.

 

[theenglish]

I agree with Christopher that that would just be horribly out of character for him. This is the same character who in Civil War, not incidentally written and directed by the same people, said "If I see a situation going south, I can't ignore it. Sometimes I wish I could."

Not only that, but he would have to spend his entire life with Peggy deceiving her about how and why he is back in her life and what he knows. Then, there's the shield. Steve's shield was destroyed in the battle with Thanos, and yet it, or one just like it, appears at the end of the movie.

It would be totally in character for him to stay out of the world knowing the consequences. It would be totally in for Peggy to understand the consequences and stay quiet as well.

I also think I had this same discussion six years ago.

 

[DigificWriter]

there is nothing in the movie that would contradict it.

I disagree.

he would have to spend his entire life with Peggy deceiving her about how and why he is back in her life and what he knows. Then, there's the shield. Steve's shield was destroyed in the battle with Thanos, and yet it, or one just like it, appears at the end of the movie.

1. No, he wouldn't.
2. There's a very simple 'fix' for the undamaged shield thing: at some point after he goes back in time, he acquires an undamaged copy of the shield and keeps it for himself, meaning that there are actually several versions of the shield coexisting on the Sacred Timeline simultaneously.

 

[Turtletrekker]

It would be totally in character for him to stay out of the world knowing the consequences. It would be totally in for Peggy to understand the consequences and stay quiet as well.

I also think I had this same discussion six years ago.

It would be totally out of character for Steve to allow his best friend to be used and tortured by Hydra for decades just because it all works out in the end.

 

[DigificWriter]

It would be totally out of character for Steve to allow his best friend to be used and tortured by Hydra for decades just because it all works out in the end.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[theenglish]

OMG--- I laugh in your general direction!

All of you are being pretty hilarious. There is no reason why any one interpretation of this film is definitive until something on screen in the future proves otherwise. Why does everyone have the need to have their personal theory validated only by other people agreeing with them?