Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Kirk Prime]

Since I don't have a streaming access to Far From Home, I finished my Marvel rewatch this weekend with Endgame.

Plothole--and if there is an article that answers it from the people that made the movie, please link.

Hawkeye did not sacrifice anything to get the Soul Stone--so why did he get it?

Natasha and Hawkeye fought to see who would die, and that's noble, but you are supposed to sacrifice that which you love most dear. Thanos killed Gamora for it. But Natasha killed herself.

Unless you can argue that Natasha was so self absorbed that the person she loved the most was herself, which I don't think is right, how does Natasha's sacrifice satisfy anything?

And even so, why would HAWKEYE, who didn't sacrifice anyone, be given the stone?

 

[UssGlenn]

you are supposed to sacrifice that which you love most dear

no link, but my interpretation: I don't think the movie says "most dear". And Clint and Natasha loved each other like family. As for the "she killed herself" issue, in the end what matters is the person standing on the cliff loved the person who is dead at the bottom. Whether they jumped willingly or you pushed them, shouldn't make a difference. She sacrificed herself for Hawkeye, therefore he gets the stone.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

no link, but my interpretation: I don't think the movie says "most dear". And Clint and Natasha loved each other like family. As for the "she killed herself" issue, in the end what matters is the person standing on the cliff loved the person who is dead at the bottom. Whether they jumped willingly or you pushed them, shouldn't make a difference. She sacrificed herself for Hawkeye, therefore he gets the stone.

yes. I think the point is to suffer a severe loss.
The actual circumstances are not that important.
Of course, Thanos would interpret it in such a way that he had to murder the one person that meant something to him.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Actually, The Red Skull said you must "lose" that which you love, not sacrifice or kill.

 

[Jinn]

Actually, The Red Skull said you must "lose" that which you love, not sacrifice or kill.

So, basically you can just camp at that cliff and wait until someone you love dies light years away, and bam! Instant Soul Gem!

 

[Saul]

Actually, The Red Skull said you must "lose" that which you love, not sacrifice or kill.

Krispy Kreme donuts! Nooooooo!

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

So, basically you can just camp at that cliff and wait until someone you love dies light years away, and bam! Instant Soul Gem!

Well, that's not my definition of "instant".

 

[Jinn]

Well, that's not my definition of "instant".

Which is why you get the Time Gem first!

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Which is why you get the Time Gem first!

Well played. Very well played!

 

[Kirk Prime]

no link, but my interpretation: I don't think the movie says "most dear". And Clint and Natasha loved each other like family. As for the "she killed herself" issue, in the end what matters is the person standing on the cliff loved the person who is dead at the bottom. Whether they jumped willingly or you pushed them, shouldn't make a difference. She sacrificed herself for Hawkeye, therefore he gets the stone.

Let's go back to Gamora. When Thanos was going for the Soul Stone, Gamora gives this whole speech about about he loves nothing. When she realizes that he loved her, she tried to kill herself, but Thanos stopped her.

Clearly, HE had to be the one to kill her. If not, why would he stop Gamora?

Had Gamora killed herself, it's the same loss.

So why did Thanos have to do it himself, but Hawkeye did not?

So, basically you can just camp at that cliff and wait until someone you love dies light years away, and bam! Instant Soul Gem!

An interesting point if the lack of a need to do it yourself was all it was. They had a time machine. They could have gone back to a point where one of them lost someone they cared about. Hell, travel back in time, send Thor to the soul stone on the day his mother died. Everyone experiences loss at some point in their lives. It only makes sense if you have to do it yourself.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Let's go back to Gamora. When Thanos was going for the Soul Stone, Gamora gives this whole speech about about he loves nothing. When she realizes that he loved her, she tried to kill herself, but Thanos stopped her.

Clearly, HE had to be the one to kill her. If not, why would he stop Gamora?

Had Gamora killed herself, it's the same loss.

So why did Thanos have to do it himself, but Hawkeye did not?

You're still assuming facts not in evidence. What Thanos did was what he believed he had to do. The question of whether he ACTUALLY had to do it or not is never raised or answered in that scene. The later scene suggests he maybe didn't have to do it himself.

An interesting point if the lack of a need to do it yourself was all it was. They had a time machine. They could have gone back to a point where one of them lost someone they cared about. Hell, travel back in time, send Thor to the soul stone on the day his mother died. Everyone experiences loss at some point in their lives. It only makes sense if you have to do it yourself.

I could time travel to the day my father died, but it wouldn't make that loss in any way new for me. I don't see any reason why something like that would qualify as 'losing something you love'. You can't lose what's *already* lost.

Plus, as memeworthy as it is to imagine Hawkeye and Black Widow waiting around until one of their parents or grandparents happens to die, I don't imagine that a loss you know nothing about would do anything, either. You have to lose someone *there* on Vormir, not someone halfway across the universe whose death you won't hear about until long after you leave.

 

[Kirk Prime]

I could time travel to the day my father died, but it wouldn't make that loss in any way new for me. I don't see any reason why something like that would qualify as 'losing something you love'. You can't lose what's *already* lost.

If we are going by what the Red Skull said, did he say it had to be a new loss?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Sorry for the double post--I wish this had an editing feature. Let's look at the Red Skull's dialogue:

"To ensure that whoever possesses it, understands its power. The stone demands a sacrifice."
"Of what?"
"In order to take the stone, you must lose that which you love. A soul for a soul."

So the Red Skull CLEARLY says that the stone demands a SACRIFICE.

Hawkeye did NOT sacrifice anyone.

 

[Jinn]

Sorry for the double post--I wish this had an editing feature.

It has, it's between the date of posting and the Delete and Report buttons at the bottom of the post!

Let's look at the Red Skull's dialogue:

"To ensure that whoever possesses it, understands its power. The stone demands a sacrifice."
"Of what?"
"In order to take the stone, you must lose that which you love. A soul for a soul."

So the Red Skull CLEARLY says that the stone demands a SACRIFICE.

Hawkeye did NOT sacrifice anyone.

In his conversation with Hawkeye and the Black Widow he doesn't mention sacrifice, interestingly, he only says "In order to take the stone, you must lose that which you love. An everlasting exchange. A soul, for a soul."
Which would have been a hilarious troll move, if the death of one of them hadn't actually resulted in the acquiring of the Soul Gem.

Slightly more seriously, I could imagine, since the Soul Gem was depicted as a living being (or at least that's how it sounded to me, reading the lines you quoted), it might not be bound to the rules it sets up, but just kinda goes with the cosmic flow. Like, it wants it's future owner to understand it's power, so maybe seeing both of them so willing to sacrifice them-selves, and also seeing Hawkeye dealing with the loss of someone he loved (I guess he did, at least) convinced it to shrug and be like "eh, I guess he gets the whole vampire gem power thing" and ports itself and Hawkeye back to where they landed.

Although now that I think about it, I'd have probably liked that scene a lot more, if they had to explicitly shove the other over the edge; I think as far as character death would have gone, that would have been much more tragic than the admittedly hilarious battle between the two that we got. Although it's a movie that tries to appeal to a lot of people and a young target audience, so I can see why it didn't happen from a production standpoint.

 

[Kirk Prime]

It has, it's between the date of posting and the Delete and Report buttons at the bottom of the post!

Interesting--I don't see that on my posts. I see REPORT, but I don't see delete.

Slightly more seriously, I could imagine, since the Soul Gem was depicted as a living being (or at least that's how it sounded to me, reading the lines you quoted), it might not be bound to the rules it sets up, but just kinda goes with the cosmic flow. Like, it wants it's future owner to understand it's power, so maybe seeing both of them so willing to sacrifice them-selves, and also seeing Hawkeye dealing with the loss of someone he loved (I guess he did, at least) convinced it to shrug and be like "eh, I guess he gets the whole vampire gem power thing" and ports itself and Hawkeye back to where they landed.

An interesting point, but it wasn't actually in the movie. Plus, it also doesn't explain why Gamora couldn't kill herself.

Although now that I think about it, I'd have probably liked that scene a lot more, if they had to explicitly shove the other over the edge; I think as far as character death would have gone, that would have been much more tragic than the admittedly hilarious battle between the two that we got. Although it's a movie that tries to appeal to a lot of people and a young target audience, so I can see why it didn't happen from a production standpoint.

This is definitely something the movie needed to explain better. I feel like the writers kind of wrote themselves into a corner the way it was explained in Infinity War.

Yes, Red Skull left out the word sacrifice in Endgame, but we the audience aren't going to forget what we saw.

The scene was clearly meant as a parallel.

The way it played out feels like a plothole (unless of course we can get a better explanation from the writers).

What's interesting is that the soul stone seems like it would be impossible for a good person to get because of the sacrifice needed. You'd need someone who thinks differently. Someone who wouldn't hesitate to make that sacrifice for the greater good. A villain is more likely to make that trade off.

Superman or Captain America could never get the soul stone.

You would need a villain who aligned with the side of good to get that done. Lex Luthor could do it. A true hero could never get that done.

But they copped out in Endgame. If self sacrifice could get it done for your friend, that should have been in the movie. We are talking one sentence of dialogue.

What's interesting is that it would have taken Gamora's suicide attempt away, but I think that's a fair trade for the plothole.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Gamora‘s Suicide would not have been a sacrifice in the some sense.
I guess intent matters.
Sacrificing yourself so someone else doesn’t have to is different from someone killing themselves to deprive someone else from doing it to you.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Gamora‘s Suicide would not have been a sacrifice in the some sense.
I guess intent matters.
Sacrificing yourself so someone else doesn’t have to is different from someone killing themselves to deprive someone else from doing it to you.

Logical, but not in the movie.

I have googled a bit and I'm absolutely not the only person who sees this flaw. But I have yet to find anything from the studio.

 

[theenglish]

Gamora‘s Suicide would not have been a sacrifice in the some sense.
I guess intent matters.
Sacrificing yourself so someone else doesn’t have to is different from someone killing themselves to deprive someone else from doing it to you.

I think you are correct on this. Breaking it down, to obtain the stone, the stone requires a "sacrifice"--"a soul for a soul" and for the person to lose that which is loved.

For Gamora: If she jumped, it is not an intentional sacrifice being made because she would be killing herself to avoid the sacrifice--yes, intent mattered--that was pretty obvious even before Endgame came out.

For Natasha: She is intentionally sacrificing herself for Hawkeye to get the stone.

The soul for the soul thing seems to have to do with some kind of conservation of balance, but the sense of loss seems to be directly related to who receives the stone. The "Sacrifice" is what seems to relate to intention of how the soul is given.

 

[Ovation]

Logical, but not in the movie.

Not everything in a story needs to be explicitly stated to be true. Reasonable inferences (as in the role of “intent” described above) are perfectly valid.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

If one accepts a studio explanation not in the movie, I don't see the problem accepting fan theories implied by but not stated in the movie that explain everything.