Discussion Film / AvengersInfinityWar

That makes sense.

Seconding.

I've pulled it out; here it is for the record:

• Morph Weapon: The various Infinity Stones, which started out as hyper-cubes, undulating masses of liquid and so forth, all transform into perfectly shaped cabochon gemstones in their "true" forms and remain those shapes once inserted into the Infinity Gauntlet.

They don't really Morph do they. The gems themselves remain the same shape. Also a weapon?. The Gems can be used as a weapon but most anything useful can be used as a weapon. Its more a tool then anything, granted in the wrong hands a very destructive one but the Gems purpose was not specifically war.

I honestly don't think so. Thanos himself has shown himself to be very honest so even though they did survive, the survival of those three heroes could very well be coincidence. I wouldn't think too much of it unless there was direct proof that Thanos specifically chose to spare them, and I don't think there is.

As for Thanos himself, well killing off half of life was always for the endgoal of saving the species itself from extinction, and he is the last Titan. Again though, he might've included himself but there's little evidence for whether or not he did.

I personally think that Thanos wouldn't mind if he wouldn't survive the snap. He'd probably see himself a martyr who died for the greater good of the universe.

Time Stone. The Mind Stone is in Vision's head. Personally, I think that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation why Strange didn't use it while battling with Thanos. Using it means exposing it, making it easier for Thanos to steal it and would leave Strange with nothing to bargain for Tony's life if it came to it. It has also been shown that some sufficiently powerful beings can resist the effects of Infinity Stones, and Thanos is the Mad Titan, described as the strongest being in the universe even without any Stones, so if anyone could do it, it would be him.

Thank you for your correction regarding the particular Stone in question. I've read your post and you make some interesting observations, but I'm not sure I understand how they impact how the Time Stone is to be considered with regards to Chekov's Gun. Could you explain further, please?

Err, sorry. There is no further impact. It was just late where I was and I put it there because it got me thinking about a few trope entries about Strange forgetting to use it, when I didn't think that was the case.

Not at all, really. He's using a fairly normal standard of morality: whatever will save the most lives and prevent the most suffering is the best option, morally. He merely has a different perspective on what will prevent suffering.

Agreed. His viewpoint is something most people could comprehend, and therefore isn't a case of Blue-and-Orange Morality.

The odds of the scriptwriter choosing to use the word "ward" in the contact of a character who is frequently considered to be Batman's Alternate Company Equivalent without, at least, the connotation to Batman crossing his mind seems fundamentally unbelievable to me.

Quite frankly, outside of the specific phrase "ward of the state" I don't think I've ever heard this definition of "ward" used outside of a reference to Batman.

It could be clearer (if he said "youthful" or "young ward," or if anyone named "Burt" was involved it wouldn't even be close to ambiguous).

Like it's a weak, quiet Shout-Out, but I don't think it could conceivably be accidental. It's not like Strange even uses archaic language. He's not a sorcerer from a fantasy work or Asgard, he's a New Yorker.

The scene did seem to evoke a dig at the Kid Sidekick trope in general, and could be noted as such on the examples. This being a shout-out to Batman specifically, however, is a lot more iffy. I'd say this example is too arguable and should be left out of the shout-outs unless we get Word of God on it.

St Fan, do you think it's believable that the writers were evoking the Kid Sidekick trope and deliberately used the word "ward" and didn't intend it to refer to Robin — the archetypal Kid Sidekick and the only Kid Sidekick I know of that is referred to as anyone's ward?

That just strains credulity to me. If anything, using the word "ward" in the context of a Kid Sidekick makes it sound even more like it's referring to Robin. Otherwise, why not just have him say "sidekick"?

I'm seconding what Mr. Death said - I certainly thought of Robin when Strange said "ward". It's not a word in common usage, and IMO isn't nearly as much of a stretch as some of the other examples listed (none of which have Word of God support either)

What I think is believable here is a case of Fan Myopia. Kid Sidekick is a trope, which by definition mean there are many examples of it, not just Batman, even if it is the Trope Maker.

By the way, I'm not saying this isn't a Batman shout-out (only Word of God on the intent of the writers would clear it up). I'm pointing out it is arguable whether or not this is a Batman shout-out — proof of which the discussion we're having. Which, by default, mean it shouldn't be on the page, since the significant rule here is Examples Are Not Arguable.

My issue is that there's other examples under the Shout-Out entry that feel like more of a stretch than this particular case. For instance, Vision turning pale as he dies is cited as a reference to the Transformers movie, when it's more likely a reference to "Vision Quest", the comic storyline where Vision got his memory/soul ripped out and became a machine, turning white in the process.

Whereas here, you've got a script written by bonafide comic nerds, with someone using a word strongly associated with an iconic character to describe another character who fulfills a very similar role (Kid Sidekick who admires and works with a billionaire genius). I don't see why this is somehow less legitimate than the other examples.

Those other examples are quite a stretch too. The whole Shout-Out section need a clean-up, and leaving a commented-out warning that only clear-cut shout-outs are gonna stay.

St Fan: Without looking it up, how many Kid Sidekicks are known as their hero's ward?

Aside from Dick Grayson, I know I can't name any — at least, not any that aren't parodies of Robin.

If Strange had just said "sidekick," I'd agree with you. But using "ward" in the context of a Kid Sidekick? I don't see how that can be anything but a conscious decision to refer to Robin.

I have to agree with St Fan. If we don’t know for a fact that it’s a Shout-Out to Robin, then it’s an 'arguable' example and shouldn’t be listed.

streakson, I ask you the same question.

Without looking it up, name other kid sidekicks who are referred to as their hero's ward.

The point is that its an arguable Shout-Out. Unless they confirm the line as a deliberate Shout-Out, its not 100% definitively a Shout-Out. Plus the line itself isn't really enough for me personally. And before you say anything, no, I've never seen Robin referred to as a "ward" before. I'm not a comic-book reader so unless I see actual proof, I say veto it.

The question isn't whether Robin is known as his ward, because that's not in dispute. Dick Grayson being Bruce Wayne's ward has been a constant for the last 80 years.

I can more or less guarantee that if you asked any random schmo on the street to name a Kid Sidekick who was the hero's ward, they'd name Robin.

I just do not think it's reasonable to assume that a bunch of guys writing a comic book movie would have a scene evoking the Kid Sidekick trope and have a character deliberately use the word "ward" and somehow be completely oblivious that this would be a reference to Robin.

"It's not enough for me personally," doesn't mean anything. I've never read or seen Berserk, so the scene of the Soul Stone isn't enough for me, personally, to call it a Shout-Out. Yet others are calling it indisputable.

If the writers are evoking Kid Sidekick, why use the word "ward" when any number of other words (Like, you know, "sidekick") would have worked and sounded a hell of a lot more natural in 2018 New York?

In the meantime, in the interest of fairness, I've removed all the ones that are not completely obvious and don't have proof.

To be fair, the one that discusses Manga/Berserk seems to be a legit example due to the way the scene is framed. Would be nice to have a clear answer on it but I think its credible that the scene in question counts. The image provided with it shows the similarities in a way that are a bit too similar to just be a coincidence. That's just my opinion though.

Yeah, but that's not enough for me, personally.

The use of the word "ward" in a Kid Sidekick context is too specific to just be a coincidence, especially in a movie written and made by people in comic books. It seems to be a legit example because of the way the conversation is framed.

I'm still waiting on someone to name a non-Robin ward sidekick, or to provide an explanation for how a bunch of comic book writers could have used the word without being aware of the Robin connection.

"Ward" is a standard English-language word. Just because you've never heard it used outside of Batman doesn't mean it isn't. Your limited vocabulary is your own problem, not ours.

Funny how everyone involved already knew and acknowledged that it's a standard English word. Also funny how nobody involved at any point said they'd never heard the word outside of Batman.

Also funny how you're now directly insulting people.

Also also funny how you've yet to answer the questions I had above.

Yes, "ward" is a standard English-language word. Everyone in the conversation knows this. That was never a point of contention, so you bringing up the definition and "pointing out" that it's a word comes off as nothing but needlessly insulting.

"Ward" is not, however, a word commonly used to describe adoptees these days. It's not even used in more recent Batman stuff anymore (in the comics, Bruce straight up adopted Dick a while ago, saying that "ward" didn't fit their relationship anymore. In Lego Batman, he just adopts Dick from the get-go).

In the context of a superhero-kid sidekick relationship, "ward" is going to drum up thoughts of Robin because it's been the description for Dick to Bruce for near on 80 years.

And again, if the scene was just about the Kid Sidekick trope, Strange could have just said "sidekick." It would have made more sense that way, because if we're speaking generally, a younger hero with an older hero is, indeed, usually thought of as a sidekick.

But here, you have Batman's Alternate Company Equivalent with a character who is often considered similar with Robin, and the word used isn't the obvious "sidekick." It's a word that most people would not bother to say in that context.

So please, instead of insulting our intelligence, maybe come up with some explanation for why a bunch of comic book movie writers would be oblivious to one of the most well-known character relationships in all of comics.

Meanwhile...

Referencing the really rather strange relationship between Batman and his Robins (mainly Dick Grayson), Strange asks Tony whether Peter is "his ward". The term is often associated with the DC heroes, explaining why a teenage boy lies with a multi-millionaire. It's not a very good explanation, but hey.

And one pompously goateed master of the universe (Downey’s Tony Stark) is sure to be annoyed by his near-doppelgänger (Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange), even if the latter gets in perhaps the all-time best Marvel-DC dig of all time when he says, of Stark’s young project, Peter Parker: “What is he, your ward?”

I guess it's not just me and my "limited vocabulary" who think it's a reference.

I agree; "ward" is so tied with Robin that there's no conceivable way the writers weren't aware of the connection. It also seems to be the most common interpretation, given how it's showing up on multiple Easter Egg lists at this point.

My only problem is that its, as mentioned, an arguable example, which is frowned upon. So unless someone can either confirm it, or permission is given by a mod or something, it isn't yet able to go up.

I, and several others, including the above-linked writers, seem to think it's obvious. Thus far, nobody's been able to offer a believable reason that the writers could have not known about the Robin/ward connection.

The counter-arguments seem to be "Nah, that's not good enough for me" or "you just have a limited vocabulary."

Those do not seem enough reason to me to keep it off the page.

^^ The thing is, I don't think it's reasonable to say it's arguable. It's subtle, it's minor, but it's frankly difficult for me to believe that in the several rounds of drafts, with multiple writers, directors, producers, all of whom are at least aware of comic books if not very familiar (given the sheer number of very intentional Easter Eggs), wouldn't see the use of the (very atypical) word there and its connotations to Iron Man's DC counterpart.

For the argument against "Ward" being the Shout-Out for Robin:

1, The first I heard the word "ward" in comics is actually about Speedy in the Green Lantern/ Green Arrow crossover. At the time I thought it fit Green Arrow's medieval theme pretty well.

2, Unlike some above, I associated Robin more with words like "sidekick", "boy wonder" and not "ward". Robin is rarely refered as Batman's ward in recent Live action and animated adaptation anymore.

3, Strange seemed to have developed an antiquated speech pattern after becoming a full fledged Sorcerer. Stark even lampshaded his use of word like "hitherto" at one point.

Overall, I don't think the example is specific enough to qualify for Shout-Out. Put an entry in Counterpart Comparison if you want to highlight Peter/Robin similarity.

1. Robin is by far the more popular character — and everything about Green Arrow, including the ward, is because they straight up copied a lot about him from Batman. He even had an Arrow Mobile and an Arrow Cave ("The Quiver" would have made a lot more sense)

2. Recent, yes. But Dick Grayson was Bruce's ward for near on 80 years, and he's by far the most well-known person relating to superheroes who could be described as such.

3. He also still uses modern terms, too. He calls Stark a "douchebag" and most of his lines are spoken like a normal person.

The idea that the writers, editors, directors, producers and actors would not have been aware of the connotation still is not believable. It's obvious enough that several unrelated easter-egg lists conclude that it's a Shout-Out because, again, it's not a word that's normally in use.

From the responses to your post, it's obvious that not everyone associate ward with Robin due to the lack of recent uses. Personally I don't think casual viewers get it either.

HOWEVER, whether the audience get it is not the point of Shout-Out, writer's intention is. Since it's unlikely that the Russo or Marvel will confirm such a minor detail, I think the best thing for you to do is calling this a down-played example, make it clear that it is not immediately obvious (due to lack of association), there is no Word of God but many websites have made the case for "ward" being a Shout-Out to Robin.

To be honest, on this site I find many more so-called Expy and Shout-Out that are Counterpart Comparison at best but few received this level of scrutiny.

Definitely more of a Counterpart Comparison than a Shout-Out.

I don't see how it's Counterpart Comparison.

I'm not saying "Iron Man is like Batman"

I'm saying, "This line in this movie is a deliberate reference to Batman and Robin."

I still don't see how it could be anything else. It's not a word in common usage, and in the context of superheroes, "ward" is all but synonymous with Robin. The idea that the writers put that in completely at random and without realizing the connection is unbelievable.

I think the point is that while it can be attributed to Robin, the issue is that it isn't strong enough of a basis for it to be a good Shout-Out if you ask me. I'm not saying its wrong or even factually incorrect, but as someone who hasn't read comicbooks, I don't see how ward is a 100% confirmation of a Shout-Out. If he had said "What is he your caped sidekick?" than I'd give you that. However as it stands it doesn't strike me as being a super clear Batman and Robin Shout-Out.

Also, lets not get aggressive about this any more, since it seems to be a really controversial subject, for some reason.

See, the point is that someone who is unfamiliar with comic books isn't really relevant as those involved with the production absolutely had to be. That a casual viewer doesn't see the connection is irrelevant. The question is "could the creators, who by default had to have a fair working knowledge of comic book culture, really could have let this gone through several drafts of scripting, filming, and editing without realizing the connotations?"

Like, I agree it's a very quiet Shout-Out and relatively subtle. But it's also something that I cannot possibly envision as happening by accident.

In the same way that an accidental Counterpart Comparison isn't an expy even if literally every viewer made the connection as long as the creator didn't intend it, a Shout-Out that few people get but is intentional is still a Shout-Out, and this being accidental lies outside the realm of believability to me.

Whether the audience understand it is not the point of Shout-Out. Writer's intention is. Unlike other Shout-Out, this one is not specific enough to make that intention obvious. So until there's Word of God, it shouldn't be added back.

I also think quotes should get quoted correctly, even if it's something minor, and I'm also very sure that he says "The Hulk".

I definitely heard "a Hulk" but I might be biased because it makes so much more sense in context (in that it's what Tony said to Loki in the first Avengers movie and I assumed it was a call back to it).

It's still definitely a call-back, but Loki probably said "the Hulk" because there's only one Hulk.

edit: I just realized that this sounded way corinier than I intended but I hope you get the idea!

And everything was changed back to "We have a Hulk" again.

This is going to need a comment for every instance of the line if we don't want such back-and-forth to keep up. (Just one comment at the top of the page won't cut it.)

according to the extremely unhelpful Laconic page from that trope, yes

That trope has been misused a lot and not just in this page. To qualify for Nice Job Breaking It, Hero, the action must be made with the intention to make thing better. Many examples are only "the villain succeeded because the heroes did this" like this one.

I think the best fit for Star Lord is a Played With Spanner in the Works because while interfering with the plan to disable Thanos on Titan, Dr Strange implied that even Star Lord's action is within his ultimate plan.

I would say we won't know until the next movie confirm it. That makes the example a bit arguable, however, and indeed I felt unsure while reading it. In doubt, maybe it should be removed, or at least commented out.

Earlier he says that he will gladly and willingly sacrifice both Tony and Peter to protect the stone. Then he does the exact opposite.

He doesn't even like Tony.

Afterward he says, "It was the only way." I.e., that the actions he took that seemed counterproductive were in fact part of what he foresaw using the time stone.

There are too many 'what-ifs' for the theory that Strange knows what he's doing to be confirmed. Why is that, in all of the 14 million-ish possible futures, only one of them has the heroes winning? And if that future could only be possible by letting Thanos wins first and wipes out half the universe first, aren't there any other similar futures with heroes winning as well? Or even futures where even after the wipe-out, Thanos still comes out on top again later no matter what the remaining heroes do? Why can there be only one scenario where the good guys win? We don't even know how far Strange sees into the future. Does he saw future beyond his own disappearance? If he does, why couldn't he use the Time Stone to trap Thanos in a loop in such a way as how he defeated Dormammu?

My point is, until Avengers 4 rolls around and we can finally learn how everything unfolds, it's too soon to confirm that Strange intended for all this to happen when there is no solid proof other than Strange's Famous Last Words.

Why not? It's still strongly implied that Strange did see all this happening and he wouldn't have said 'It was the only way' if that wasn't the case. That indicates that yes, Strange did indeed see the future beyond his disappearance, and the path until then is the only possible one where they can actually win. Why else would he have said that otherwise? It's a logical assumption to make now, even if that isn't the case later.

As for the time loop thing, you could just as easily argue why Thanos didn't just turn all the heroes into living blocks like he did on Knowhere. Or you could say that Thanos does understand the concept of time unlike Dormammu, or that certain powerful beings such as himself can resist the effects of even Infinity Stones to an extent.

That's my point. It's just 'strongly implied' but not 'confirmed'. Maybe Strange is indeed leading the surviving heroes on the only path where they could defeat Thanos later, but there is still a chance that all these don't have anything to do with Thanos's eventual defeat in Avengers 4 at all later. Until then, this is just one big theory that has a chance of turning out false later.

To me, it feels like this belongs to the WMG page instead. I'm not saying it can't be possible. The logical assumption behind Strange's last words is sound, I can accept that, but that still doesn't make it true at the moment.

There should have been an edit reason, that's for sure, it's a requirement when removing anything. The troper should be messaged about it.

That being said, I can understand it being removed, as aversions are rarely noteworthy enough to warrant an entry on a work page. As Averted Trope specify, they really need to be Omnipresent Tropes whose absence is surprising.

I'm the one who deleted your entry. Sorry for not giving a reason, I was deleting several entries at once. My thoughts are that since Cap is not using his shield, the round one, there's no reason to consider the trope worth saying it's averted. He's using another type of "shield" which act more as glorified brass knucles.

I agree. Even if this does come to pass, it seems more like different works happening to have a similar plot point than one referencing the other.

Yeah, there's some Fan Myopia going on there.

That said, I could see someone approaching Tony with the idea and him snarking, "Sure, we'll just gather the Dragon Balls and wish everybody back!"

To be honest half the examples under Shout-Out feel like "Wow this kind of reminds me of something, this must be a reference!" when it's just a case of the movie using a common trope.

Yep, sorry, I moved this example from the page of the first Avengers (someone accidentally put it there) and wasn't sure if I just should delete it instead since I wasn't sure if the trope actually applies, so I agree that it can be cut.

Note that the two tropes are already on the page. Thus, the question is mostly whether Rewarded as a Traitor Deserves actually apply. I do agree it seems to be a stretch; Thanos doesn't so much kills Loki because he despises traitors, but because Loki attacked him.

Also Loki wasn't actually a traitor. He had been unaffiliated with Thanos for some time by then; the whole "pledge my undying fidelity" thing was just a ruse.

That was fast

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's because pretty much everything on the page would have required spoiler tags, which kind of defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

Fair point

Nah, I think the spoilers-off here jumped the gun. I checked it between one day and the next, and the spoiler mass was hardly critical (eg. ~50% of the text.) But it's already been done, so we might as well go with it.

I didn't notice one, but I'll pay attention next time I see the movie. (I was going to say I'd keep an eye out for it, but then I realized that any eyes left out are going to be stolen in short order now that a certain you-know-who is on Earth.)

Yeah, unfortunately I couldn't find a uniform rule on which of both is correct, apparently you can do it as you prefer. So how do we agree on which way we should do it here?

The most common form is with a space after the ellipsis, including on this wiki. It is far preferable than with no space on a Web page, since it doesn't prevent a line break; otherwise it can stuck two unrelated words together at the start of a line.

It is far preferable than with no space on a Web page, since it doesn't prevent a line break; otherwise it can stuck two unrelated words together at the start of a line.

I think this is a pretty good reason to go with the space after.

That's what I was saying; I'm for a space after the ellipsis. Maybe my wording wasn't satisfyingly clear.

No, I was agreeing with you. Sorry. I just wanted to make it clear which side I was on in case this comes down to majority vote or something.

I prefer the space after ellipses as well, for the readability reason StFan provided. I'd rather separate words not be stuck together.

Yeah, I was uncomfortable with this entry too. It looked too much like sneak complaining. There may be an "Adaptation-Induced Something" trope here, but "Plot Hole" doesn't describe it.

Another troper followed it with a Justifying Edit, so even more reason to comment the entry out. This fits better on Headscratchers (and I believe it's been asked there already).

This isn't nitpicky, this is an attempt to uniformize it a bit over the page. There is nothing more annoying than having a standard change from paragraph to paragraph on the same page.

Oh okay, uniformity I get. The note reads like there was a dispute before and is asserting what's right/wrong (capital "IS"). So I'll try to soften the phrasing.

No, there was no dispute. The note was just put there preemptively to avoid any, precisely. Feel free to adjust the wording.

Why? Thanos keeps mentioning that he's going to erase half the life in the universe, an ending where he does exactly that isn't a Mind Screw.

Seconded. There was an ending . Not really a Gainax Ending .

Maybe would this fit better on the Ragnarok page since she wasn't even mentioned in IW? There's also a Word of God explanation (Loki banished her somewhere so that she wouldn't find out that he was posing as Odin).

It would definitely fit better in the Ragnarok page. As there it would apply as she is part of the Thor movie franchise.

I second this as well. There are already spoilers here. The page's history has a few but trying to undo them comes at the cost of seeing them. Most of the spoilers are probably from Reddit and they might be around 80% accurate.

Thirded, especially since there's early Thursday night screenings, spoiler leaks and reviews already coming out. Might be good to put it on lockdown until Monday.

Fourthed. I think that's enough, I'll make a request in the Locked Pages thread.

YMMV page too?

I think we might want to consider locking all the subpages. Already, people are posting spoilers on the Tearjerker and Nightmare Fuel pages. It's only a matter of time before they get to the other ones as well.

I voice my fullest support as well. In fact you all have every reason to do so. Only online trolls would object.

I've already been spoiled due to my own curiosity on youtube and then coming here. Not to place any blame on anyone though.

I recommend keeping the lock up until about April 30th.

Agreed on locking the pages. I almost got spoiled, except I didn't actually read what the added text was in the context of, but it was a very close shave.

I don’t know what delay you are all having in locking the pages. Either you guys get it locked or delete the spoilers until Monday.

I don’t know what delay you are all having in locking the pages. Either you guys get it locked or delete the spoilers until Monday.

I made a request on the locked pages thread but was told that "unless there's a documented issues with the edits, then there's no need for a lock." I made a second post further explaining the issue and pointed out that others have complained about the spoilers, but I haven't gotten a response.

Bureaucracy is always our worst enemy. Life and learn we must. Let's be sure to assume the priority to lock the pages for the next Avengers movie.