Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Also: Thanos regularly brings armies to planets to achieve his goals. One could say that he was at war with everyone.
Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:51:19 AM
That's not a flaw. I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you suggesting that, because the film presents a real-world philosophy at all, it must be endorsing it?
The heroes very clearly act counter to Thanos' philosophy. They refuse to make or accept any sacrifices at all, save for those willing to sacrifice themselves (and Quill and Wanda attempting to aid in other characters' self-sacrifice after very painful deliberation). Cap very prominently states that they do not trade lives, which is echoed by Vision in the third act. And yes, many characters do call Thanos insane.
That Thanos does abide by a real-world philosophy used by real-world dictators makes the movie stronger. Now, it's not just about a villain against bunch of heroes who respectively fall into black-and-white abstracts of good and evil. It challenges viewers to see real-world evils for what they are, and to watch their heroes stand firm against them.
If Thanos was shown as just a straight up sociopath, I wouldn't have a problem.
Even if Thanos was supposed to be sympathetic, being sympathetic does not mean being right. For another MCU example, the Ghost is irrefutably a sympathetic villain - all the evil she commits is done out of desperation upon severe pain and threat of existential death. The themes of the movie still present her worldview as misguided.
![]()
No, I'm saying that the USA didn't try to bullshit a claim that bombing part of Japan was good for the rest of Japan. As opposed to Thanos who claimed that killing half the universe would be good for the universe.
And war requires a formal declaration of war. Otherwise you're just a mass murdering asshole. And it's not like most of the universe was aware of Thanos' "war" with them. They were still targeted by The Snap.
And comedy or not, Clerks had a point. It's not like everything in a comedy can be discounted just because it's comedy. The Jester after all was meant to speak truth to power in a funny way.
Seriously, are you conflating the people onboard a planet-killing superweapon with the victims of The Snap? Not cool.
Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 2:57:54 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:01:52 AM
Leia was a special case. They wanted her to watch Alderaan die. There's no indication that prisoners are regularly kept onboard the planet-killer.
And I'm pretty sure a formal declaration of war is a thing in the rest of the MCU. Why would you assume otherwise? Do you think alien worlds are just that barbaric? What are you, a xenophobe?
Shit, Guardians of the Galaxy very clearly had the Kree engaging in political shenanigans to avoid being associated with Ronan.
And the atomic bombings did spare the lives of the US soldiers who would have died taking Japan. That is not debatable.
Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:08:35 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:10:52 AM
Those cells were likely meant for holding unruly soldiers and staff who cause trouble onboard. They are holding facilities. In Leia's case, one was repurposed.
Seriously, you really think a planet-killer is going to take prisoners?
And it's funny that you think what I pointed out was debatable while claiming your stance is not debatable.
Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:12:25 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:12:53 AM
All you stated is that the Death Star had cells to lock people up. In a typical military installation such a thing is necessary to lock up unruly assholes. It's simple logic.
And even if you're correct...you're still trying to draw a false equivalence between Luke blowing up the Death Star with Thanos' Snap.
Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:14:15 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:18:16 AM
Except Luke didn't kill half the galaxy to save it.
Destroying a superweapon that was seconds away from blowing up another inhabited world?
That's not even close to what The Snap is.
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing how eager you are to claim that Thanos and Luke are the same.
Also...do we even know if those other cells had anybody in them? No. We don't. So you're making assumptions too.
Edited by M84 on Feb 6th 2019 at 3:20:46 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedMere details. If someone is willing to kill one person to save one life, would they be willing to kill millions to save millions? Again, this is the argument that Thanos presents: he is trying to "save" the universe and the only way to do so is by killing half the population.
The movie never debates over whether or not it will work, only whether or not it's moral. But heroes in action movies often abandon morality when making "the hard choice," so, again, Thanos's plan is never refuted.
Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:22:46 AM
I think we're in a loop regarding this point. I'm saying the question of whether or not the plan will work as Thanos intended is irrelevant.
Most arguments against utilitarianism itself aren't rooted in the question over whether utilitarian acts will work. There's some arguments to be made over uncertainty, but the core arguments against utilitarianism are moral questions. Why should some people get to thrive while others suffer? Does the well-being of two people have more weight than the well-being of one? Who gets to decide how much each person's suffering and comfort are worth, and why do they get to decide that? Infinity War does address those questions and plants itself firmly on the side that says nobody should have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
...in part one of a two-part story. Moreover, their losing doesn't make them wrong; it was very clearly and unambiguously a tragic ending meant to surprise and horrify the audience.
That's not what "sympathetic" means. "Sympathetic" means we're supposed to feel sorry for him. We're not. Nobody we're supposed to identify with in the movie does.
Edited by alliterator on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:25:52 AM
When? Just because Thanos is sad doesn't mean we're supposed to feel bad for him. Everything bad that happens to him is his own fault, and the movie makes that perfectly clear.
Empathizing is not the same thing as sympathizing. Empathizing means understanding where Thanos is coming from. That's not the same as thinking he's right, or that he deserves better, or that we should feel bad when he doesn't get his way.
Edited by MileRun on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:27:08 AM
"Sympathizing" doesn't mean those things either.
It's fully possible - in fact, rather essential in many cases - for a sympathetic villain to be completely wrong, undeserving of a better lot in life, or worthy of what misfortune he gets at the same time. Because being able to understand where they have a point and being able to understand why that point is twisted are comprehension skills that are in no way diminished by one another.
The misconception that sympathizing with an antagonist means agreeing with them is something that I feel is actually rather dangerous, because a lot of classic literary and film antagonists and Villain Protagonists rely on being both sympathetic and despicable. You get enough of that, and you end up with people outright not understanding how characterization works.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Feb 5th 2019 at 11:39:25 AM
If I wasn't clear, I'm saying that even though Thanos was written to be relatable, he isn't meant to be in any way right - we're not supposed to agree with him - nor is he meant to be sympathetic - we're not supposed to pity him.
We can empathize with Thanos, but we're not supposed to agree with him. Bad things happen to Thanos, but we're not supposed to feel sorry for him, except maybe in the sense that it's pitiful that he's so horribly misguided as to kill the only person he thinks he loves.

... This conversation's going to dark places.
Oh, I know what will lighten up the mood! Have Peter and Rocket kicking Thanos' corpse!