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
So I never watched a single Joss Whedon thing except Avengers films, and briefly disregarding the way everyone seems to hate him now, does he have a habit of making laughably incompetent villains and trying to make them seem intimidating so the heroes will look coll kicking their arse even though a toddler with a plastic hammer could do the same?
'Cause between Loki, Ultron and Steppenwolf, that's three for three-for-three, as far as I can tell.
Also, no: there were certainly incompetent villains on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but the majority of the Big Bads were scary and powerful. The best ones were either Angelus or the Mayor.
Edited by alliterator on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:00:30 AM
You know what I forgot the most about Guardians of the Galaxy?
"Watch out, here comes my arrow! It flies super fast..."
But I knew that then was not yet the time and that I should wait to watch its sequel.
"Scooby Dooby Doo!"@ alliterator
You are making a distinction where literally none is made whatsoever in-universe. They consitently talk about all these people being dead/killed whatsoever.
And yeah, the results are still the same since everybody still remembers.
Edited by Forenperser on Sep 26th 2019 at 8:12:08 PM
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianEdited by alliterator on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:22:12 AM
It's definitely a decent point that the movie claims that the characters killed before the Snap are a different dead than other characters who were killed by it, but never at any point gives any explanation as to why.
Every theory: that the snapped people are trapped in the soul stone, that they were erased from existence, that the stones can only reverse deaths they caused, all of that is just theory (or forced to rely on Word Of God) because the film itself doesn't care about justifying the distinction.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:25:11 AM
Inversely Thanos can destroy the entire universe, make a completely new universe, and create new life with the Stones, so the limits on anything else seem somewhat arbitrary.
It’s really just a Hand Wave so the characters don’t have to dwell long on the query of bringing back anyone who’s ever died and using up even more resources.
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:27:34 AM
This is a criticism I remember levying at Iron Man 3 once, but there’s a difference between subtext and straight up not properly explaining one’s plot and expecting the audience to fill in the blanks.
That the audience can make due is no excuse for bad writing.
Heck, the fact that you keep trying to justify it by saying they were erased from existence shows why. That’s Fanon. It’s not ever stated anywhere. Canonically, there’s no reason why, or given explanation for what happened to people who got snapped or any actual distinction between levels of dead.
Hell, that one vague line is the only indication whatsoever that only bringing back the snapped people was not the Avengers’ choice (there isn’t even a blanket “resurrection doesn’t work that way!” Hand Wave like they did with time travel). It can be argued that the rest of the movie treats is written as though it is (hence “only bring back everyone who died five years ago.”)
But you needed an explanation, because otherwise it didn’t make sense, so you mentally made one. You were forced to do that, because the story didn’t care.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:38:10 AM
Typically "erased from existence" is Deader than Dead in most forms of media. I think this is the only time I've ever seen Cessation of Existence depicted as a lighter, super-reversible shade of death.
Now, the Doylist rationale is clear. The MCU creative team is petrified of Death Is Cheap becoming a thing and have, for a long time, been very opposed to resurrection as a plot point. So it makes sense that Endgame draws that arbitrary line in the sand. They do it in the film itself with Bruce being unable to revive Nat, and again in Word of God; the directors have said that resurrection is beyond the Infinity Gauntlet's power.
But at the Watsonian level, it's kind of weird that "literally does not exist anymore in any form" is considered much more treatable than a broken neck. It's that weird sort of authorial-fiat driven "No one in the Marvel Universe can cure a gunshot" Insane Mephisto Logic. It's clear why the line exists, but it's kind of silly in context.
Yeah, I'll also throw my hat in and say that Age of Ultron is underrated. I really liked James Spader's Ultron.
It is the weakest Avengers film. Avengers 1 is Avengers 1. Infinity War and Endgame are basically just empty spectacle; they're both a series of Cool Moments loosely strung together with no real substance or care for what those moments mean. But they're really good at empty spectacle.
Age of Ultron has a lot of flaws. But there's no shame in being the weakest of the Avengers movies. This is a titanic franchise that has never once failed to hit the billion dollar mark. One of them is literally the highest grossing movie of all time. One of them is inevitably going to be the least earth-shattering phenomenon of a film, but that's still high praise.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 26th 2019 at 12:38:03 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I honestly think Avengers 1 is the weakest Avengers movie.
I mean don't get me wrong, it was revolutionary when it came out, but re-visiting it, it's kinda lacking. Classical case of "Seinfeld" Is Unfunny.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianI don't think it's that Cessation of Existence is less extreme than death, more that it's logical to assume that anything the Infinity Stones do can be undone by the Infinity Stones.
It's logical to assume that anything period can be done with the Infinity Gems. That's kind of their whole point. They represent limitless power. As noted above, Thanos could erase the entire universe and make a whole new one in his image if he wanted.
The arbitrary line in the sand isn't that the Gems can resurrect the people from the Snap. It's that resurrection is beyond their power in the first place. If you broke your neck, you are Deader than Dead and even the infinite cosmic power of creation and destruction cannot bring you back. But if you died five years ago when the infinite cosmic power of creation and destruction erased every last trace of you from existence forever, you can be recalled by a different set of Gems unrelated to the ones that killed you, that's fine.
Like I said, it's clear why this arbitrary line in the sand exists. But at a Watsonian level, it is an arbitrary line in the sand. There's no reason the Gauntlet shouldn't be able to do to, say, Quicksilver what we literally see it do for Vision in Infinity War.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 26th 2019 at 12:44:44 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I like Ultron's personality and acting and felt he was wasted by the indecisive writing.
The big thing that I love about MCU Ultron is that he's religious. Because it's such a great, jarring twist on the concept of a sentient robotic character - especially a robotic overlord. Usually, they're all about "puny humans and their primitive emotions and faiths," but there Ultron is pontificating about the nature of gods and divine will. It's the kind of character Playing Against Type that the MCU really ought to embrace more (though not a villain, the same kind of thing is why - for example - M'Baku is so likable).
And then you think about it, who better to believe in the concept of intelligent design than a knowingly artificial being, whose entire being right down to the metaphorical genes was designed with a purpose by another being? It could have been a great example of Blue-and-Orange Morality that they really could have leaned into more.
Ultimately, Ultron ran into the same problem - say - Electro ran into in Amazing Spider Man: they started with this great personality and methodology for a villain, and then rushed his role halfway through and defaulted to having him do and think whatever the plot needed him to do and think - and so he ended the story a bland, inconsistent mess.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 26th 2019 at 11:48:22 AM
It also shows the behind the scenes trouble during Ao U IIRC Joss wanted a more cerebral character driven film with a few action set pieces, while Perlmutter was pushing for "Avengers 2012 but swap out Loki for Ultron" and LOTS of action pieces. You can see the waring Po V in the final product.
Ao U was the start of the Dork Age in the MCU where all the creatives were wanting to try new and different things while Perlmutter was insistent on the 'tried and true' superhero formulas

He ain't no say Broly.
Didn't kick enough ass.
Edited by slimcoder on Sep 26th 2019 at 10:46:18 AM
"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."