Avengers Endgame with spoilers

[zslane]

I would also point out that Thor is, more or less, a warrior god, not a walking metaphor for Jesus. He is accustomed to killing his enemies, and I doubt he ever faced an enemy so daunting and so deserving of death (in his eyes) than Thanos. MCU Thor is quite a bit more nuanced than classic 616 Silver Age Thor. Killing Thanos was not out of character in my view, and if doing so shocked audiences it is probably because they were projecting a kinder, gentler version of Thor--the Thor they wanted him to be rather than the Thor he actually was--onto the character. Thor: Ragnarok may have added a much-needed facet of humor to the character, but it did not turn him into a cuddly teddy bear incapable of ruthless, vengeful action.

[Bazza]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The same Thor who, in a fit of rage, chops the head off of an unarmed and helpless prisoner right after chopping off one of his hands?

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

You mean the helpless prisoner who murdered Thor's people, friend, and brother right in front of him? Who had just recently used that hand to kill half the universe, after first mocking Thor for not killing him right away when Thor had the chance? And then mocking the Avengers again for being too late to do anything about it? Pretty much the definition of "extraordinary provocation," which I believe most fans understand and accept. But I also noticed that the other Avengers seemed shocked that Thor did it.

 

Agree with LL. I'll add, what make Thanos a 'prisoner'? 

 

The Avengers just fought a big battle to defend the Earth and to safeguard the Mind Stone. They lost and saw their friends turn to dust before their eyes. 

 

They pick up a second energy outburst like the one that disintegrated their friends and suspect -- with good reason --  Thanos has done something just as wicked. After they arrive, Thanos taunts them again. So question: are the Avengers morally justified in not giving Thanos the benefit of the doubt? He said he used the Infinity Stones to destroy the Infinity Stones, was this a ruse--is Thanos trustworthy? Are the Avengers morally justified in killing Thanos for the crime of killing half of all life in the universe? 

 

The film answers these these questions -- yes Avengers are morally justified -- when Thanos time travels to his future and Avengers present in attempt to retrieve Stark's Infinity Guantlet and without a second thought or regret, wipe out all life. 

[Bazza]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

I would also point out that Thor is, more or less, a warrior god, not a walking metaphor for Jesus. He is accustomed to killing his enemies, and I doubt he ever faced an enemy so daunting and so deserving of death (in his eyes) than Thanos. MCU Thor is quite a bit more nuanced than classic 616 Silver Age Thor. Killing Thanos was not out of character in my view, and if doing so shocked audiences it is probably because they were projecting a kinder, gentler version of Thor--the Thor they wanted him to be rather than the Thor he actually was--onto the character. Thor: Ragnarok may have added a much-needed facet of humor to the character, but it did not turn him into a cuddly teddy bear incapable of ruthless, vengeful action.

 

Agree, and to add, Thor deliberately travelled to the Realm of the Dwarves to retrieve a weapon specifically that would kill Thanos. Upon arriving, he finds out that Thanos mercilessly killed every dwarf except one.

 

Thus, for Thor, stopping this carnage is an imperative and justified action. Upon Thor arriving to Earth is to stop a repeat of what he has experienced first hand, and seen first hand with the people of Earth as the new battleground. Giving this background: upon arriving on Thanos's home planet, Thor is with the strike first attitude without a moments hesitation, lest Thanos potentially cause more carnage. 

[massey]

This post is going to creep a little bit towards politics, but I'll try to keep it non-controversial.

 

In the first Iron Man movie, Tony Stark is basically Mr Super-Republican.  Remember it's 2008, we're at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and things aren't going great.  Now here comes this billionaire arms-dealer, a walking poster board for the second amendment, who goes overseas and fixes things.  Can't find Osama bin Laden?  Tony Stark can.  He's just going to fly over to Iraqistan and blow away the bad guys.  Yeah he has his awakening where he decides that selling weapons is a bad thing, and dedicates his life to world peace, but he's gonna start that process by killing people we don't like.  That movie really fit the mood of the country, where we just wanted to go over there and smash somebody and make it okay again.

 

John Wayne killed people in his movies.  Most of those were post-WWII and up through early Vietnam.  Yeah, they were cowboy movies, but they were also war movies.  Even if he's playing a cowboy, he's also basically a symbol of mid-20th century America.  Even if he's literally fighting the Comanche, he's also symbolically fighting the Cold War.  After John Wayne died, Schwarzenegger filled that role.  It didn't matter if he was fighting aliens in the jungle or teaching kindergarten, those were basically war movies.

 

In the MCU, that role is shared by Iron Man and Captain America.  Tony Stark represents America's might, and Cap represents America's ideals.  And just like John Wayne's movies or Schwarzenegger's movies, most of the MCU films are symbolically still about war and America's place in the world.  They're about responsible use of power and what happens when we screw up.  There's a whole big layer of meaning to the MCU, and I'm not sure it was 100% intentional.  Maybe partially intentional and mostly it's just a factor of how good movies reflect the times in which they were made.  Captain America is a superhero, but he's also the Navy sniper who shot those pirates who had seized that boat (exactly what I thought of in that Winter Soldier scene).  Iron Man is a superhero, but he's also the pilot who drops a smart bomb, or the SEAL team who fly in a stealth helicopter and kill bin Laden.

 

Superman isn't any of those things. Superman is, as zslane said, a Jesus metaphor.  He's ultra powerful, he's really really nice, and he watches over us.  And we don't really like the idea of Jesus snapping people's necks.

[Pattern Ghost]

12 minutes ago, massey said:

And we don't really like the idea of Jesus snapping people's necks.

 

I'm quoting this simply because it's so quotable.

[BoloOfEarth]

2 minutes ago, massey said:

And we don't really like the idea of Jesus snapping people's necks.

 

Well, it's a good thing Jesus didn't snap his fingers, then, isn't it? 

 

As to whether or not war metaphors in MCU movies were intentional, I think that by following the basic tenets of the characters, they practically had to be so, because let's face it, the original comics had a metric buttload of social and political undertones, if not outright blatant overtones. 

 

Your comment about Tony = America's strength, Cap = America's ideals, reminded me of an article I read once about Spider-Man and Superman.  The writer said that Superman is what Americans wish they were as a nation (ultra-powerful, invulnerable, etc.) and Spider-Man is what Americans actually are (powerful but tempered with great responsibility, ultimately just as human and vulnerable as everybody else, etc.). 

[Old Man]

And yet Spider-Man is one of the most code vs. killing characters Marvel has.

[massey]

32 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Your comment about Tony = America's strength, Cap = America's ideals, reminded me of an article I read once about Spider-Man and Superman.  The writer said that Superman is what Americans wish they were as a nation (ultra-powerful, invulnerable, etc.) and Spider-Man is what Americans actually are (powerful but tempered with great responsibility, ultimately just as human and vulnerable as everybody else, etc.). 

 

I think I remember reading that one too.  I think you could probably make a case that lots of heroes represent different aspects of US identity.  In a lot of ways we're like the Hulk.  "America SMASH!" is a real thing.  But I don't think he necessarily represents that in the MCU films.

 

Spidey and Ant-Man, I think, as later additions to the MCU, are less representative of that than some of the other characters.  Ant-Man is "woke" (though I hate that term) and Spidey is still a kid wrestling with how he interacts with one of his idols.  He's in the middle of that "becoming a man" story.  I loved how at the end of his movie, he's basically become more mature than Tony Stark.  "This is a test, right?"  "Yeah, it's a test.  Obviously."  And then Ton'ys got to figure out what to tell all those reporters because he was completely willing to add a 15 year old kid to the Avengers.

[Greywind]

If Superman can lift a ship without it breaking at the point he is lifting it from (the basis of his tactile telekinesis that was passed on to Superboy) why is it hard to believe that same ability won't apply to a person?

[Pariah]

Point of Fact: Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, were the children of Jewish immigrants.

 

The Jesus metaphor may not be entirely accurate.

[zslane]

I totally agree that Siegel and Shuster did not create Superman to be a Jesus analog. However, subsequent writers of our more contemporary era have pushed the character heavily in that direction.

[massey]

1 hour ago, Greywind said:

If Superman can lift a ship without it breaking at the point he is lifting it from (the basis of his tactile telekinesis that was passed on to Superboy) why is it hard to believe that same ability won't apply to a person?

 

Yuck.  I don't like the tactile TK explanation.  I just like him being strong.  But it's not him grabbing the guy that I have a problem with.  Christopher Reeve caught Margot Kidder while she was falling off a building and she was fine.  It's the "flying through ten concrete walls with the dude in front of him" that he shouldn't have survived.

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

You mean the helpless prisoner who murdered Thor's people, friend, and brother right in front of him? Who had just recently used that hand to kill half the universe, after first mocking Thor for not killing him right away when Thor had the chance? And then mocking the Avengers again for being too late to do anything about it? Pretty much the definition of "extraordinary provocation," which I believe most fans understand and accept. But I also noticed that the other Avengers seemed shocked that Thor did it.

 

6 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

It is not the act but the context... and you were supposed to be shocked by the act. It was not played for smirking good times. It was a moment of defeat for Thor, which played out in the rest of the movie, not a feel good "show the dude bro being KEWL!" moment.

Thematic context matters a lot.
 

 

4 hours ago, Bazza said:

 

Agree, and to add, Thor deliberately travelled to the Realm of the Dwarves to retrieve a weapon specifically that would kill Thanos. Upon arriving, he finds out that Thanos mercilessly killed every dwarf except one.

 

Thus, for Thor, stopping this carnage is an imperative and justified action. Upon Thor arriving to Earth is to stop a repeat of what he has experienced first hand, and seen first hand with the people of Earth as the new battleground. Giving this background: upon arriving on Thanos's home planet, Thor is with the strike first attitude without a moments hesitation, lest Thanos potentially cause more carnage. 

 

While I don't dismiss any of the above (at least not entirely), Thor charged in, reasonably believing Thanos was the threat he was earlier, and chopped off his hand.  Not his head; he STILL did not go for the head; he went for the non-lethal option.  WHY?

 

Then, once Thanos said "I destroyed the gems - they are gone" (and if they were not, why would he not still have them?), and it was clear he was now a helpless prisoner, and not a combatant, NOW he gets decapitated.

 

Why?  Pure frustration on Thor's part.  Understandable?  Sure.  Heroic?  Definitely not.  But we accept it for Noble Thor.  And I guess it must have been the right thing to do, since he was still Worthy, right?  What had he done that was worse in his first movie, that he was not worthy then?

 

Would it be OK for Batman to feel similarly frustrated and start branding criminals with a bat symbol (apparently not for the hate levied against that portrayal), or lop off the Joker's head?  But the MCU characters get the slack to not be paragons of virtue.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, massey said:

 

I don't blame Superman for killing Zod.  He didn't have a choice.  I do blame Zack Snyder for making a Superman movie where protecting civilians is not a priority.

 

 

I would say "where protecting civilians is not seen".  Why did he kill Zod?  To protect those poor civilians.  But the only time we see him protect civilians is when he has to do so in an extremely violent manner.

 

Now, in Justice League, protecting the civilians took Supes and Flash away from the battle, because the risk to the civilians overrode all else - even the risk to the planet if their absence meant Steppenwolf won.  But, in Comic Supers style, their decision to protect the civilians could be made WITHOUT the battle being lost.  Providing Supes with a means by which he could win the battle, defeat Zod alive and save the civilians would have been much more Superman Comic. 

[Old Man]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why?  Pure frustration on Thor's part.  Understandable?  Sure.  Heroic?  Definitely not.  But we accept it for Noble Thor.  And I guess it must have been the right thing to do, since he was still Worthy, right?  What had he done that was worse in his first movie, that he was not worthy then?

 

Unworthy Thor was selfish.  Worthy Thor was selfless and used his might to help and protect those weaker than himself.  It's entirely possible that Dude Thor was unworthy between his execution of Thanos and when he went to help recover the Stones, but we'll never know since Mjolnir was destroyed for most of that time.

[massey]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

While I don't dismiss any of the above (at least not entirely), Thor charged in, reasonably believing Thanos was the threat he was earlier, and chopped off his hand.  Not his head; he STILL did not go for the head; he went for the non-lethal option.  WHY?

 

Then, once Thanos said "I destroyed the gems - they are gone" (and if they were not, why would he not still have them?), and it was clear he was now a helpless prisoner, and not a combatant, NOW he gets decapitated.

 

Why?  Pure frustration on Thor's part.  Understandable?  Sure.  Heroic?  Definitely not.  But we accept it for Noble Thor.  And I guess it must have been the right thing to do, since he was still Worthy, right?  What had he done that was worse in his first movie, that he was not worthy then?

 

I think they kept Thanos alive initially because they wanted to know what he did with the second use of the gems.  They needed to interrogate him so they knew what to undo.  When they found out he'd destroyed them, Thor saw no reason to let him keep breathing.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Unworthy Thor was selfish.  Worthy Thor was selfless and used his might to help and protect those weaker than himself.  It's entirely possible that Dude Thor was unworthy between his execution of Thanos and when he went to help recover the Stones, but we'll never know since Mjolnir was destroyed for most of that time.

 

My take was that he was likely unworthy when he gave up, but became worthy again when he returned to the fight for others.  As I viewed the scene, my sense was that he was waiting for Mjolnir NOT to come so he could say "Now do you see - your son is not worthy".  When Mjolnir arrived, his sense of self-worth was bolstered - failing had not rendered him irredeemably unworthy.

 

2 minutes ago, massey said:

 

I think they kept Thanos alive initially because they wanted to know what he did with the second use of the gems.  They needed to interrogate him so they knew what to undo.  When they found out he'd destroyed them, Thor saw no reason to let him keep breathing.

 

So it's OK, even heroic, to just kill off enemies once they are defeated if you are in the MCU, but it is not OK to kill them in the heat of combat, when no other choice appears to exist that would protect innocent lives, if you are in the DCU.

 

Could it be that we don't really want heroes who are pure moral paragons?  They are very difficult to relate to.  That was really the lesson of Marvel's success back in the early '60s.

 

 

[zslane]

Since the evaluation for "worthiness" is a completely plot-driven analytic, not necessarily a logical or internally-consistent one, I would resist the urge to judge the merits of Thor's actions on the basis of What Would Mjolnir Do.

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, it occurs to me that nobody batted an eye when Christopher Reeve Superman tossed a de-powered Zod to his presumed death in Superman II, and when Lois did the same thing to the female Kryptonian. He even smirked after doing it. Of course, maybe he has a pile of mattresses at the bottom of that very long fall, who knows?

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

Regarding Thor's execution of Thanos: I think audiences reactions weren't as harsh because MCU Thor is a warrior with no strong code against killing. It's easy to believe that while his motives weren't strictly just in this case and more revenge-driven and frustration-driven, that this wasn't his first execution. Had Cap done the deed in that moment, not in the heat of battle, then there would have likely been outrage, as it'd be more out of character.

[massey]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

My take was that he was likely unworthy when he gave up, but became worthy again when he returned to the fight for others.  As I viewed the scene, my sense was that he was waiting for Mjolnir NOT to come so he could say "Now do you see - your son is not worthy".  When Mjolnir arrived, his sense of self-worth was bolstered - failing had not rendered him irredeemably unworthy.

 

 

His failure wasn't in killing Thanos.  That never entered into it.  It never bothered Thor at all.  Do you think Odin, father of Hela, would be bothered by the idea of his son executing Thanos?

 

Thor's failure was in not killing Thanos in time.

 

Quote

So it's OK, even heroic, to just kill off enemies once they are defeated if you are in the MCU, but it is not OK to kill them in the heat of combat, when no other choice appears to exist that would protect innocent lives, if you are in the DCU.

 

Could it be that we don't really want heroes who are pure moral paragons?  They are very difficult to relate to.  That was really the lesson of Marvel's success back in the early '60s.

 

It wasn't heroic for Thor to kill Thanos as he did.  Not at all.  That was the point of that scene -- they had failed as heroes.  All that was left was to render judgment.  Thanos absolutely deserved it.  Even 2014 Thanos recognized that.

[massey]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You know, it occurs to me that nobody batted an eye when Christopher Reeve Superman tossed a de-powered Zod to his presumed death in Superman II, and when Lois did the same thing to the female Kryptonian. He even smirked after doing it. Of course, maybe he has a pile of mattresses at the bottom of that very long fall, who knows?

 

 

 

To be fair, I was two years old when I saw that movie.

[Lord Liaden]

Zod gets thrown into a wall, but is still conscious and yelling when he falls and disappears into a mist, the same mist the other depowered Kryptonian criminals disappear into. Generated by a fortress built with super-advanced alien tech. There's no suggestion that they're killed by that, they could simply have been imprisoned again; although Superman plainly has no qualms about causing Zod some pain along the way (and who could blame him).

[Lord Liaden]

Regarding Thor killing Thanos, Thor wasn't acting as a noble hero then. He was acting as a man who had suffered unspeakable tragedy, and lashing out at the cause of it. The shock of the other Avengers at that action indicates it's not something any other of them would have considered appropriate in that circumstance, and by implication, neither should the audience. The rest of the movie shows just how much the whole experience had broken Thor.

 

"Worthiness" as Asgardian enchantment defines it doesn't apply at that moment, either. Stormbreaker never received that enchantment from Odin as Mjolnir did. The proof of that is when Thanos while fighting Thor grabbed Stormbreaker out of the air as it returned to Thor, and wielded it to attempt to kill him.

 

The test of a hero isn't that they are unfailing paragons of virtue. The test is how they overcome their failures.

[Bazza]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What had he done that was worse in his first movie, that he was not worthy then?

 

Start an unnecessary war between Asgard and the Giants endangering innocents on both sides. Thor had sworn to preserve the peace and broke that promise. 

 

He was worthy during the time heist as he was fulfilling his oath to: 1) guard the Nine Realms, 2) preserve the peace, and 3) cast aside all selfish ambition and pledge himself only to the good of all the Realms. Undoing the Decimation (ie snap) was deemed by Mjolnir to be in accordance with Thor's oath. 

 

Even without the Infinity Stones, Thanos is still a deadly combatant. Remember that Thor saw Thanos smashed Hulk. He had no reason to presume that Thanos was defenceless while sitting down.