Avengers Endgame with spoilers

[Pariah]

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

Currently Marvel has Black Widow being a clone so there is hope for seeing her again.

 

I would dislike this very strongly, for the same reason I disliked the (first) return of Jean Grey very strongly.

 

Jean Grey's death was tragic, in the literary sense of the word. It was heroic, it was meaningful, it was heart-rending, and it was a huge shift in the storyline, a point from which there was (seemingly) no return.  Jean Grey's death mattered.

 

Black Widow's death was much the same. She chose to sacrifice her life in the hope that Thanos' atrocity could be undone. She decided that it had to be her because if it worked, Clint had a family that would need him (and he certainly needed them). Her sacrifice made it possible not just to reverse what Thanos had done to the universe, but to end his threat once and for all. Her death mattered.

 

Yes, it will be nice to see her in a prequel role. But please, for the love of a good and powerful story, leave her death in place.

[mattingly]

16 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

Also, it's so sweet that he's not over Jane Foster. I wouldn't be either, in the unlikely event that I fell for her while trying to get Darcy's phone number.  

 

Mmm... Darcy...

 

I hope they bring her back for something. Maybe she could join X-Con and team up with Luis!

 

[Zeropoint]

20 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

Lay off Dad Body Thor, everybody. PTSD. Look it up.

 

This. So much this. "Dad Body Thor" isn't there to be funny, it's there to be tragic (okay, with a layer of funny on top). It's there to show you that Thor is broken emotionally. I thought it worked pretty well.

 

20 hours ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

I love* the development of Nebula's role in a way that I haven't always loved the big movie heel turns.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. To me, it felt believable and organic, and also like she was "growing" rather than "changing". She's still the product of all the mental, emotional, and physical trauma that she went through, but with the example of her new family, she's learned how to channel it in a positive direction.

[Bazza]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201904/avengers-endgame-s-philosophical-oversight

[RDU Neil]

16 minutes ago, Bazza said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/plato-pop/201904/avengers-endgame-s-philosophical-oversight

 

I disagree up to a point, and agree up to a point.

 

One, his assumption that they went with the "David Lewis" method is incorrect. They went with the multiple universese/quantum bubble theory instead. You can't change your own past, but you can be an event in an alternate reality that shapes it so it plays out differently.  Hulk's explanation stands.

The part I agree with, is that they made a mistake with the Hulk/Ancient One discussion, where Hulk says they can return the stones and that gets rid of the alternate reality. That doesn't work. Them simply showing up changes that reality and makes it different from their own, whether they take the stones or not, return them or not. Returning the stones doesn't alter the fact that their very presence in the past causes a branching reality.

Also, going the quantum bubble route, every possible universe exists... so there are universes where they go back and get the stones, but lose and can't return them, as often as there are ones where they do return them. The "erasing an alternative time stream" is where they went wrong, because even that act would create branching universes where they succeeded in erasing the alternative and where they didn't. Every decision, action, thought... every quantum possibility is a different universe that exists somewhere. If they'd avoided the whole "erase the bad timeline" discussion, they've have been solid.

 

So, I feel they did make a bit of a mistake with the time travel, but not the mistake he laid out in the article.

[Doc Democracy]

My problem with that kind of time travel story is that we are left with the knowledge that we only watched the successful outcome, there were (by Dr Strange's estimate) another 14 million timelines where bad things happened...is it a victory to simply focus on the one timeline we want to??  Is that victory?  Is it success when you also fail, possibly many times more than you succeed...??

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

My problem with that kind of time travel story is that we are left with the knowledge that we only watched the successful outcome, there were (by Dr Strange's estimate) another 14 million timelines where bad things happened...is it a victory to simply focus on the one timeline we want to??  Is that victory?  Is it success when you also fail, possibly many times more than you succeed...??

 

That is a powerful philosophical argument, which basically calls into question determinism vs. free will and predestination, etc. In succeeding, they actually create a timeline where Thanos never got the stones and he and his entire force would essentially vanish (they went to the future and got dusted) so is it even MORE powerful that not only did you bring everyone back, but in doing so, created a reality that had Thanos removed, thus is likely better? 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Based on the Marvel What If? comics, every single possible alternate storyline ends in abject horror and misery.

[Pariah]

You mean, like the eventual heat death of the Universe(s)?

[Pariah]

From IMDb:

 

 Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige credited "Star Trek: The Next Generation: All Good Things... (1994)," the series finale episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), as inspiration for this film.

[Old Man]

25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Based on the Marvel What If? comics, every single possible alternate storyline ends in abject horror and misery.

 

Like the one we're living in?

[Old Man]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

My problem with that kind of time travel story is that we are left with the knowledge that we only watched the successful outcome, there were (by Dr Strange's estimate) another 14 million timelines where bad things happened...is it a victory to simply focus on the one timeline we want to??  Is that victory?  Is it success when you also fail, possibly many times more than you succeed...??

 

IIRC Strange saw possibilities, not actual timelines, though the distinction may be a fine one.  Still, if the only thing that causes a branching timeline is retrograde time travel then it seems unlikely 14 million actual timelines would be spawned.

 

I'm also partial to the theory that Strange allowed Thanos to win in order to prevent a more dangerous threat from appearing.

[massey]

I figure as long as you've got the Time Stone, you should be able to prevent the alternate timelines from springing into existence.  Plus, for thematic reasons, there shouldn't be a butterfly effect by simply appearing in a timeline.  So when Cap, Hulk, Iron Man, and Ant Man appeared in the middle of New York 2012, their mere existence didn't create new realities.  As long as they didn't change anything, they could have "always been there" as far as anyone knew.  Even stealing Loki's scepter (and then returning it to where it was supposed to be) or having a conversation with the Ancient One wouldn't have necessarily caused a new branch of the time stream.  After all, we the viewers didn't see what the Ancient One was up to during the first Avengers movie.

 

Of course, losing the Tesseract and setting Loki free did make a new timeline.

[Starlord]

27 minutes ago, massey said:

I figure as long as you've got the Time Stone, you should be able to prevent the alternate timelines from springing into existence.  Plus, for thematic reasons, there shouldn't be a butterfly effect by simply appearing in a timeline. 

 

IMO as soon as someone appears in the timeline, it changes the timeline and creates a new reality.

[massey]

9 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

IMO as soon as someone appears in the timeline, it changes the timeline and creates a new reality.

 

But how do you know they weren't supposed to be there?

 

[Zeropoint]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

IIRC Strange saw possibilities, not actual timelines, though the distinction may be a fine one.

 

It's an important one. When Strange was first experimenting with the Eye of Agomato by running time forward and backward on the apple, chunks disappeared out of the apple as though it were being eaten. But (I didn't notice this myself; someone else pointed it out and I can't confirm it right now) no one ever eats that apple in its future. The Eye seems to be showing a possible future, as opposed to THE future.

 

Also, regarding the philosophy of time travel: there's a third possibility. There could be only one timeline, which IS mutable. Such a case would allow for weird, acausal effects (such as information appearing out of nowhere, or people who exist in the timeline as adults despite their childhood never happening at any point in the timeline). Of course, such a situation breaks causality, but I haven't found anything that demonstrates that causality must hold; everything I've seen on the subject seems to just assume that it must.

 

Of course, if anyone has a source demonstrating that causality must hold, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[Lord Liaden]

As far as we know, no one has ever demonstrated that time travel is really possible. All we have are untested theories. In that absence, a fictional entertainment like a movie can use whatever theory works for its dramatic purpose, as long as it's used consistently.

[slikmar]

The only things I think that may have created new timelines (some minor, some major):

Thanos and his army disappearing from the past - perhaps the gauntlet being what it is (the ultimate Maguffin) corrects this itself when Iron Man snaps his fingers, heck maybe even when Hulk did.

Nebula shooting herself

Gamora existing after being sacrificed for the Soul Stone (provided she ever was, see first timeline alteration)

Loki escaping with the Tesseract - which means Thor did not have it to transport Loki and himself back to asgaard and it wasn't in the vault.

 

Other then that I don't think there are any major alterations. Even Steve seems to have stayed under the radar for 70 years.

[Bazza]

I'm not sure science can ever 'prove' time travel as science inherited a linear understanding of time divorced from metaphysics who's purview includes existence, actuality, etc. 

[Lord Liaden]

Speaking of time travel, there's one detail left after Endgame that I think has intriguing future possibilities. When Steve Rogers went into the past to return the Infinity Stones, he took Mjolnir with him. Where is it today? Perhaps waiting to be found by another worthy wielder?

[Ternaugh]

48 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Speaking of time travel, there's one detail left after Endgame that I think has intriguing future possibilities. When Steve Rogers went into the past to return the Infinity Stones, he took Mjolnir with him. Where is it today? Perhaps waiting to be found by another worthy wielder?

 

Thor summoned it when he went back in time to Asgard. It's why it took so long to get to him.

[Lord Liaden]

Yes, but that happened "before" Cap got it. He had it at the last time-travel sequence in the movie.

 

EDIT: You're trolling me, aren't you.

[rjcurrie]

49 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Yes, but that happened "before" Cap got it. He had it at the last time-travel sequence in the movie.

 

EDIT: You're trolling me, aren't you.

 

When Thor was on Asgard, he summoned the Mjolnir of that time. Cap took it with him to return it, like the stones, to its proper point in the timeline

[archer]

I think it's interesting that Hulk and Scott Lang already invented the variety of time machine which would let Steve Rogers once again take up the mantle of Captain America.

 

If we can get "baby Scott" and "old Scott" during Endgame, we could once again at some point in the future get "perfectly-aged Steve Rogers" without taking away his happily-ever-after with Agent Carter.

 

Obviously we'll have to let Falcon take his turn being Captain America in whatever capacity that takes in future movies. But if Chris Evans wants back into the MCU at some point, there's a built-in way for it to happen.

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Yes, but that happened "before" Cap got it. He had it at the last time-travel sequence in the movie.

 

EDIT: You're trolling me, aren't you.

 

Mjolnir was likely only borrowed from the Thor: Dark World time, and returned. Whether that involved replacing the original as rjcurrie notes above, or bringing it back so that time-travel Thor could summon it* doesn't really matter.

 

*This Mjolnir would only exist within the temporal loop, so causality is maintained.