Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

[Raja]

21 minutes ago, festivus said:

I'm really gonna feel cheated if we don't get to see Tony and Nebula's ride back to Earth. Now that is an unlikely pair.

I want to see Tony's super power as he goes Flight of the Phoenix to build that ship out of parts of wrecked starships 

[blueray]

1 hour ago, festivus said:

I'm really gonna feel cheated if we don't get to see Tony and Nebula's ride back to Earth. Now that is an unlikely pair.

We should, doesn't Nebula have a ship. I assume Tony will convince her to take him home. I hope we see a few scenes with them too.

[festivus]

2 minutes ago, blueray said:

We should, doesn't Nebula have a ship. I assume Tony will convince her to take him home. I hope we see a few scenes with them too.

I'm just worried they'll do some kind of time jump. I'd rather they didn't. 

 

I want to see that fresh grief. I live for the angst. :)

[pivot]

Saw the movie today and loved it. My 2 questions are who dies permanently at the end of part 2? I want Thor to live as well as the entire Galaxy crew and Steve, otherwise don't really care. RDJ bugs the living crap out of me in this role and Paltrow is always a black hole where screen presence goes to die so they'd get my vote. I can see Hulk since Ruffalo seems over it. 

 

And any chace the Valkyrie from Thor 3 lives? She's my favorite female character in MCU

[Raja]

39 minutes ago, pivot said:

Saw the movie today and loved it. My 2 questions are who dies permanently at the end of part 2? I want Thor to live as well as the entire Galaxy crew and Steve, otherwise don't really care. RDJ bugs the living crap out of me in this role and Paltrow is always a black hole where screen presence goes to die so they'd get my vote. I can see Hulk since Ruffalo seems over it. 

 

And any chace the Valkyrie from Thor 3 lives? She's my favorite female character in MCU

We are all speculating on who might die in part II. In the story since time travel is part of it even those we saw die from traumatic injuries can be be brought back to life just as those who went through the snapture.

Since all the filming is done even if Marvel losses a major cast member like the Star Wars franchise did there is still no reason for the character he or she played to die in the movie.

For Valkyrie specifically many also speculate that those characters from Thor Ragnarok, not seen dead or dying on the ship were among the half that Thanos lets go. But then many wonder if the worlds, and ships on which Thanos killed half of the population the old fashioned way also faced a second culling  of half of the survivors or were spared further losses in the snapture. 

[Matt K]

I find it odd how many new stories act as though the dusted heroes are gone for good.  The movie even shows using the time gem to undo a death.  It seems pretty obvious to me that Black Panther and especially Spider-man are coming back. 

 

Also, I understand being upset at Quill for attacking Thanos but there was no way that plan would have actually worked.  We even see that Thanos can just call the glove back to him (I mean it was made by the same people who made Thor's hammer which can do the same).  I don't think that he was only able to do that because like 10% of the glove was still on him.  So in that case, they'd have like seconds (since Mantis was already have trouble keeping him under) to actually kill him.  A killing blow probably wouldn't have been enough seeing as how he has the reality gem and power gem at the time (either one could probably heal him as seen when Thor's axe didn't kill him).  He'd actually have to be brain dead and that was unlikely to happen in that time frame. 

[dkb]

On 5/31/2018 at 12:13 PM, VCRTracking said:

Chris Pratt Defends Star Lord’s ‘Infinity War’ Decision Against Angry Fans: ‘He Reacted in a Way That’s Human’
 

Totally agree!

 

On 5/31/2018 at 5:12 PM, Morrigan2575 said:

Totally agree...why is this even a thing? I mean yeah he screwed up but he's only (mostly) human. 

Although I did get a good laugh out of that one Meme thanking everyone but Starlord for trying to save the Universe.  

It was funny.

I will admit on my first post I mentioned that the one thing my family agreed on about this movie was that it was all Star-Lord's fault; in our group we use that as a joke now (spilled something? its Star Lord's fault!), and nobody seriously believes that. He acted like anyone else would in that situation.

 

I have watched this movie 5 times and Thor, Rocket and Groots entrance in Wakanda with the Avengers theme playing gets me EVERY SINGLE TIME. I wanna get up and cheer. Can't wait for the bluray to come out. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

26 minutes ago, dkb said:

it was all Star-Lord's fault; in our group we use that as a joke now (spilled something? its Star Lord's fault!), and nobody seriously believes that. He acted like anyone else would in that situation.

"That's not going away any time soon."

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"That's not going away any time soon."

That ain't Banner, the other guy needs to be in the center square 

[dwmarch]

On 6/13/2018 at 10:27 AM, Dandesun said:

 OF COURSE Tony would design a Spider suit that could take Peter to space.

This adds to the tragedy. Why is it that Samuel L. Jackson could only get half a muthafucka out while Peter is able to describe his pains in detail, give a speech about great power and great responsibility and ask Iron Man to promise to hand in his homework? It's because the Iron Spider suit had the nano-tech in it and that nano-tech slowed down the dusting process. So Tony Stark gets to watch Spider-Man die slowly and painfully because the kid is wearing a suit that in an attempt to repair the damage is actually prolonging Peter's suffering.

[Jeebus Cripes]

1 hour ago, dwmarch said:

This adds to the tragedy. Why is it that Samuel L. Jackson could only get half a muthafucka out while Peter is able to describe his pains in detail, give a speech about great power and great responsibility and ask Iron Man to promise to hand in his homework? It's because the Iron Spider suit had the nano-tech in it and that nano-tech slowed down the dusting process. So Tony Stark gets to watch Spider-Man die slowly and painfully because the kid is wearing a suit that in an attempt to repair the damage is actually prolonging Peter's suffering.

Are you assuming that's the reason Peter took so long to die, or did you hear something from the writers/directors? 

[JustaPerson]

2 hours ago, dwmarch said:

This adds to the tragedy. Why is it that Samuel L. Jackson could only get half a muthafucka out while Peter is able to describe his pains in detail, give a speech about great power and great responsibility and ask Iron Man to promise to hand in his homework? It's because the Iron Spider suit had the nano-tech in it and that nano-tech slowed down the dusting process. So Tony Stark gets to watch Spider-Man die slowly and painfully because the kid is wearing a suit that in an attempt to repair the damage is actually prolonging Peter's suffering.

 

44 minutes ago, Jeebus Cripes said:

Are you assuming that's the reason Peter took so long to die, or did you hear something from the writers/directors? 

Actually the Russos confirmed that it was Peter's spidey sense that made his death so long -- he was aware something was wrong well before the others were. From the article:

Quote

Fans had wondered how he had a heads-up on what was about to happen, while other characters didn’t realise they were disintegrating until it actually happened.

Now, the Russos have confirmed that it ties into Parker’s Spidey sense; which was documented at the very start of the film when his arm hair stood on end.

“That’s correct,” Joe Russo told Huffington Post. “He was aware of something.”

[Miles]

On 16.6.2018 at 11:00 PM, dkb said:

I will admit on my first post I mentioned that the one thing my family agreed on about this movie was that it was all Star-Lord's fault; in our group we use that as a joke now (spilled something? its Star Lord's fault!), and nobody seriously believes that. He acted like anyone else would in that situation.

He did? I thought it was bad writing. My inner monolouge during that scene was "well Quill is an idiot, but he's not that big of an idiot". Sure you want to avenge your loved one, but you want to have a good chance to actually do that. So let the nice people take the all powerfull glove off the purple giant and then shoot him in the face. Don't help the guy, by breaking Mantis' spell on him.

It's not like he saw Gamora die, he just heard about it. Imo it would be more realistic for it to take a while to even sink in.

Also the other avangers did a piss poor job of talking him out of it. It was basically just "Quill, don't". How about "Quill, we have the time stone, we can bring her back. Just hold your horses for 5 seconds."?

 

On 17.6.2018 at 6:31 AM, dwmarch said:

This adds to the tragedy. Why is it that Samuel L. Jackson could only get half a muthafucka out while Peter is able to describe his pains in detail, give a speech about great power and great responsibility and ask Iron Man to promise to hand in his homework? It's because the Iron Spider suit had the nano-tech in it and that nano-tech slowed down the dusting process. So Tony Stark gets to watch Spider-Man die slowly and painfully because the kid is wearing a suit that in an attempt to repair the damage is actually prolonging Peter's suffering.

It's the infinity gauntlet. It alters reality. Nano tech doesn't have shit on it. The real answer is dramatic effect and keeping the movie PG-13.

 

On 2.6.2018 at 3:57 PM, Smad said:

And you probably shouldn't act like the most technologically advanced nation on Earth in 2018 is reenacting the 300 movie. I could go on but the writing for this movie is just bad. But again it's not surprising to me. Civil War had the same problems with the writing and it is the same writers.

I was wondering the whole time where their dumb fleets of dumb space ships were. They could have just blasted all these critters away from a safe distance. Not to mention the dumb, that they could just force themselves through a forcefield that had just withstood a ship the size of football stadium falling on it.

They should have been completely safe under the dome. If we ignore that, the Wakandan's should have just blasted the critters with ground turrets they should have or the spaceships we know they have.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Miles

[Apprentice79]

39 minutes ago, Miles said:

I was wondering the whole time where their dumb fleets of dumb space ships were. They could have just blasted all these critters away from a safe distance. Not to mention the dumb, that they could just force themselves through a forcefield that had just withstood a ship the size of football stadium falling on it.

They should have been completely safe under the dome. If we ignore that, the Wakandan's should have just blasted the critters with ground turrets they should have or the spaceships we know they have.

I know that, this was not the Black Panther sequel, but, it really annoyed me that the movie did not show the full might of the Wakandan army and technology. The golden city, the capital, of Wakanda, can protect itself.  The buildings, made out of vibranium, can become both defensive and offensive weapons, to fight outside forces.  

Edited June 21, 2018 by Apprentice79

[Perfect Xero]

Yeah, Wakanda's defenses should have been better. Maybe they could have thrown an excuse in there, like Thanos's army could have had some Vibranium or anti-Vibranium of their own (that giant meteor had to come from somewhere in space that had more of it) that disrupted Wakanda's defenses.

[Raja]

6 hours ago, Miles said:

I was wondering the whole time where their dumb fleets of dumb space ships were. They could have just blasted all these critters away from a safe distance. Not to mention the dumb, that they could just force themselves through a forcefield that had just withstood a ship the size of football stadium falling on it.

They should have been completely safe under the dome. If we ignore that, the Wakandan's should have just blasted the critters with ground turrets they should have or the spaceships we know they have.

Over on Agents of SHIELD I concluded that Marvel anti spoiler security messed up their attempted tie ins's. I still hold that it shouldn't be that way since security held for the Hydra emergence on The Winter Soldier . It looks like maybe protecting Black Panther from possible spoilers left  the Infinity War directors with nothing but the look of the costumes and  the major Wakandan's they needed to get a face shot of during the battle. On the other hand if Wakandan quinjets were rolling in hot on strafing runs then they would need to find something else special for War Machine and Falcon to do. 

[Apprentice79]

12 hours ago, Raja said:

Over on Agents of SHIELD I concluded that Marvel anti spoiler security messed up their attempted tie ins's. I still hold that it shouldn't be that way since security held for the Hydra emergence on The Winter Soldier . It looks like maybe protecting Black Panther from possible spoilers left  the Infinity War directors with nothing but the look of the costumes and  the major Wakandan's they needed to get a face shot of during the battle. On the other hand if Wakandan quinjets were rolling in hot on strafing runs then they would need to find something else special for War Machine and Falcon to do. 

Personally, I would have been fine with Wakanda and Black Panther not being included in the movie.   Perhaps, they could have been included in the larger MCU universe, after the events of Black Panther 2.  There is still a lot of stories to be told in Wakanda and other characters there, for us to meet. I still have a problem with T'Challa risking Wakanda for an android.  As the Black Panther and King of Wakanda, it was incompetence, at the highest level.  I hope the rumored reshoots, of Avengers 4, this summer will rectify that out of character decision. It is one thing to share Wakandan technology with the world, but, not, at the expense of his people.  T'Challa, in the comic books, is very nationalistic and arrogant, I hope we get to see that in future movies.  

[ChelseaNH]

22 hours ago, Miles said:

Sure you want to avenge your loved one, but you want to have a good chance to actually do that. So let the nice people take the all powerfull glove off the purple giant and then shoot him in the face. Don't help the guy, by breaking Mantis' spell on him.

Because when I've just learned that my beloved has been killed, I am going to assess the tactical situation.

[Raja]

I remember that the space team knew of Thanos's ultimate goal. Where was the Wakandan team before Thor. Rocket and  Groot arrived? 

If they knew the King would rightly conclude the battle should be here because we are in the best position to win, where as if Vision hid in Costa Rica and was found then Wakanda still lost in the end.

[Bruinsfan]

Banner was there and he knew Thanos' goal before anyone else on earth. I'm pretty sure T'Challa knew the stakes going in to that battle, though the lack of air support and artillery is troubling.

[Raja]

19 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

Banner was there and he knew Thanos' goal before anyone else on earth. I'm pretty sure T'Challa knew the stakes going in to that battle, though the lack of air support and artillery is troubling.

Or rhinos 

[JustaPerson]

I just found out a fun tidbit: the Asguardian distress call at the beginning of the film was done by Kenneth Branaugh! How depressingly full circle for the Thor trilogy!

Edited June 23, 2018 by JustaPerson

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

I just found out a fun tidbit: the Asguardian distress call at the beginning of the film was done by Kenneth Branaugh! How depressingly full circle for the Thor trilogy!

Interesting, I thought it was Loki making that call.

[Smad]

I still don't get how the dusting works and why this in any way makes sense. Half of all life in the universe but it has to be balanced, so logically that means the snap kills half of any race. And it doesn't matter whether it's animals, plants or humanoids etc.. Life is life. So the snap should logically kill huge parts of the resources that are so precious to Thanos. Because there is no way half of all life doesn't include plants and animals, they are alive and therefor life after all.

But how does it work for mixed races for example? Why did someone like Quill dust? A human/celestial mixed race is probably among the rarest race there is. Does that mean there is at least one other human/celestial somewhere? Or do the stones randomly chose to which race someone belongs, in this case ignoring Peter's celestial heritage and counting him as fully human or vice versa? What would happen for example to a kid of Quill/Gamora which would be human, celestial and zehoberei. Technically it's a one of a kind but if it dusts...which race is chosen then as grounds for dusting?

Edited June 24, 2018 by Smad

[Apprentice79]

3 hours ago, Smad said:

I still don't get how the dusting works and why this in any way makes sense. Half of all life in the universe but it has to be balanced, so logically that means the snap kills half of any race. And it doesn't matter whether it's animals, plants or humanoids etc.. Life is life. So the snap should logically kill huge parts of the resources that are so precious to Thanos. Because there is no way half of all life doesn't include plants and animals, they are alive and therefor life after all.

But how does it work for mixed races for example? Why did someone like Quill dust? A human/celestial mixed race is probably among the rarest race there is. Does that mean there is at least one other human/celestial somewhere? Or do the stones randomly chose to which race someone belongs, in this case ignoring Peter's celestial heritage and counting him as fully human or vice versa? What would happen for example to a kid of Quill/Gamora which would be human, celestial and zehoberei. Technically it's a one of a kind but if it dusts...which race is chosen then?

Exactly, eventually, all lives will replenish themselves. Humans, like Animals, have the biological and instinctual need to procreate.  Nature always rights itself. I remember reading that, after World War 2, alot of towns, in Europe, that had men who died in the war, had an unusual high rate of baby boys be born, after the war was over. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Apprentice79

[Raja]

10 hours ago, Smad said:

I still don't get how the dusting works and why this in any way makes sense. Half of all life in the universe but it has to be balanced, so logically that means the snap kills half of any race. And it doesn't matter whether it's animals, plants or humanoids etc.. Life is life. So the snap should logically kill huge parts of the resources that are so precious to Thanos. Because there is no way half of all life doesn't include plants and animals, they are alive and therefor life after all.

But how does it work for mixed races for example? Why did someone like Quill dust? A human/celestial mixed race is probably among the rarest race there is. Does that mean there is at least one other human/celestial somewhere? Or do the stones randomly chose to which race someone belongs, in this case ignoring Peter's celestial heritage and counting him as fully human or vice versa? What would happen for example to a kid of Quill/Gamora which would be human, celestial and zehoberei. Technically it's a one of a kind but if it dusts...which race is chosen then as grounds for dusting?

Biologically perhaps but the MCU is set in the supernatural with "little g" gods and "soul stones". A sacrifice of "love" had to be made to get that "soul" stone. So just going with what we know just figure not all biological life, but life with a "soul" able to make a sacrifice out of "love" and not just the biological drive to eat reproduce and eliminate waste.

[Smad]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

Biologically perhaps but the MCU is set in the supernatural with "little g" gods and "soul stones". A sacrifice of "love" had to be made to get that "soul" stone. So just going with what we know just figure not all biological life, but life with a "soul" able to make a sacrifice out of "love" and not just the biological drive to eat reproduce and eliminate waste.

Who says animals don't have souls? And even if Earth animals don't, nothing says animals (or even plants) on other planets don't have souls.

[Raja]

1 minute ago, Smad said:

Who says animals don't have souls? And even if Earth animals don't, nothing says animals (or even plants) on other planets don't have souls.

Do lower animals  "love" do they make the "choice" to sacrifice something they love to protect other species or just other communities, even their own offspring.? Is the crocodile and fish who eats their own offspring doing it for the greater good to make form stronger adult crocodiles and fish? Who is to say, it seems the script writers and producers who added the concept of "soul" and the "conscious" sacrifice or refusing sacrifice of a "loved one" for the greater good, or bad if you are an environmental terrorist like Thanos 

[Perfect Xero]

I just assume that when Thanos says "all life" he's using that as a shorthand for all intelligent life. His plan on TItan and his executions seemed to just be targeting people.

[Raja]

And of course we can get to the end of Ant-Man and the Wasp to find out the ant colonies are half full and they are busy reproducing as well as the bacterium on people's faces to explain why kid actors rarely show signs of acne. Or more likely half of the house pets are gone.  However those biological "resources" will just go forth and multiply at presumably a much higher rate and with a shorter gestation  period than the years it takes humans and centuries that it takes Asgardians like Thor to advance through their life cycles.. For the shrimp troupe, just assuming human fishermen are half gone, the snapture is still little different, maybe even better than a surviving blue whale swimming through their troupe

[Smad]

8 hours ago, Raja said:

Do lower animals  "love" do they make the "choice" to sacrifice something they love to protect other species or just other communities, even their own offspring.? Is the crocodile and fish who eats their own offspring doing it for the greater good to make form stronger adult crocodiles and fish? Who is to say, it seems the script writers and producers who added the concept of "soul" and the "conscious" sacrifice or refusing sacrifice of a "loved one" for the greater good, or bad if you are an environmental terrorist like Thanos 

You apply Earth standards and Earth's understanding (in some religions) of the concept of a soul. And your Earth-y understanding of sacrifice etc. But we are talking about a universe full of sentient beings from a billion different species. IMO one has to look at that with a wider horizon than just what we Earthlings define as life, soul, sentient, sacrifice etc.. Hence there is nothing to say that animals and plants aren't also included in the snap. And often those are resources. I mean Groot dusted too, right? He's predominantly a tree, plant life. Whether he has a soul or not, in the traditional sense, is sure up for debate. But no one can debate that he's alive (since he dusted as part of 'half of all life'), arguably intelligent life. And to most he's a resource because trees sure are useful source material.

56 minutes ago, Raja said:

And of course we can get to the end of Ant-Man and the Wasp to find out the ant colonies are half full and they are busy reproducing as well as the bacterium on people's faces to explain why kid actors rarely show signs of acne. Or more likely half of the house pets are gone.  However those biological "resources" will just go forth and multiply at presumably a much higher rate and with a shorter gestation  period than the years it takes humans and centuries that it takes Asgardians like Thor to advance through their life cycles.. For the shrimp troupe, just assuming human fishermen are half gone, the snapture is still little different, maybe even better than a surviving blue whale swimming through their troupe

And this completely ignores how eco-systems work. Will biological resources also replenish? Of course. But as we see on our planet, there are plenty eco-systems that are extremely vulnerable even to the slightest changes done to them. So with the snap follows the possible collapse of a huge amount of those systems.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Smad

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Smad said:

You apply Earth standards and Earth's understanding (in some religions) of the concept of a soul. And your Earth-y understanding of sacrifice etc. But we are talking about a universe full of sentient beings from a billion different species. IMO one has to look at that with a wider horizon than just what we Earthlings define as life, soul, sentient, sacrifice etc.. Hence there is nothing to say that animals and plants aren't also included in the snap. And often those are resources. I mean Groot dusted too, right? He's predominantly a tree, plant life. Whether he has a soul or not, in the traditional sense, is sure up for debate. But no one can debate that he's alive (since he dusted as part of 'half of all life'), arguably intelligent life. And to most he's a resource because trees sure are useful source material.

And this completely ignores how eco-systems work. Will biological resources also replenish? Of course. But as we see on our planet, there are plenty eco-systems that are extremely vulnerable even to the slightest changes done to them. So with the snap follows the possible collapse of a huge amount of those systems.

The writers are of earth as is the consumer, what other standard will they use?

[Bruinsfan]

I didn't see anything other than sentient beings crumble to dust at the end, and all the visible trees and plants except Groot stuck around unharmed. I think we can safely conclude that when the film version of Thanos says "Life" it's shorthand for intelligent beings.

The comics version wasn't so particular; he worshipped Death both as a concept and as a hard-to-get potential girlfriend. What he did there was to tip the balance of power between Death and its sibling Eternity (the abstract conceptual representation of existence and life in the universe) in the former's favor, and presumably involved the genocide of half of all life forms.

[blueray]

My husband and I were discussing this yesterday as we walked through a park. I wondered if it would include dogs? I also believe it was intelligent beings but where is the line. I do believe any bacteria would stay as would plants.

[Miles]

On 22.6.2018 at 7:01 PM, ChelseaNH said:

Because when I've just learned that my beloved has been killed, I am going to assess the tactical situation.

So the sceond somebody tells you that a loved one has been killed you fly into a murderous rage? And a lot of people agree with you on that? Phew, remind me never to visit america, if that's normal there.

[Enigma X]

If the person who murdered my loved one is standing in front of me, I just might.

[Wynterwolf]

51 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

If the person who murdered my loved one is standing in front of me, I just might.

Yep, kinda the way Tony lost it in Civil War.  

[HunterHunted]

2 hours ago, Miles said:

So the sceond somebody tells you that a loved one has been killed you fly into a murderous rage? And a lot of people agree with you on that? Phew, remind me never to visit america, if that's normal there.

It's not normal and it's actually a crime even in America. It's called assault, battery, and voluntary manslaughter depending on the outcome and jurisdiction. People are even charged with and convicted of these crimes. This what I find so strange about the defense of Tony's reaction.

Our society has already decided that what Tony did is a crime. Although, he is less culpable because his actions weren't premeditated and might have resulted out of some emotional distress. By the same token, we've decided legally someone in Bucky's situation is not guilty because he could neither appreciate the right or wrongness of his actions and couldn't control his actions. There are hundreds of years of legal precedent on both matters. So while Tony's emotions are understandable, his decision to either pummel Bucky or kill Bucky is not excusable.

[Wynterwolf]

53 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

So while Tony's emotions are understandable, his decision to either pummel Bucky or kill Bucky is not excusable.

Absolutely.  It does get a little grayer if there is self-defense, or the defense of other involved, but in Bucky's case, he wasn't fighting Tony, he only engaged to protect himself or Steve.  So in that regard the situation is much different than Peter's with Thanos, but both of them being overwhelmed by grief and losing the capacity for reason is much the same. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Our society has already decided that what Tony did is a crime. Although, he is less culpable because his actions weren't premeditated and might have resulted out of some emotional distress. By the same token, we've decided legally someone in Bucky's situation is not guilty because he could neither appreciate the right or wrongness of his actions and couldn't control his actions. There are hundreds of years of legal precedent on both matters. So while Tony's emotions are understandable, his decision to either pummel Bucky or kill Bucky is not excusable.

'Course, by this logic, he should have focused his anger on Steve, who did know the difference and just didn't care.

[Miles]

2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

It's not normal and it's actually a crime even in America. It's called assault, battery, and voluntary manslaughter depending on the outcome and jurisdiction. People are even charged with and convicted of these crimes.

And yet most people here seem to think that it's completely understandable to do so. Even going so far that the life of half the people in the universe is an acceptable price to pay to get your vengence.

[Dee]

30 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

'Course, by this logic, he should have focused his anger on Steve, who did know the difference and just didn't care.

The same Tony who near single-handedly created a Winter Soldier-esque sentient robot bent on world destruction a couple of years prior?

[Wynterwolf]

32 minutes ago, Miles said:

And yet most people here seem to think that it's completely understandable to do so.

Eh, understandable doesn't necessarily mean something isn't also a crime. 

But you also seem to be making the assumption that if Peter hadn't interfered with the plan, that they would have been able to stop Thanos and save everyone.  There's no way to know that and there is a lot of canon support (including comments by the Russos and the writers) that it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome, and that Thanos would have eventually figured out a way to impose his will no matter what they did.  And depending on how things eventually work out in A4, it could have had a worse outcome if Peter hadn't interfered, if Tony had died since Strange saw one way that they could win, and that Tony was vital to that scenario.   

[Crs97]

9 hours ago, Dee said:

The same Tony who near single-handedly created a Winter Soldier-esque sentient robot bent on world destruction a couple of years prior?

Why does all the blame always fall only on Tony? Bruce was right beside him and certainly knows first-hand how badly some of his experiments can go wrong.

[Enigma X]

For me, here is the thing. In a real-life scenario if my loved one was knowingly harmed by someone I could reach out and hurt or try to, my natural reaction, without even thinking, would be to strike. I am not naive enough to believe that I will be able to keep my anger in check not to. It does not mean that I want the world to perish because my loved one perished or that I will start lashing out at innocent bystanders. It doesn't even mean that I am proud that would be my first reaction, but  I do believe it would be my instinct. It only means that for me the possibility of feeling so pained that I want to cause pain to that other person is a real possibility. I am not saying that makes it right. I am also not saying that makes it wrong either. For those of you who are better than me, kudos and cookies. I am not that person.

And to insinuate that the person striking out makes a calculated effort to cause others doom is short-sighted and one-dimensional.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Enigma X

[ChelseaNH]

16 hours ago, Miles said:

So the sceond somebody tells you that a loved one has been killed you fly into a murderous rage?

Yes, those are the only two possible options:  emotionless calculation or murderous rage.

Of course not.  There's also pain, disbelief, anger, loss, longing -- the point is, these are all strong emotions.  Most people are not very analytical while in the grip of strong emotions.  I'm guessing you've never lost anyone you loved, since you seem to need this explained.

Edited June 28, 2018 by ChelseaNH

[VCRTracking]

Great video at Screencrush.com that tries to answer "Why Did Thanos Wait So Long to Take the Infinity Stones"?

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, ChelseaNH said:

Yes, those are the only two possible options:  emotionless calculation or murderous rage.

Of course not.  There's also pain, disbelief, anger, loss, longing -- the point is, these are all strong emotions.  Most people are not very analytical while in the grip of strong emotions.  I'm guessing you've never lost anyone you loved, since you seem to need this explained.

I have--in a mass shooting, by someone who was profoundly mentally ill. Our reactions were not immediate anger at the individual who was so very sick. They were grief and thoughts that this was a tragedy all around.

My point is that emotions are understandable, but societies have tried very hard and mostly succeeded in socializing that retaliatory instinct out of people. We do it very early. We start with babies telling them not to hit or bite each other and if someone does hit or bite you, you tell a grown up. When a baby bites or hits back, both are punished. As a child grows and develops we might put more nuance into that message by adding concepts of self-defense and defense of others. However, the fundamental concept remains the same--even if someone has wronged you, you don't have the right nor should retaliate. Nor more is that true than with crimes. We've taken an idea that transgressions against a few is actually a transgression against the whole that undermines the whole social fabric.

As has been demonstrated many times, Peter Quill has terrible impulse control. All of the Guardians do except for Gamora and Mantis. They have to constantly remind each other to be strategic because they haven't really received that socialization and they have poor impulse control. I suspect that if Thanos had found a way for Drax to relive the deaths of family, we would have seen Drax screw up like Peter. I think there are a ton of other characters in the MCU who wouldn't have reacted that way because they've been socialized better, they have better impulse control, and have learned lessons about acting upon their maladaptive instincts. Peter Quill being upset is understandable; his acting upon his feelings is not, but no one should be surprised that he did because he's kind of a fuckboi.

[Wynterwolf]

3 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

Peter Quill being upset is understandable; his acting upon his feelings is not, but no one should be surprised that he did because he's kind of a fuckboi.

Yes, definitely, all of that.  And... Peter didn't kill, or intend anyone to be killed (except Thanos).  Thanos did that.  Thanos is responsible for that. What anyone else could or couldn't do doesn't mitigate that or shift any responsibility for that.  Thanos and his god-complex is the villain.  

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Wynterwolf said:

Yes, definitely, all of that.  And... Peter didn't kill, or intend anyone to be killed (except Thanos).  Thanos did that.  Thanos is responsible for that. What anyone else could or couldn't do doesn't mitigate that or shift any responsibility for that.  Thanos and his god-complex is the villain.  

Oh, absolutely. Thanos is 1000% responsible for every dusting death. Peter is only responsible for what he failed to do in the plan to stop Thanos, which may or may not have worked. And as Dr. Strange suggested, it was more than likely not capable of working. Or possibly, the failure of the plan in this particular way was what was needed to help them ultimately win. Who knows.

Edited June 28, 2018 by HunterHunted