Avengers: Endgame (2019)

[clack]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Keep in mind that that was only Cap's last onscreen interaction not necessarily his last interaction with the characters. He didn't disappear back in time and he didn't keep over and die. I would be surprised to find out that he gave the shield to Sam and then just walked away without saying anything to anyone else. 

Especially since I assume that Cap didn't come back to their timeline until after Peggy was dead. Hell depending on how the serum works and ages him he could have come back after his great grandchildren were dead. And for all I know cap could still live in the main timeline as an old man for 30 more years.

Exactly.

The major plot point here is to retire Steve from the active list of available MCU superheroes, so that when the next emergency comes along people aren't asking for his whereabouts.

Other than that, we're free to imagine whatever we want to. If you're invested in the Steve and Bucky relationship, then perhaps they are now free to continue their bromance, which maybe just doesn't get mentioned on-screen again, because Bucky is too busy superhero-ing.

[Crs97]

2 hours ago, paramitch said:

Paul Rudd is so charming and so funny, so often, it's easy for that to become his sole purpose in the Avengers movies, so I loved that we had that genuinely terrible moment of Scott searching the memorials for his daughter's name. However: I still felt a gut-punch when he's confronted by a nearly grown teenaged Cassie. It's poignant that this is permanent because of Tony's insistence upon handling the Snap -- after two movies of his own, we know that Scott is incredibly close with his daughter, but he won't get that time back, ever.

So are you upset that Tony loves his daughter so much that he wants her to exist?  Yes, Scott lost five years of Cassie’s life, but I don’t see why Tony should have to give up his daughter completely to avoid being called selfish.

[Kel Varnsen]

22 minutes ago, clack said:

Exactly.

The major plot point here is to retire Steve from the active list of available MCU superheroes, so that when the next emergency comes along people aren't asking for his whereabouts.

Other than that, we're free to imagine whatever we want to. If you're invested in the Steve and Bucky relationship, then perhaps they are now free to continue their bromance, which maybe just doesn't get mentioned on-screen again, because Bucky is too busy superhero-ing.

I would kind of love it if there was a running gag in the Falcon/Winter Soldier show of them complaining about hiw they keep getting emails from the old man.

[paramitch]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Keep in mind that that was only Cap's last onscreen interaction not necessarily his last interaction with the characters. He didn't disappear back in time and he didn't keep over and die. I would be surprised to find out that he gave the shield to Sam and then just walked away without saying anything to anyone else. 

Especially since I assume that Cap didn't come back to their timeline until after Peggy was dead. Hell depending on how the serum works and ages him he could have come back after his great grandchildren were dead. And for all I know cap could still live in the main timeline as an old man for 30 more years.

I get this, but I shouldn't have to headcanon to get a moment. That's lazy fandom and lazy writing.

Bucky and Cap's friendship is the literal throughline of THREE major Marvel movies. The fact that they do not get a conversation that goes beyond a two-line variation of "Hey, Bro" in IW/EG is insulting to me.

And it's not an "above and beyond" request. Bucky is central to three movies and their stories. Here, he doesn't even get a proper conversation with Cap to say farewell. So yeah, I mean, that's gross to me on so many levels.

And my interpretation is the corporate Marvel distaste for the Stucky fandom, and that makes me so sad.

51 minutes ago, MelloYellow said:

I was glad Steve's last interaction was with Sam. The only friend who never betrayed him and remained by his side until the very end.

Bucky never betrayed Steve. We even see how hard he fought against betraying him (or others) under mind-control. I think judging him for his actions as Winter Soldier is unfair. Bucky himself never, ever betrays Steve. Not once.

50 minutes ago, festivus said:

Love all your points except the Wanda one but that's just because Wanda and Vision bore the crap out of me. I'm hoping that will change with their show which I will watch despite not caring about them. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I LOVE that Jarvis showed up in this movie even if it was only for a minute. I did think Tony might have had a bit more of a reaction to him though. I don't guess they've ever said when he passed but I'm assuming Tony did have a close relationship with him since he modeled his AI after him.

I loved Wanda and Vision, and not least because they're two of the best actors in the cast across the series, and have some of the best chemistry. The reason I lost it in IW was because of Vision's continued push for self-sacrifice, and when he does so, for his continued focus on this hurting Wanda as little as possible. Even in unendurable pain: "I only feel you." He loves her, she loves him. The moment absolutely killed me. As did Thanos's horrible action after (and also, directly related, Wanda going to dust is my favorite terrible moment because she WANTS to be dust, she hurts too much, and we see that in her face... and then she floats away...)

49 minutes ago, clack said:

Exactly.

The major plot point here is to retire Steve from the active list of available MCU superheroes, so that when the next emergency comes along people aren't asking for his whereabouts.

Other than that, we're free to imagine whatever we want to. If you're invested in the Steve and Bucky relationship, then perhaps they are now free to continue their bromance, which maybe just doesn't get mentioned on-screen again, because Bucky is too busy superhero-ing.

I don't get this at all. All I can judge is what I see.

If I am suddenly given no onscreen resolution between Bucky and Cap, this is on the filmmakers, not me. Yes, I can headcanon plenty of possibilities, and yes, I can read fanfiction, but I'm gobsmacked that a film's public shortcoming is simply met with, "Headcanon." No, it's not enough for me.

Quote

So are you upset that Tony loves his daughter so much that he wants her to exist?  Yes, Scott lost five years of Cassie’s life, but I don’t see why Tony should have to give up his daughter completely to avoid being called selfish.

@Crs97, you bet I am. 100%. How many times have the Avengers proclaimed, "We don't trade lives?" How many times have they emphasized the needs of the many over the needs of the few? 

We are talking about BILLIONS OF LIVES. As a human being, I totally get Tony wanting to save those moments with his daughter.

But -- especially given that his daughter is almost certain to show up even after the Snap in terms of biology, even if that has to take place again... HE met her. He has those moments. And he will have to live with them in sacrificing himself, even if he never meets her. To me this is far more heroic than anything Tony could have done.

Tony should not have held his daughter hostage as bait for his help in saving the universe. It's gross and wrong, and yes, I will always feel this way. Look at what Scott suffers and loses -- years with the kid he loved more than the world -- but he didn't have the power to make that choice. I'm sure Scott would have been, "GIVE ME BACK 5 YEARS." But Scott does not have that power. He is a middle-class guy overcoming an unfair prison sentence. Nobody is going to care about his love for his daughter. Tony has unconscious privilege here to pretty extreme degrees.

And harkening back to Clint -- it's predictable biology. Parents should and must choose their children and be damaged by those choices -- and those who actively enforce them are evil (it's the entire premise of "Sophie's Choice," for instance). It's unfair and horrible and brutal. But still: Imagine Tony as Thanos's beckoning: He is already sold out. He will do anything for his child, including consigning billions (trillions?) to unfair torture and death. Flick the picture a millimeter and it's believable to me (given Tony's demands) that he could have ended a few timelines on Thano's side.

Ultimately, once again, Tony is simply incapable of seeing the big picture. It's why Cap was right and he was wrong. All the way back to Civil War. Tony sees "the end justifies the means." Cap, for all his staunch American-GI act, has always been the rebel. He will always act out and go, "Nothing is worth compromising who we are." And then go save his friends, save a battalion, act out against blatantly corrupt legislation, support a brainwashed friend. Because those are micro and vital. To Tony, your last year/decade defines you. To Cap, what you did today does so. He's far more hardline.

And Tony doesn't understand this because Tony has always been borderline chaotic neutral edging on chaotic good. And the product of unimaginable wealth and privilege.

So yeah. My personal preference for the ending is one where Tony's daughter did not exist and was a casualty of the first or second SnapBack. If it saved trillions of lives. You bet. To echo Bull in the game "Dragon Age Inquisition," war means making the hard choices. This would have been the right one, to me. Not happy. Not easy. But right.

So Tony inflicting 5 years of misery on the universe because he's unwilling to undo the Snap is a problem for me. And always will be. But I find it in-character if tragic.

Me, I would have looked right in his face, agreed, gotten the Gauntlet... and Snapped back. 5 years gone in an instant. Because it's right.

Edited August 18, 2019 by paramitch
Sorry, I fixed a few items I felt I said badly. Thanks for your patience!

[festivus]

11 minutes ago, paramitch said:

I get this, but I shouldn't have to headcanon to get a moment. That's lazy fandom and lazy writing.

Bucky and Cap's friendship is the literal throughline of THREE major Marvel movies. The fact that they do not get a conversation that goes beyond a two-line variation of "Hey, Bro" in IW/EG is insulting to me.

And it's not an "above and beyond" request. Bucky is central to three movies and their stories. Here, he doesn't even get a proper conversation with Cap to say farewell. So yeah, I mean, that's gross to me on so many levels.

And my interpretation is the corporate Marvel distaste for the Stucky fandom, and that makes me so sad.

I think there's something going on with the corporate level too. First of all they shouldn't care if people imagine a romantic relationship with Steve and Bucky. It hurts no one and it doesn't hurt their bottom line, in fact it probably helps it. Second, they need to realize that there are a lot of us out here that identified with the friendship for the ages that don't ship them romantically. We all got cheated. How hard would it have been to put a meaningful moment and conversation between two people that did have a friendship that was central to three movies. You know, when everybody else got a moment. Leave out the dumb Hulk selfie part and Boom. Time for that. 

I don't know why I just can't care about Wanda and Vision. I think they made a mistake killing her brother and whatever relationships she had with Clint and Steve were just not enough for me to care about her as a character. Hopefully the show will fix that. I'm just a person that romance alone doesn't do much for me, I need those family and friend relationships. I do agree with you that Elizabeth Olsen is a very good actor.

[Bruinsfan]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Especially since I assume that Cap didn't come back to their timeline until after Peggy was dead. Hell depending on how the serum works and ages him he could have come back after his great grandchildren were dead. And for all I know cap could still live in the main timeline as an old man for 30 more years.

Peggy died of old age-related causes in 2016 in the familiar timeline; I doubt she would have lived too much past that in the alternate timeline with Steve. As you say, he might have come over laterally from their 2023 when the dates matched, or he might have waited much longer and just homed in on the moment he left.

I know it's actually thirtysomething Chris Evans under makeup and CGI there, but Steve looked like a fairly healthy 70-year old to me. With modern medicine a normal man in that state might have another good decade or two in him. Steve might outlive all his teammates except Thor.

[stealinghome]

Quote

I don't know why I just can't care about Wanda and Vision. I think they made a mistake killing her brother and whatever relationships she had with Clint and Steve were just not enough for me to care about her as a character. Hopefully the show will fix that. I'm just a person that romance alone doesn't do much for me, I need those family and friend relationships. I do agree with you that Elizabeth Olsen is a very good actor.

I've always assumed they killed Quicksilver in AoU as part of a deal with Fox, since iirc everyone has always been really murky about the rights to those two characters. I do agree that killing Quicksilver did Wanda's character no favors, though.

I am indifferent to Vision and hope/would prefer he stay dead, but I do wish the movies had a clearer vision (no pun intended!) for Wanda and gave her more to do. I thought she worked in Civil War as Natasha's, and to a lesser degree Steve and Sam's, protege, but then all four characters combined got like 20 seconds of screentime in Infinity War and we all know how Endgame ended, so...that never really went anywhere.

Man, if there was ever a part of the MCU that needed a Disney+ show, it's totally Steve/Natasha/Sam/Wanda on the run as a guerilla superteam between Civil War and Infinity War.

Edited August 18, 2019 by stealinghome

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

Peggy died of old age-related causes in 2016 in the familiar timeline; I doubt she would have lived too much past that in the alternate timeline with Steve. As you say, he might have come over laterally from their 2023 when the dates matched, or he might have waited much longer and just homed in on the moment he left.

I know it's actually thirtysomething Chris Evans under makeup and CGI there, but Steve looked like a fairly healthy 70-year old to me. With modern medicine a normal man in that state might have another good decade or two in him. Steve might outlive all his teammates except Thor.

Who is to say he is 70 though? It is not a huge stretch to think that the super soldier serum would slow down the effects of aging.

As for Peggy she could have lived longer. Especially if Hydra gets wiped out early it means her job is a lot less stressful. Plus if Howard Stark survives you would assume that science would take a big jump forward.

[paramitch]

On 8/18/2019 at 11:37 AM, festivus said:

First of all they shouldn't care if people imagine a romantic relationship with Steve and Bucky. It hurts no one and it doesn't hurt their bottom line, in fact it probably helps it.

I agree that "it hurts no one," but -- Hollywood execs are idiots and still, I think, way behind the times on inclusivity. Plenty still believe the remotest hint of "gay" (especially male gay) means disaster.

On 8/18/2019 at 11:37 AM, festivus said:

I think there's something going on with the corporate level too. First of all they shouldn't care if people imagine a romantic relationship with Steve and Bucky. It hurts no one and it doesn't hurt their bottom line, in fact it probably helps it. Second, they need to realize that there are a lot of us out here that identified with the friendship for the ages that don't ship them romantically. We all got cheated. How hard would it have been to put a meaningful moment and conversation between two people that did have a friendship that was central to three movies. You know, when everybody else got a moment. Leave out the dumb Hulk selfie part and Boom. Time for that. 

I don't know why I just can't care about Wanda and Vision. I think they made a mistake killing her brother and whatever relationships she had with Clint and Steve were just not enough for me to care about her as a character. Hopefully the show will fix that. I'm just a person that romance alone doesn't do much for me, I need those family and friend relationships. I do agree with you that Elizabeth Olsen is a very good actor.

As a writer, on a tech level, what Joss did in "Age of Ultron" upsets me on so many levels. He obliterates a lovely elusive subtext between Nat and Clint, to the extent that she silently wears that arrow around her neck. GODDAMN IT JOSS.

Which, okay. But then he introduces a forced, awkward chemistry-free romance between Nat and Bruce (and I COULD HAVE GONE THERE! Just don't scream at me NOW KISS!). But only as fact. We missed all teh fun stuff. The glances or flirting, or her helping him find his softer side "the sun's going down..."

We are supposed to just ingest this content as given. He gives us "Natasha+Bruce=KISS!" and I so resent it. And always will. Especially since I was willing. And they're two of my favorite actors ever. But... NO. He then forces Nat's backstory into something contingent not on her abuse, survival or brainwashing... but into her inability to have children (which grossed me out and makes her fate doubly painful for me in EG, given her choices).

And he then doubles down by painfully openly manipulating the ENTIRE CLINT storyline into a weak joke. He's admitted it. He knew most people expected Clint to die. So the entire, entire movie, including the "Hi Clint, you loner who is only attached to Natasha, now you suddenly have a secret wholesome identity and children OH MY GOD WTF," exists because Joss wanted to sucker us into thinking "HA! You thought he would die but then QUICKSILVER DIES! YAY!" I mean, it sucks so hard. He orchestrated a third of that movie because he wanted to sucker people expecting Clint to die. It's lazy writing. And such a bummer. Me, I found it forced, ham-handed and unbelievable. I never got it. I never believed it. I accepted it by the end but... that's a discussion for another thread. Clint's family always feels like paper dolls to me.

I did buy Wanda and Vision, although I appreciate that among my criticisms, at least she was able to blow past his/Tony's paternal imprisonment and choose him on her own, because again (OMG), gross.

In terms of Wanda/Vision, what I loved beyond actor chemistry was them as bookends: that Vision was a being who had ancient knowledge and empathy spanning impossible horizons, but who was also a new soul to the actual world and experiences, who had shiny goals/ideas. But Wanda had seen a world of terror and sadness, war and loss firsthand, but (despite landscapes of brilliance) little historical or big-picture understanding. So they work for me as a couple that actively enforces the other and makes them stronger. I am one of the few who would've loved a sweet rom-com of their two years off-grid together. (I know. Shoot me. Sorry.)

And then we have Vision's altruistic and loving reaction to what she must do in IW. It kills me. He loves her so much that he is willing to lie while dying that he feels only her love. I'll always love that. And this world is not always delicate about love, mind you (meaning the Marvel U, where too often love equals an adolescent male vision), so that killed me.

So I'd have loved a better epitaph for Vision -- I was even confused at Tony's funeral because until then, there'd been ZERO mention or salute to him at all. But that's part of EG. So many little things/moments/characters fall through the cracks. And then we get Ross at the funeral when I was literally just...why and WTF?! How important was it really to bring HIM back? Why not give us a moment of Nick and Maria instead, preferably, a moment saluting fucking NATASHA as well?!

I felt like sometimes EG was written and created by people who had not actually watched the previous movies... even IW, so remain nonplussed at how involved they all actually were. 😉 But I was okay with it as a work. I will just nitpick it to death forever. And then headcanon. Headcanon like the wind!

I'm interested in how the universe proceeds, and am perfectly willing to be changed by what we're presented. BUT so far, we're still stuck in the forties. And this movie yanked us back further -- even the people who WROTE Peggy moving forward! And then (cruelly) negated two years of beautiful character evolution... into being a wordless trophy for a character who had already moved on.
 

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by paramitch
Fixed my tone in the first answer, to clarify my frustration with homophobic execs, not the question. Apologies!

[swanpride]

Honestly, I never got this obsession of pairing Natasha up with Clint. Or with Steve for that matter. It is possible for men and woman to have lasting friendships which aren't romantic.

Also, I always shipped Natasha with Falcon anyway.

[festivus]

10 minutes ago, paramitch said:

Seriously? "It hurts no one?" Hollywood execs are idiots. Plenty still believe the remotest hint of "gay" (especially male gay) means disaster.

What I meant is that the numbers for these movies show that it doesn't hurt them (their bottom line which is always about the money) that there are people that read Steve and Bucky as gay. What I meant by my comment is that they shouldn't be making decisions about keeping characters apart because there are people that ship the characters. I think Hollywood execs are idiots too. And backward. I didn't mean my comment to come across any other way than I don't agree with any of Hollywood execs on any stupid decisions they make about race, sexual identity, etc and how they can't make money.  I remember reading about that guy that used to have a say in MCU stuff saying things like he didn't want to make a Black Widow movie cause it wouldn't sell toys, like eww girls. It also took forever to make a Black Panther movie and look how well it did. 

I'm saying they need to understand that showing stuff beyond the straight white male usual won't hurt them, I think it can help. I'm having a hard time explaining myself I hope you can understand me. Sorry if it came off as another way.

[clack]

People have weird ships. Some ship the brothers from Supernatural. That's what slash fiction is for. 

Because Feige and the Russos failed to cater to the Stucky shippers doesn't make them homophobes, anymore than the Stucky shippers are racists for preferring Steve and Bucky as a couple to Sam and Bucky, or misogynists for not wanting Peggy to marry Steve.

Anyway, Chris Evans wanted out, and Sebastian Stan wanted to continue in his role. No choice but to have Steve and  Bucky go their separate ways.

But here's a quibble I do have -- I think Bucky is more deserving of the shield than is Sam. Captain America needs superpowers as much as Spiderman does. Peter couldn't just hand over his suit to a friend and tell him that he's the new Spiderman. Likewise, a suit and a shield doesn't make you Captain America.

[festivus]

I know Chris Evans wanted out, I understand that. I just do think something is hinky about these two characters that have been through so much not really getting a good last moment together.  My read on it is somewhere that someone was worried about it being "omg gay" or why wouldn't these guys have a moment? Clint and Wanda got a moment ffs. I can't think of any other reason why Steve and Bucky didn't get one.

[Dandesun]

Evans signed on for 7 movies and they wanted him for more but it took some wooing to get him on board in the first place. He's waffled a bit but, when push came to shove, he may love Cap and Steve but he was done. Fair enough.

Stan signed on for nine movies. So they've still got him whether he wants to be there or not. That being said, he's pretty up front about what Marvel has meant to him since becoming Bucky. Either way, he's still under contract. Evans isn't.

And I get that... but that it's so obvious in how they put it all together... just kind of vexes me.

I'm only sorry that Evans is done so we'll never get the scene of Sam and Bucky with Bucky going 'Uh oh, Dad's coming. Hide your stash.'

COME ON!

(Especially since if there is a stoner amongst them it's totally Evans.)

[Raja]

6 hours ago, Crs97 said:

So are you upset that Tony loves his daughter so much that he wants her to exist?  Yes, Scott lost five years of Cassie’s life, but I don’t see why Tony should have to give up his daughter completely to avoid being called selfish.

Also  Tony and Pepper could not have been  the only 5 year post snapture parents, they were just the only ones on screen. Sure some who were not snapped might find out their spouse took an opportunity to run in the confusion, suicide or other options. But for the vast majority of those blipped back  lost nothing and they would be the selfish ones to demand a reset and the killing of all life born over the previous 5 years so things can almost be exactly the same.

[MelloYellow]

1 hour ago, clack said:

anymore than the Stucky shippers are racists for preferring Steve and Bucky as a couple to Sam and Bucky

Not true.

It's not a coincidence that characters of color are either totally not included or outright disregarded when it comes to shipping.

Most of the arguments about Bucky's place in Steve's life can be made about Sam (but almost never are), and there are plenty of canon examples to justify Iron Husbands being one of the biggest slash ships in the MCU fandom, yet half that ship is studiously ignored to favor pairing its other half with any other cis white male characters in fandom, etc.

[Perfect Xero]

5 hours ago, paramitch said:

I get this, but I shouldn't have to headcanon to get a moment. That's lazy fandom and lazy writing.

Bucky and Cap's friendship is the literal throughline of THREE major Marvel movies. The fact that they do not get a conversation that goes beyond a two-line variation of "Hey, Bro" in IW/EG is insulting to me.

And it's not an "above and beyond" request. Bucky is central to three movies and their stories. Here, he doesn't even get a proper conversation with Cap to say farewell. So yeah, I mean, that's gross to me on so many levels.

And my interpretation is the corporate Marvel distaste for the Stucky fandom, and that makes me so sad.

Bucky never betrayed Steve. We even see how hard he fought against betraying him (or others) under mind-control. I think judging him for his actions as Winter Soldier is unfair. Bucky himself never, ever betrays Steve. Not once.

I loved Wanda and Vision, and not least because they're two of the best actors in the cast across the series, and have some of the best chemistry. The reason I lost it in IW was because of Vision's continued push for self-sacrifice, and when he does so, for his continued focus on this hurting Wanda as little as possible. Even in unendurable pain: "I only feel you." He loves her, she loves him. The moment absolutely killed me. As did Thanos's horrible action after (and also, directly related, Wanda going to dust is my favorite terrible moment because she WANTS to be dust, she hurts too much, and we see that in her face... and then she floats away...)

I don't get this at all. All I can judge is what I see.

If I am suddenly given no onscreen resolution between Bucky and Cap, this is on the filmmakers, not me. Yes, I can headcanon plenty of possibilities, and yes, I can read fanfiction, but I'm gobsmacked that a film's public shortcoming is simply met with, "Headcanon." No, it's not enough for me.

@Crs97, you bet I am. 100%. How many times have the Avengers proclaimed, "We don't trade lives?" How many times have they emphasized the needs of the many over the needs of the few? 

We are talking about BILLIONS OF LIVES. As a human being, I totally get Tony wanting to save those moments with his daughter.

But -- especially given that his daughter is almost certain to show up even after the Snap in terms of biology, even if that has to take place again... HE met her. He has those moments. And he will have to live with them in sacrificing himself, even if he never meets her. To me this is far more heroic than anything Tony could have done.

Tony should not have held his daughter hostage as bait for his help in saving the universe. It's gross and wrong, and yes, I will always feel this way. Look at what Scott suffers and loses -- years with the kid he loved more than the world -- but he didn't have the power to make that choice. I'm sure Scott would have been, "GIVE ME BACK 5 YEARS." But Scott does not have that power. He is a middle-class guy overcoming an unfair prison sentence. Nobody is going to care about his love for his daughter. Tony has unconscious privilege here to pretty extreme degrees.

And harkening back to Clint -- it's predictable biology. Parents should and must choose their children and be damaged by those choices -- and those who actively enforce them are evil (it's the entire premise of "Sophie's Choice," for instance). It's unfair and horrible and brutal. But still: Imagine Tony as Thanos's beckoning: He is already sold out. He will do anything for his child, including consigning billions (trillions?) to unfair torture and death. Flick the picture a millimeter and it's believable to me (given Tony's demands) that he could have ended a few timelines on Thano's side.

Ultimately, once again, Tony is simply incapable of seeing the big picture. It's why Cap was right and he was wrong. All the way back to Civil War. Tony sees "the end justifies the means." Cap, for all his staunch American-GI act, has always been the rebel. He will always act out and go, "Nothing is worth compromising who we are." And then go save his friends, save a battalion, act out against blatantly corrupt legislation, support a brainwashed friend. Because those are micro and vital. To Tony, your last year/decade defines you. To Cap, what you did today does so. He's far more hardline.

And Tony doesn't understand this because Tony has always been borderline chaotic neutral edging on chaotic good. And the product of unimaginable wealth and privilege.

So yeah. My personal preference for the ending is one where Tony's daughter did not exist and was a casualty of the first or second SnapBack. If it saved trillions of lives. You bet. To echo Bull in the game "Dragon Age Inquisition," war means making the hard choices. This would have been the right one, to me. Not happy. Not easy. But right.

So Tony inflicting 5 years of misery on the universe because he's unwilling to undo the Snap is a problem for me. And always will be. But I find it in-character if tragic.

Me, I would have looked right in his face, agreed, gotten the Gauntlet... and Snapped back. 5 years gone in an instant. Because it's right.

The odds against any particular biological child being born are very high. Even if you could figure out the right day that conception happened it would still be very unlikely to recreate the conditions exactly. This is before getting into the impossible to account for variables that would be introduced by undoing the snap.

What you're suggesting is that Tony should be willing to unmake his daughter because he can just have another kid. And this isn't just Tony's daughter, there are 5 years worth of kids. Assuming global birth rates remained the same you'd be talking somewhere around 65 Million kids. A year. On Earth alone.

Add in the rest of the universe and you're talking about sacrificing an astronomical number of completely innocent lives. It's an evil act on a staggering scale.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

I finally brought myself to see it.  I was super skeptical as to the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook they would use to "bring back time."  1 in 14 million, y'all!

Anyway, I ended up loving this.

The biggest thing for me was that Thanos actually became the anti-Gollum.  He destroyed his Preciousssssss!  What an outstanding and unusual action by a "bad guy" in an epic story.

Seeing Tony as a Dad utterly and helplessly devoted to his daughter and his marriage was a nice touch.  I was glad that he came to fully realize from where true happiness emanates.  It was the greatest gift he ever received.  

Thor's mama suggesting he eat a salad brought absolute guffaws from myself and my buddies in the room.

I could not help myself but feel really great when the various resuscitated characters were declaring something about themselves.  Groot came with, what else?!..."I'm Groot."  And it was waaaaaay more than enough.  It always will be.

The very end was simply wonderful.  A couple in the Greatest Generation were able to live and fully love a life together after first having paid a horrendous price in service of Good.  Works for me.

[Jeebus Cripes]

6 hours ago, paramitch said:

And he then doubles down by painfully openly manipulating the ENTIRE CLINT storyline into a weak joke. He's admitted it. He knew most people expected Clint to die. So the entire, entire movie, including the "Hi Clint, you loner who is only attached to Natasha, now you suddenly have a secret wholesome identity and children OH MY GOD WTF," exists because Joss wanted to sucker us into thinking "HA! You thought he would die but then QUICKSILVER DIES! YAY!" I mean, it sucks so hard. He orchestrated a third of that movie because he wanted to sucker people expecting Clint to die. It's lazy writing. And such a bummer. Me, I found it forced, ham-handed and unbelievable. I never got it. I never believed it. I accepted it by the end but... that's a discussion for another thread. Clint's family always feels like paper dolls to me.

I've believed for a long time that Joss' fanboy status does him a disservice when writing a superhero film that works with already established characters. He's far better suited creating original material where he can play god. He seems to write in relationships and plot elements purely based on his own skewed desires on how he'd like these characters to interact with one another, or like you mentioned, killing Quicksilver just for shock value. The Bruce/Nat relationship is a prime example of this because it seemingly comes out of nowhere, it's not canon in any of the source material, and the actors have zero chemistry. It was like Joss fantasized about that ship, so he made it happen because reasons. He's too self-serving as a writer, and that irks the crap out of me.

[Zuleikha]

 I think she finally feels she can wipe the red from her ledger which is something she's had a hard time with.

This is why the right time for a Black Widow movie was immediately after Winter Soldier. The movie audience is waaaaay greater than the comic book audience. Most of us have only the vaguest notion what the red in the ledger really is. 

In general, I do think it's better to have things hinted than spelled out for something like that.

BUT if Natasha's entire character arc over all of these movies is going to culminate in her sacrificing herself as an act of atonement, then we darn well need some explicit, TEXTUAL information about exactly what she's atoning for. Especially since we've never seen her in full-on USSR Black Widow role (and because the age we've been given for her MAKES NO SENSE WITH ACTUAL HISTORY!!!!!)

Winter Soldier included Natasha making a sacrifice of her secrets. It seemed like a huge character moment. It was the perfect set up for a Black Widow movie that would show her dealing with all of this and, of course, with giving us some info about what those secrets were. But we didn't get that. So Natasha's Soul Stone sacrifice feels like yet another waste of the character... not helped by the setup being incoherent. Why would you send the two street-level characters on an interstellar mission of unknown risks when they could have been sent back to NYC?

[swanpride]

It's a small thing, but I was always bitter that they basically declared the whole "calm down the hulk by petting his hand" thing as woman's work and played it was a joke the one time Thor did it. Who should have had the job from the get go, btw. I felt that Age of Ultron would have been better served if it had explored a war buddy relationship between Thor and the Hulk, and a simple friendship between Natasha and Bruce. Also because then Natasha's betrayal in the end would have been the betrayal of a team member and not the betrayal of a love interest.

[stealinghome]

Quote

I felt that Age of Ultron would have been better served if it had explored a war buddy relationship between Thor and the Hulk, and a simple friendship between Natasha and Bruce. Also because then Natasha's betrayal in the end would have been the betrayal of a team member and not the betrayal of a love interest.

Had Feige known where they were going to go in Ragnarok at the time AoU was scripted and shot, it feels very possible Nat/Bruce would have been pivoted to Thor-Bruce at least somewhat, for sure. I suspect that there is actually a fair amount that TPTB behind the MCU would change if they could go back in time and know where certain plot strands/characters/etc. ended up.

[swanpride]

Sure, but it would have been the best idea back in the day, too. For one, Thor and Hulk had already started a rapport in The Avengers, two, Thor was already largely side-lined in The Avengers, so it would have been great to see more interaction between him and the others, three since Thor is able to survive a hit by Hulk he is the logical candidate for "calming down" duty, while Natasha is pretty much the worst candidate. Hulk nearly killed her in the Avengers!!!

It really feels that the one reason why they gave Natasha that role is her gender.

[Anduin]

IMO, Natasha is the type of person to confront her fears. She was scared of the Hulk, so she worked to get over it. Of course, I do like strange couples.

[Bruinsfan]

While I don't doubt that chauvinism played a part in assigning that role to Natasha for the Beauty-and-the-Beast optics, she was the character that had the deepest and most powerful scenes with Bruce in the first movie. From an emotional standpoint, it felt right for her to be the one to figure out how to handle him.

I can also see it making more strategic sense from Fury's perspective if not tactical sense. He knows Natasha and how skilled she is at manipulating others' reactions well, whereas Thor is less familiar and more of a loose cannon. He's obviously the one teammate that's going to be fine if the Hulk doesn't calm down and uses him as a punching bag, but a Hulk vs. Thor brawl likely extends the rampage and causes lots more collateral damage, including the potential for hundreds of bystanders being killed as they punch each other through buildings. If the Hulk flips out and accidentally kills Natasha, that might be like a bucket of cold water on him and snap him out of the tantrum.

[Danny Franks]

23 hours ago, paramitch said:

Another reason I loved that moment was that it was a clear call back to Civil War, and how (to me) Tony is STILL wrong in his POV on that (he's willing to compromise on freedoms for "armor around the world" and Cap isn't, and I'll always be on Cap's side on that). But it was totally in-character for him, and gorgeously acted by RDJ.

It's not just that Steve was morally right (which he was), it's also that Steve was practically right. Tony's "armour around the world" wouldn't have stopped Thanos' army, either during their initial incursion to Earth to find the stones, or in their invasion of Wakanda afterwards. Thanos' technology was too advanced, and his minions were too strong.

The very best of Tony's Iron Man technology managed to draw a single drop of blood from the big, purple guy. All of Earth's best and brightest were unable to do anything to stop him. It would have been the equivalent of expecting the Great Wall of China to keep out a battalion of Challenger tanks.

17 hours ago, paramitch said:

As a writer, on a tech level, what Joss did in "Age of Ultron" upsets me on so many levels. He obliterates a lovely elusive subtext between Nat and Clint, to the extent that she silently wears that arrow around her neck. GODDAMN IT JOSS.

Which, okay. But then he introduces a forced, awkward chemistry-free romance between Nat and Bruce (and I COULD HAVE GONE THERE! Just don't scream at me NOW KISS!). But only as fact. We missed all teh fun stuff. The glances or flirting, or her helping him find his softer side "the sun's going down..."

We are supposed to just ingest this content as given. He gives us "Natasha+Bruce=KISS!" and I so resent it. And always will. Especially since I was willing. And they're two of my favorite actors ever. But... NO. He then forces Nat's backstory into something contingent not on her abuse, survival or brainwashing... but into her inability to have children (which grossed me out and makes her fate doubly painful for me in EG, given her choices).

I'm completely with you on the awkward, dead on arrival Bruce/Natasha relationship, and will always believe that the flat-as-a-pancake line readings that both actors gave made their feelings on it clear too. They seemed embarrassed with the material they were given. But I never got romantic chemistry from Natasha and Clint either. I believed her when she said "love is for children", and considered that a choice she had made long ago, after being hurt or conditioned.

And I do appreciate that, other than Whedon, the MCU writers have avoided making Natasha a romantic object. She found love, absolutely - said it herself in Endgame. But it was the love of a family, which was perhaps even less familiar to her than romantic love. And when she sacrificed herself, it wasn't just for Clint and his family, it was for her family too.

Of course, I will forever be a fan of the Bucky/Natasha relationship, as written by Ed Brubaker, and think that's the best romance that Natasha's character has ever been given. She got to be his equal, rather than a clear subordinate as she was with Daredevil and Hawkeye. But it was clear the MCU wasn't going to go there, so it will remain in the comics.

[swanpride]

Quote

While I don't doubt that chauvinism played a part in assigning that role to Natasha for the Beauty-and-the-Beast optics, she was the character that had the deepest and most powerful scenes with Bruce in the first movie. From an emotional standpoint, it felt right for her to be the one to figure out how to handle him.

Not really, since the one who had the best rapport with the HULK was Thor. It should have been him all along.

And regarding the romance: If you need to write a scene in which one character has to explain awkwardly why she is interested in the other character, than one might consider NOT to do it. I mean, I know why Peggy liked Steve, but there was no need for her doing a long monologue about why she is specifically in love with him, I just had to understand his character and her character and I knew that they are a good fit. Most of their relationship works over looks otherwise.

[Crs97]

I am now picturing Pepper giving a monologue about why she loves Tony, and I can’t stop chuckling.  Yet, they were perfect for each other.

[Dandesun]

While I never got the whole 'I'm a monster because I can't have kids' thing... I personally read it as 'I'm a monster because I was trained from birth to be a killer and they modified me specifically so that I could never procreate and possibly develop feelings greater than The Cause I was killing for' -- which... look, Natasha DID develop attachments that swayed her from whatever the Red Room may have sent her after. Those attachments didn't have to come from her womb for her to give a shit. In fact, it seems that Clint was the one that made the call to treat her like a human rather than an adversary and Nick followed through with that.

You don't have to give birth to a child to actually CARE about people so... what the fuck, Red Room? Considering the ferocity of mothers in various legends and what not, you'd think the Red Room might have considered that option for some of their brain-washing nonsense.

Bruce and Natasha did come out of nowhere and, as I've said before, the concept was an interesting one even if the execution was poor. That being said, the fact that 'we can't have kids/we are monsters' shit was the reason used for them to... not do a damn thing? I mean, seriously? If they were attracted to each other they still could have fucked. Sex isn't solely for procreation, asshole people in charge! 

Couldn't Natasha have just said... 'Why are you even talking about kids right now? Did I say I wanted to have your babies? Did I say I wanted to get married? What in the actual fuck, Bruce? Steve isn't even this weird about sex!'

I know plenty of people who were offended by the 'no kids = monsters' interpretation, which is absolutely fair because... yeah, that is fucking offensive. But so is the idea of 'I, the man, can't have kids... therefore there is absolutely no reason to interact with you on a romantic/sexual level.' I mean... that's just gross. You'd think it could go 'Hey, I can't either... we have something in common! Although... safe sex, Bruce. I hope you, as a scientist, still are on board with THAT.'

There's a lot of tone deafness in the entirety of the Bruce/Natasha 'romance.' And every layer you peel off reveals something else that's awful about it.

[swanpride]

What bothered me about the whole thing is that The Incredible Hulk established that Bruce can't have sex without hulking out. So, one thing to not wanting a child or not being able to have a child, but is Natasha asexual? Otherwise being with a man who can't have sex might be a problem down the line.

There is also the little fact that Bruce is nearly old enough to be her father. A set up which somehow bothers me more in movies than in real life. Because if it were the other way around, they wouldn't have even considered this particular pairing.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, swanpride said:

What bothered me about the whole thing is that The Incredible Hulk established that Bruce can't have sex without hulking out. So, one thing to not wanting a child or not being able to have a child, but is Natasha asexual? Otherwise being with a man who can't have sex might be a problem down the line.

There is also the little fact that Bruce is nearly old enough to be her father. A set up which somehow bothers me more in movies than in real life. Because if it were the other way around, they wouldn't have even considered this particular pairing.

Well in non Disney portrayals of Red Room trained type says being a "honey trap"/prostitute for the state, was a big part of their infiltration technique. If she was a sex worker assassin then an asexual result would seem very possible 

[MelloYellow]

It always seemed weird that Nat & Thor never bonded.

She had complex relationships with all the other guys, but the MCU never makes an effort to establish a rapport between the Assassin & the Asgardian.

[stealinghome]

Thor was definitely the Avenger least serviced by the first two Avenger movies overall (and then Nat had like three lines in IW). I’ve always chalked it up to Thor just not being a character (type) that Whedon was either interested in or particularly good at writing.

wtf, autocorrect! This is not Star Trek!

Edited August 20, 2019 by stealinghome

[Bruinsfan]

In the first movie, Thor had deeper conversations and better chemistry with Nick Fury than any of the Avengers. Admittedly the really important relationship for him in the movie was with his brother so mission accomplished there, but I'd say Steve was the only other hero who formed even the beginnings of a rapport with him.

[Jeebus Cripes]

14 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Of course, I will forever be a fan of the Bucky/Natasha relationship, as written by Ed Brubaker, and think that's the best romance that Natasha's character has ever been given. She got to be his equal, rather than a clear subordinate as she was with Daredevil and Hawkeye. But it was clear the MCU wasn't going to go there, so it will remain in the comics.

I was so bummed that they never made any mention of this in the MCU. I guess her "you could at least remember me" line in Civil War can be interpreted by comic fans as a shout out to the Red Room. I would love to see some confirmation of this in her film or even in the Falcon & Winter Soldier show. I doubt it, though.

[MelloYellow]

4 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

In the first movie, Thor had deeper conversations and better chemistry with Nick Fury than any of the Avengers.

Speaking of Nick, why is he absent for most of Phase 3?

I get his plan to go undercover to deal with the fallout of SHIELD, post-Winter Soldier, but his absence from Ultron to Infinity War is a bit much.

Edited August 20, 2019 by MelloYellow

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MelloYellow said:

Speaking of Nick, why is he absent for most of Phase 3?

I get his plan to go undercover to deal with the fallout of SHIELD, post-Winter Soldier, but his absence from Ultron to Infinity War is a bit much.

According to Samuel L Jackson he only had two films left in his contract after Ultron. My guess is they were saving his final guaranteed films to set up post-infinity sage MCU.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Guest

[blueray]

He did appear in a few episodes of AoS but they were in earlier seasons. I'd imagine he'll be in upcoming movies, but they will had to add to his contract.  If he really had two movies left that might have been Captain Marvel and I'm not sure if Spiderman counts as it's Sony.  If it does, he already was in two movies. If not, I'd imagine he'll be in the next Captain Marvel

[Danny Franks]

5 hours ago, Jeebus Cripes said:

I was so bummed that they never made any mention of this in the MCU. I guess her "you could at least remember me" line in Civil War can be interpreted by comic fans as a shout out to the Red Room. I would love to see some confirmation of this in her film or even in the Falcon & Winter Soldier show. I doubt it, though.

I keep hoping that they announce that Sebastian Stan will appear in the Black Widow movie, even if it's only a flashback that shows their encounter where he shot her. I don't really think it will happen though. The MCU people clearly aren't interested in pursuing that angle of either character.

5 hours ago, MelloYellow said:

Speaking of Nick, why is he absent for most of Phase 3?

I get his plan to go undercover to deal with the fallout of SHIELD, post-Winter Soldier, but his absence from Ultron to Infinity War is a bit much.

I think they should have started phasing him out, and increasing Maria Hill's profile, after Captain America: Winter Soldier. Especially if they couldn't get Jackson, or didn't want to include him. But Cobie Smulders feels more like a glorified extra when she appears. Obviously, her MCU character is different, but Hill was a key ally of Tony Stark's in the original Civil War storyline.

10 hours ago, stealinghome said:

Nat had like three lines in IW

And for some of them, she wasn't even in shot. I imagine Scarlett spent less time on set for Infinity War than her stunt double did.

One of the highlights of the first Avengers movie was that horror sequence with Natasha trapped in the bowels of the carrier with the Hulk. Her fear and vulnerability were palpable, and it highlighted that, for all her skills and abilities, Natasha is still just a normal human who could easily have been killed by the Hulk.

[benteen]

12 hours ago, MelloYellow said:

It always seemed weird that Nat & Thor never bonded.

She had complex relationships with all the other guys, but the MCU never makes an effort to establish a rapport between the Assassin & the Asgardian.

Funny thing is in the comics, Nat and Hercules had a relationship.

[Raja]

7 hours ago, MelloYellow said:

Speaking of Nick, why is he absent for most of Phase 3?

I get his plan to go undercover to deal with the fallout of SHIELD, post-Winter Soldier, but his absence from Ultron to Infinity War is a bit much.

Seeing he emerged from death with a non Project Insight helicarrier in Age of Ultron  story wise going back into hiding works for the Far From Home revelations. What was weird was the Infinity War post credits with Fury and Maria Hill driving along as if on patrol.

[swanpride]

I kind of assumed that they were simply there to collect information about the fight between Tony and co and the aliens….

[stealinghome]

Quote

but I'd say Steve was the only other hero who formed even the beginnings of a rapport with him.

Agreed. Thor had a nice rapport with Steve by the end of AoU, but he didn't seem particularly close to anyone else on the team (did he ever even speak to Clint?). Though one of the highlights of AoU for me was Thor gleefully recounting the Hulk's exploits in battle as the Avengers fly home from the HYDRA compound--he's so jazzed and Bruce is just mortified and covering his face in horror while Nat glares at Thor, hee. I've seen it several times and that moment is still too funny!

[Morrigan2575]

8 hours ago, Jeebus Cripes said:

I was so bummed that they never made any mention of this in the MCU. I guess her "you could at least remember me" line in Civil War can be interpreted by comic fans as a shout out to the Red Room. I would love to see some confirmation of this in her film or even in the Falcon & Winter Soldier show. I doubt it, though.

I'm sure it served as an Easter Egg for comic fans but, on the surface it could have referred to her backstory in Winter Soldier where she told Steve how The Winter Soldier shot through her to kill the Scientist she was protecting.  

[Danny Franks]

57 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I'm sure it served as an Easter Egg for comic fans but, on the surface it could have referred to her backstory in Winter Soldier where she told Steve how The Winter Soldier shot through her to kill the Scientist she was protecting.  

I'm sure the writers were happy for it to be explained away as that, and knew they could include it to tantalise comic book fans without confusing MCU fans. Although it seems a little odd for Natasha to think that was worth mentioning. I'm sure she's shot plenty of people she doesn't remember.

There's also some nuance in The Winter Soldier, when she actually looks a little frightened as she's running from the Winter Soldier in the gun battle, before he shoots her. She rarely looks scared of a physical confrontation - the scene with the Hulk, as I mentioned, and this scene are the only two I can think of. That could also call back both their previous encounter that she mentions, and the comic book storyline.

But that's about as far as any of it goes.

[Cirien]

On 8/14/2019 at 11:26 PM, Dandesun said:

It's never explicitly stated one way or another in the movies whether Bucky enlisted or was drafted. Research suggest that his number, that he was repeating on the slab in the Hydra facility, started with call numbers that were part of the draft. However, that draft started later than when Bucky appears to have joined the Army but that's a nitpicky factoid.

And, like I say, they never say one way or the other in MCU canon whether or not Bucky enlisted.

There's a certain poetry to the idea that Bucky was drafted and did not want to go to war while Steve was desperate to go to war and couldn't enlist for anything... then they both get the serum (in one form or another) but, again, Steve volunteered while Bucky was experimented on as a POW. One became Captain America and the other became the Winter Soldier. The dichotomy is, for many, what really makes their relationship (however you may want to see it) so important.

616 Bucky grew up on military bases and didn't meet Steve until after Steve became Captain America. But 616 Bucky is not MCU Bucky. MCU Bucky is an amalgam of a couple of different characters from 616 so whatever is canon in comic continuity isn't so in the MCU.

I mean, if that were the case... Sam would actually be able to talk to birds.

I'm not even going to deny that I'd love to see that in F&tWS.

2

As per the wiki on the subject, Bucky was conscripted: https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Winter_Soldier

There's a slight discrepancy with the Marvel visual dictionary but even that says, that he was drafted: 

Which as you say adds a certain poetry to the Steve/ Bucky relationship

A Question do we know when the Scene between Steve and Peggy is set? As in what time period? The year? 

[paramitch]

First off, apologies @festivus  -- my tone in that previous reply to you was meant to convey indignation at homophobic executives, but upon revisiting it, I realized it sounded like I was being jerky to YOU, so I edited to fix! 

On 8/18/2019 at 1:57 PM, swanpride said:

Honestly, I never got this obsession of pairing Natasha up with Clint. Or with Steve for that matter. It is possible for men and woman to have lasting friendships which aren't romantic.

Also, I always shipped Natasha with Falcon anyway.

I'm definitely not 'obsessed' with pairing Natasha with Clint (or anyone), but I liked that there was something wordless and mysterious about their connection. I liked simply not knowing, and I liked the depth and intensity of their feelings for one another, whether platonic or romantic. What I didn't like was Joss Whedon forcing revelations -- (CLUNK!) Clint suddenly has a secret family and kids! (CLUNK!) Natasha is now hardcore interested in Bruce! Etc.

Honestly, my take on Natasha's character is that she would remain solitary but pursue the occasional hookup to relieve stress, and there was a perfect opportunity for that in AoU (more on that farther down).

On 8/18/2019 at 2:25 PM, festivus said:

What I meant is that the numbers for these movies show that it doesn't hurt them (their bottom line which is always about the money) that there are people that read Steve and Bucky as gay. What I meant by my comment is that they shouldn't be making decisions about keeping characters apart because there are people that ship the characters. I think Hollywood execs are idiots too. And backward. I didn't mean my comment to come across any other way than I don't agree with any of Hollywood execs on any stupid decisions they make about race, sexual identity, etc and how they can't make money.  I remember reading about that guy that used to have a say in MCU stuff saying things like he didn't want to make a Black Widow movie cause it wouldn't sell toys, like eww girls. It also took forever to make a Black Panther movie and look how well it did. 

I'm saying they need to understand that showing stuff beyond the straight white male usual won't hurt them, I think it can help. I'm having a hard time explaining myself I hope you can understand me. Sorry if it came off as another way.

I totally get this, and I was trying to agree with you, although I was debating whether execs would see it your way -- but I must have overdosed on caffeine that morning because my attempt at snark landed like a lead balloon. Apologies again!

On 8/18/2019 at 4:09 PM, clack said:

Because Feige and the Russos failed to cater to the Stucky shippers doesn't make them homophobes, anymore than the Stucky shippers are racists for preferring Steve and Bucky as a couple to Sam and Bucky, or misogynists for not wanting Peggy to marry Steve.

Although I enjoy the idea of the Stucky ship, I am most concerned about their friendship and closeness as a whole. I'm totally okay with not being catered to as far as romantic subtext.

I'm not okay, however, that Steve's closest lifelong friend, and whose friendship was the crux of three different Marvel movies, barely got to exchange four sentences with him in the last two movies. That actually did stick out to me as awkward and stilted, completely out of character, and did make me suspect homophobia on the part of the producers, as if the two men couldn't even share a scene together.

On 8/18/2019 at 4:28 PM, festivus said:

I know Chris Evans wanted out, I understand that. I just do think something is hinky about these two characters that have been through so much not really getting a good last moment together.  My read on it is somewhere that someone was worried about it being "omg gay" or why wouldn't these guys have a moment? Clint and Wanda got a moment ffs. I can't think of any other reason why Steve and Bucky didn't get one.

This. I will always be really sad over the lack of a final Steve and Bucky scene. Even one where Bucky (cryptically) argues against what he knows Steve is going to do, let's say, or (alternate scenario) where Steve acts like he's coming back and Bucky is sad because he knows the truth. Etc. (Even though I hate the "return to HEA 1940s resolution for Steve).

We just got nothing. Bucky doesn't even get to talk to Steve in that final moment -- Sam does. And I love Sam, but... to me, it should've been Bucky.

On 8/18/2019 at 4:48 PM, Raja said:

Also  Tony and Pepper could not have been  the only 5 year post snapture parents, they were just the only ones on screen. Sure some who were not snapped might find out their spouse took an opportunity to run in the confusion, suicide or other options. But for the vast majority of those blipped back  lost nothing and they would be the selfish ones to demand a reset and the killing of all life born over the previous 5 years so things can almost be exactly the same.

What I was addressing was the POV discussed much, much earlier in this thread (as well as in several articles) that Tony's insistence upon retaining current circumstances for himself alone can be seen as irresponsible and selfish, and that the outcome (the "5 years later" Hulk Snap) can be argued to be even more destructive than the original snap (or than undoing Thanos's snap). I'll address this further below.

On 8/18/2019 at 5:46 PM, Perfect Xero said:

The odds against any particular biological child being born are very high. Even if you could figure out the right day that conception happened it would still be very unlikely to recreate the conditions exactly. This is before getting into the impossible to account for variables that would be introduced by undoing the snap.

What you're suggesting is that Tony should be willing to unmake his daughter because he can just have another kid. And this isn't just Tony's daughter, there are 5 years worth of kids. Assuming global birth rates remained the same you'd be talking somewhere around 65 Million kids. A year. On Earth alone.

Add in the rest of the universe and you're talking about sacrificing an astronomical number of completely innocent lives. It's an evil act on a staggering scale.

That's not actually true. When viewed from a big-picture, scientific standpoint, there would be very little difference in a child conceived by Tony and Pepper later versus earlier, which is why a lot of fantasy stories handwave this aspect.

Since I'm not actually a sociopathic supervillain, I was not suggesting that Tony "unmake" his daughter, nor was I arguing to sacrifice "an astronomical number of completely innocent lives." 

Thanos's Snap was an evil act on a staggering scale. And there are no perfect, right or consequence-free choices in dealing with it. Undoing the Snap means, as you point out, billions of potential births would be lost, even while billions of deaths were undone. But it also provides a complete reset across the galaxy in the cleanest possible way (versus traumatizing the galaxy TWICE in five years, with the Snap, the trauma and recovery, and then the utter madness and chaos of the returns upon millions of marriages, unions, families, political systems, societies, and more -- not to mention the collapse and inability of the ecosystems and populations to support the 5-Years-Later returned populations).

So yes, despite the fact that I would have been devastated for Tony, and would have argued exactly as he does if I'd been a parent in protecting a child -- I do agree with those who feel that the most moral choice would have been to undo the Snap. This article puts the point of view forward better than I can:

https://screenrant.com/avengers-endgame-ending-implications-bad-thanos-snap/

On 8/18/2019 at 7:53 PM, Jeebus Cripes said:

I've believed for a long time that Joss' fanboy status does him a disservice when writing a superhero film that works with already established characters. He's far better suited creating original material where he can play god. He seems to write in relationships and plot elements purely based on his own skewed desires on how he'd like these characters to interact with one another, or like you mentioned, killing Quicksilver just for shock value. The Bruce/Nat relationship is a prime example of this because it seemingly comes out of nowhere, it's not canon in any of the source material, and the actors have zero chemistry. It was like Joss fantasized about that ship, so he made it happen because reasons. He's too self-serving as a writer, and that irks the crap out of me.

This is perfectly said for me. Joss is too brutal with his action figures. He shoves them into position instead of presenting them organically, for me. He did this with Clint, and then with Natasha and Bruce, too.  

On 8/19/2019 at 7:46 AM, Bruinsfan said:

While I don't doubt that chauvinism played a part in assigning that role to Natasha for the Beauty-and-the-Beast optics, she was the character that had the deepest and most powerful scenes with Bruce in the first movie. From an emotional standpoint, it felt right for her to be the one to figure out how to handle him.

This illustrates something that's kind of a bummer for me. I really, really liked Nat's scenes with Bruce in Avengers I. There was something powerful about their connection there, and it really worked for me, especially the scene where Bruce's anger takes control and he Hulks out (it's beautifully played by both of them).

I could have totally been on board for a Nat/Bruce thing in AoU if it had been presented differently. Instead of a time jump and Natasha coming on strong in every single scene, I would have loved for more of those scenes of Bruce and Natasha each struggling with the aftermath of New York -- Bruce still dealing with his anger, Natasha still dealing with her "red ledger" and isolation. Then a mutual realization or hookup could have been unexpected and moving. Instead she's chasing Bruce the entire film, right out of the gate, all her dialogue telling us she's interested in him, not showing us. They had way more chemistry in Avengers I.

On 8/19/2019 at 7:52 AM, Danny Franks said:

I'm completely with you on the awkward, dead on arrival Bruce/Natasha relationship, and will always believe that the flat-as-a-pancake line readings that both actors gave made their feelings on it clear too. They seemed embarrassed with the material they were given. But I never got romantic chemistry from Natasha and Clint either. I believed her when she said "love is for children", and considered that a choice she had made long ago, after being hurt or conditioned.

And I do appreciate that, other than Whedon, the MCU writers have avoided making Natasha a romantic object. She found love, absolutely - said it herself in Endgame. But it was the love of a family, which was perhaps even less familiar to her than romantic love. And when she sacrificed herself, it wasn't just for Clint and his family, it was for her family too.

Of course, I will forever be a fan of the Bucky/Natasha relationship, as written by Ed Brubaker, and think that's the best romance that Natasha's character has ever been given. She got to be his equal, rather than a clear subordinate as she was with Daredevil and Hawkeye. But it was clear the MCU wasn't going to go there, so it will remain in the comics.

I feel like Nat says "Love is for children," because she's locked away a part of herself in order to be the superb spy and operative she has become. I would have liked for her to realize how wrong she was -- even for someone to echo it back to her at the Soul Stone battle, and for her to realize that No, love is everything and the only thing that matters. 

I just still think the optics for Nat dying for Clint and his family are squicky. But if she'd had to be a sacrifice, and had done it for her REAL family -- the Avengers -- for Clint, yes, but also for Steve, Sam, Bucky, Bruce and the others (wow, this list makes me realize how few female Avengers there were, much less who bonded with Nat).

PS -- Natasha and Bucky? Oh, man, I LOVE this. I would have loved to have seen that onscreen. (cries)

22 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Bruce and Natasha did come out of nowhere and, as I've said before, the concept was an interesting one even if the execution was poor. That being said, the fact that 'we can't have kids/we are monsters' shit was the reason used for them to... not do a damn thing? I mean, seriously? If they were attracted to each other they still could have fucked. Sex isn't solely for procreation, asshole people in charge! 

Couldn't Natasha have just said... 'Why are you even talking about kids right now? Did I say I wanted to have your babies? Did I say I wanted to get married? What in the actual fuck, Bruce? Steve isn't even this weird about sex!'

I know plenty of people who were offended by the 'no kids = monsters' interpretation, which is absolutely fair because... yeah, that is fucking offensive. But so is the idea of 'I, the man, can't have kids... therefore there is absolutely no reason to interact with you on a romantic/sexual level.' I mean... that's just gross. You'd think it could go 'Hey, I can't either... we have something in common! Although... safe sex, Bruce. I hope you, as a scientist, still are on board with THAT.'

There's a lot of tone deafness in the entirety of the Bruce/Natasha 'romance.' And every layer you peel off reveals something else that's awful about it.

You bring up a great point that is, for me, the natural best solution for the Bruce/Nat romance. I brought it up earlier in this post, but I'd have loved them to continue to bond as they did in Avengers 1, with zero flirtage, just more straightforward interaction and empathy, the way they did in 1, acknowledging both as brilliant, intense, self-isolating people with anger and trust issues. And with none of the "Taming of the Hulk" stuff (or handled differently; I waffle on this).

And then at Clint's house, maybe Bruce is angry and sad, Natasha sees this, feels similarly, makes a surprise move on Bruce, he accepts it, realizing they both need this, and they sleep together. And when they leave, they never talk about it again. They're still supportive of each other, not weird, just private and focused on continuing to make the difficult choices and deal with their lonely crappy lives. And maybe Cap notices something, a glance between them, but that's it. Etc.

I'd have loved that. And you're right, I would have found that so much more realistic than the awful "monster" conversation. They were both so much more complex than that in the previous film. And I think a different, more surprising dynamic would have fixed the chemistry issues.

Edited August 20, 2019 by paramitch
Added a PS about Nat/Bucky from the comics

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, paramitch said:

So yes, despite the fact that I would have been devastated for Tony, and would have argued exactly as he does if I'd been a parent in protecting a child -- I do agree with those who feel that the most moral choice would have been to undo the Snap.

The interesting thing of course is that if the moral choice was to undo the Snap then by the same logic the moral choice should have been to kill Vison in IW snd destroy the mind stone (or at least use it as a weapon).

[MelloYellow]

Bucky isn't the only one who (besides Steve) could make the claim to being the 'crux' to the Captain America films. Both Nat and especially Sam can arguably claim to be the crux to at least two of those films, (and in Sam's case a third).

Is there a thread for MCU ship discussion?

[Raja]

37 minutes ago, MelloYellow said:

Bucky isn't the only one who (besides Steve) could make the claim to being the 'crux' to the Captain America films. Both Nat and especially Sam can arguably claim to be the crux to at least two of those films, (and in Sam's case a third).

Is there a thread for MCU ship discussion?

There is the general MCU thread, and a thread created to get the Stuckey overflow out of the main threads was wrapped into a general LGBTQ issues thread no longer specific to comics and genre movies