Avengers: Endgame release thread (spoilers)

[PREDATOR490]

The counter to that is fairly simple.

The risk of going up against Thanos with a full set of stones is extreme. One would expect Thanos to be on high alert while he has those stones and getting the drop on him harder.

Personally, I think a major point missed - The Avengers never realised they had access to ALL of the stones via Asgard in Dark World.
Asgard had the Reality Stone AND the Space stone which creates an interesting thought paradox.

Thor: Dark World takes place after the battle of New York.
Asgard has the Space stone locked away in the vault and the Reality Stone in Jane Foster.

Would it not have been smarter to let Thor and Rocket secure two stones rather than mess around at the Battle of New York ?
If this is an alternate universe and they had no initial plans to return the stones then the impression is they had no concern about altering things... thus the 'drama' of trying to sneak around is kinda stupid. Including the fact that taking the space stone from Asgard should be even easier than the weird plan they had to steal it from Earth during an extremely narrow window.
The space stone was sitting on Asgard, unused in a vault for years... but the Avengers thought it was better to steal it during the aftermath of the Battle of New York ?

The interesting paradox comes from the idea that if Thor and Rocket take both stones on Asgard. Does that result in them having two space stones. One from Asgard, one from Earth.
Is that the same stone from two different time periods or two different space stones from two different timelines ?

If it is multiple different timelines - Then in theory, the Avengers could have taken multiple duplicates of stones from each timeline.
The Three that were taken at the battle of New York - They can at least grab one more if they can get to Quil's planet. = 4 Stones -1 because Loki took one. The reality stone may be inaccessible due to it being wherever it was in Dark World and the Soul Stone seems to require a sacrifice every time you take it so... that one is effectively inaccessible as well.

The timeline with Thor and Rocket - They have access to two stones AND can realistically grab ALL of the others with the only issue being the soul stone. They know where the others are and would easily be able to acquire them. Asgard literally has a travel system that can teleport you across the universe so getting to Quil's planet is going to be a an easy trip and going to Earth equally easy.
They need to get the mind stone - Should be relatively easy because SHIELD is still at the height of it's power and if the Avengers are smart, they can subvert Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Incidentally, this would have been an awesome way for Coulson to be revealed as alive to the Avengers and throw some recognition at Agents of Shield. They already brought Coulson back for Captain Marvel so... really, you want to do a nostalgia tour and then miss out Coulson's death being the event that formed the Avengers and the 'regret' they all seem to feel over his sacrifice ?
If you wanted to go even further... have that Coulson sacrifice himself to get the Soul Stone.

Fundamentally, the time travel aspect of this movie is a complete mess and destroys the entire coherence of the narrative. I can only expect the follow on movies are going to remain inconsistent.
Does anyone really expect them to follow through on half the universe disappearing and then coming back 5 years later ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, at this point I'd kind of prefer to just ignore everything post-Infinity War. Which is sad, because with a few edits, Endgame could have been a magnificent finale to possibly the greatest cinematic epic ever constructed (the only other that rivals it is probably the original Star Wars trilogy, which surpassed it in cultural impact but was smaller and less ambitious in scope- maybe if you count the entire Star Wars saga over the last forty years its comparable).

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd say this sort of thing is what fanfic is for, if not for the fact that the vast majority of fan fiction sucks far harder than Endgame at its worst.

[PREDATOR490]

The MCU cannot even get it's official fan fiction sorted. I.E Agents of Shield or Inhumans.
I would say the same for the Netflix series but they are all axed and cancelled now.

In theory, the events of AoS show that Coulson and Co. actually stopped Infinity War before it even started due to their own time travel loop plot.

[The Romulan Republic]

The MCU cannot even get it's official fan fiction sorted. I.E Agents of Shield or Inhumans.
I would say the same for the Netflix series but they are all axed and cancelled now.

In theory, the events of AoS show that Coulson and Co. actually stopped Infinity War before it even started due to their own time travel loop plot.

At this point, they can just hand wave it as being in other universes.

[amigocabal]

The MCU cannot even get it's official fan fiction sorted. I.E Agents of Shield or Inhumans.
I would say the same for the Netflix series but they are all axed and cancelled now.

In theory, the events of AoS show that Coulson and Co. actually stopped Infinity War before it even started due to their own time travel loop plot.

Explain this further please. How did the time travel loop prevent the Infinity War?

[PREDATOR490]

The MCU cannot even get it's official fan fiction sorted. I.E Agents of Shield or Inhumans.
I would say the same for the Netflix series but they are all axed and cancelled now.

In theory, the events of AoS show that Coulson and Co. actually stopped Infinity War before it even started due to their own time travel loop plot.

Explain this further please. How did the time travel loop prevent the Infinity War?

AoS S5 Spoilers
Spoiler

Quake destroyed Earth.
They learn that it was a combination of Quake + Talbot + Mad Gravitonium but the effect is essentially the same.
They went well into the future and confirmed this with humanity being confined to a single surviving facility on whats left of the Earth.

In this entire season, noone mentions the Infinity Stones or 50% of the universe disappearing. The Confederation / Alien leaders do give a throw away line about Thanos launching his assault on Earth but that is literally the end point. In the first iteration of the loop, Quake must have destroyed the world before Thanos did the snap which may have actually prevented Thanos from getting Vision Stone since noone mentioned anything about 50% of the universe disappearing.

At minimum - Endgame got completely shafted since NONE of the Avengers would survive the aftermath with the exception of Thor. The AoS time travel arc takes precedence over the Avengers and somehow prevents the Infinity War / Endgame scenarios.

In the broken loop, Coulson is seen chilling on the beach after for his happy ending. This should not be possible because the Snap has to have happened which override a happy ending scenario depicted.

Out of Universe - Obviously, the series seems to have no idea what is going on in the films which makes their own story incompatible with Infinity War but due to the stakes of their own story, it ultimately results in over-riding Infinity War / Endgame for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: Somehow AoS stopped Infinity War / Endgame

[Elheru Aran]

The MCU cannot even get it's official fan fiction sorted. I.E Agents of Shield or Inhumans.
I would say the same for the Netflix series but they are all axed and cancelled now.

In theory, the events of AoS show that Coulson and Co. actually stopped Infinity War before it even started due to their own time travel loop plot.

Explain this further please. How did the time travel loop prevent the Infinity War?

AoS S5 Spoilers

The spoilers are still broken. They won't work in a post with a quote box. They can be read by quoting the post in your reply but otherwise.

[Crazedwraith]

Saw the re-release today. The film's not changed apart from an intro by one of the russos and bonus material after the credits which are:
Spoiler

first a stan lee tribute. Second a deleted scene of professor hulk saving people from a burning building and third a brief scene from Far From Home with Hill and Fury meeting Mysterio.

Still a fun ride but rewatching has not improved my opinion the way a second viewing of IW did.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't think it would. Endgame is a fanservicy movie that is full of fun surprises the first time around, but has a plot that really doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. I'd expect it to be a movie that would weaken on subsequent viewings for a lot of people.

[ray245]

I wouldn't think it would. Endgame is a fanservicy movie that is full of fun surprises the first time around, but has a plot that really doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. I'd expect it to be a movie that would weaken on subsequent viewings for a lot of people.

It's not a film that's meant to be that closely scrutinised. In fact, I doubt most films really are, as they are meant to be enjoyed as an experience rather than a something that's meant to be scrutinised closely to ensure there's no "plot holes" or issues of some kind.

The reason we don't talk about other films so often is people don't often rewatch those films that often.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't think it would. Endgame is a fanservicy movie that is full of fun surprises the first time around, but has a plot that really doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. I'd expect it to be a movie that would weaken on subsequent viewings for a lot of people.

It's not a film that's meant to be that closely scrutinised. In fact, I doubt most films really are, as they are meant to be enjoyed as an experience rather than a something that's meant to be scrutinised closely to ensure there's no "plot holes" or issues of some kind.

The reason we don't talk about other films so often is people don't often rewatch those films that often.

Personally, I've never bought "You're not supposed to think about it" or "You're not supposed to take it seriously" as an excuse for poor plotting. I think that argument is used a lot towards speculative fiction in particular, ie "Its fantasy, it doesn't have to make sense." But that's ultimately both insulting to the genre and its fans, and just an excuse for lazy writing. If anything, when you're dealing with the fantastical, you have to be even more scrupulously careful to make sure it makes sense if you want the audience to buy into it.

I don't expect Endgame to be the deepest or most innovative or most complex film of the year. But I do expect any narrative drama to have a plot that makes a certain sense given the setting in which it takes place and the characters that have been established. Otherwise, why should I or anyone else bother with it? If they don't care enough to tell a coherent story, why should we care? Why should it mean anything to us, if its just a series of random events, none of which follow logically from each other?

Now, Endgame isn't that bad, but you see my point, surely? And its not as if its impossible to make an action movie with a solid, logical plot- I'd point to the original Terminator, for example, as the gold-star example of someone doing exactly that, and with a time travel plot no less. All of the Terminator's moves feel logical. He comes back naked because of a quirk of how the time travel is established to work in the setting (which ensures that he can't comeback loaded with plasma weaponry). He starts out by acquiring clothes, then weapons, then systematically tracking down everyone in the city named "Sarah Connor" via the phone book. After Sarah escapes from him, he tracks down her mother and impersonates her to lure Sarah into giving away her location. All the Terminator's moves make sense. Even the cool black sunglasses, which are obviously just there to look bad ass and give the character an iconic style, are justified by the plot- the Terminator needs to conceal damage to his eye. The only thing major that might not make sense is the high-profile nature of the Terminator's attacks, drawing more police attention than a supposed infiltrator really needs to for the sake of action spectacle, but this is pretty excusable given the Terminator's origin in a war zone, the fact that there's little the police can actually do to it (stopping it would likely require military-grade weaponry), and that it only escalates to all-out attacks in public after it fails in its initial efforts to kill Sarah, and after she has Reese helping her.

Reese's actions, likewise, all make sense. Like the Terminator, he starts out acquiring clothes and weapons, then locates Sarah and tries to fly below the radar, before ultimately sacrificing himself to cripple the Terminator when that fails. The only oddity is that he would try to convince the authorities that he's from another time when he's arrested, which is either going to be disregarded, or potentially create a paradox, but given the stakes Reese is obviously desperate at that point, and that by his own admission later in the film, he doesn't really understand the mechanics of time travel, it doesn't feel hugely-illogical or out of character.

Sarah's actions make sense as well. Her initial confusion and fear, followed by disbelief, and gradual acceptance as the evidence piles up. Attempting to reach the authorities, going to a public place thinking she'll be safe, etc., and only trusting Reese fully once it is clear that he can help her more than the authorities can. She learns from her mistakes as she goes, and becomes steadily more capable throughout the film. You could argue that the romance is a bit rushed but... adrenaline, I suppose. Though I've always wondered if either Reese or Sarah guessed that they were fulfilling a temporal loop at the time.

The whole time travel plot, likewise, works- its a neat, self-fulfilling loop, no contradictions or numerous alternate timelines getting jumbled together (the later films in the franchise, of course, threw this away completely). Skynet loses the war in the future. It sends a Terminator back to kill John Connor's mother before he's born. The Resistance sends someone after it (John likely knew from Sarah how the whole loop would play out, and acted accordingly). Reese protects Sarah, they end up falling for each other, conceiving John, and the Terminator is destroyed, with its remains being recovered (not sure if this was revealed until Judgement Day) and reverse-engineered to lead to Skynet's creation in the first place. One might ask why Skynet would have a good enough grasp of time travel theory to build a working time machine, but not to figure out the whole paradox vs time loop issue, but at that point, it had nothing left to loose, and even if it was aware of what would happen, would also realize that it would have to act as it did to create its own existence (which would, interestingly, make Skynet not all that different from John in some respects- both built/raised to be weapons in future wars, both trapped by the time loop, and both ultimately choosing to act as they are predestined to do to ensure their own existence).*.

This could be argued to clash with the idea that "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves", but I suppose you could argue that the loop only came into being in the first place because of the choices the people on each side made. Or you could see a religious metaphor, with people having free will but "God" (aka John Connor) knowing what choices we will ultimately make (I've read at least one analysis that argued that it was not a coincidence that John Connor and Jesus Christ have the same initials, which would also put Sarah in the Virgin Mary role as the mother of the Savior).

Doctor Who's "Blink" is another excellent example of a fairly well-crafted time loop plot. I'm not saying this is the only good way to write time travel stories, but it is the easiest way to write a coherent one. Any other approach creates a lot of issues and implications that either need to be thought through very carefully, or are best not thought about at all. Endgame, in comparison, is an ill-considered, sloppy, amateurish mess.

Note that the above is also why I tend to consider all subsequent Terminator films, even the beloved Judgement Day, inferior- while Judgement Day surpasses the original on spectacle and quality of acting, its plot is far less flawlessly-constructed, and it actually seems to retcon some pretty important stuff from the first film (only organic matter can go back in time, the self-fulfilling time loop plot). I'd still hold up original Terminator as probably the best example of plotting in a Hollywood action or time travel film that I've seen.

*Damn it, now I have to write a fanfic of Skynet as a tragic villain trapped by its own destiny, who sends back the Terminator knowing it will always lose, but also knowing that if it doesn't, and that if it doesn't wage the whole genocidal war with humanity, neither it or the world it knows will ever exist at all.

[ray245]

I wouldn't think it would. Endgame is a fanservicy movie that is full of fun surprises the first time around, but has a plot that really doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. I'd expect it to be a movie that would weaken on subsequent viewings for a lot of people.

It's not a film that's meant to be that closely scrutinised. In fact, I doubt most films really are, as they are meant to be enjoyed as an experience rather than a something that's meant to be scrutinised closely to ensure there's no "plot holes" or issues of some kind.

The reason we don't talk about other films so often is people don't often rewatch those films that often.

Personally, I've never bought "You're not supposed to think about it" or "You're not supposed to take it seriously" as an excuse for poor plotting. I think that argument is used a lot towards speculative fiction in particular, ie "Its fantasy, it doesn't have to make sense." But that's ultimately both insulting to the genre and its fans, and just an excuse for lazy writing. If anything, when you're dealing with the fantastical, you have to be even more scrupulously careful to make sure it makes sense if you want the audience to buy into it.

I don't expect Endgame to be the deepest or most innovative or most complex film of the year. But I do expect any narrative drama to have a plot that makes a certain sense given the setting in which it takes place and the characters that have been established. Otherwise, why should I or anyone else bother with it? If they don't care enough to tell a coherent story, why should we care? Why should it mean anything to us, if its just a series of random events, none of which follow logically from each other?

Now, Endgame isn't that bad, but you see my point, surely? And its not as if its impossible to make an action movie with a solid, logical plot- I'd point to the original Terminator, for example, as the gold-star example of someone doing exactly that, and with a time travel plot no less. All of the Terminator's moves feel logical. He comes back naked because of a quirk of how the time travel is established to work in the setting (which ensures that he can't comeback loaded with plasma weaponry). He starts out by acquiring clothes, then weapons, then systematically tracking down everyone in the city named "Sarah Connor" via the phone book. After Sarah escapes from him, he tracks down her mother and impersonates her to lure Sarah into giving away her location. All the Terminator's moves make sense. Even the cool black sunglasses, which are obviously just there to look bad ass and give the character an iconic style, are justified by the plot- the Terminator needs to conceal damage to his eye. The only thing major that might not make sense is the high-profile nature of the Terminator's attacks, drawing more police attention than a supposed infiltrator really needs to for the sake of action spectacle, but this is pretty excusable given the Terminator's origin in a war zone, the fact that there's little the police can actually do to it (stopping it would likely require military-grade weaponry), and that it only escalates to all-out attacks in public after it fails in its initial efforts to kill Sarah, and after she has Reese helping her.

Reese's actions, likewise, all make sense. Like the Terminator, he starts out acquiring clothes and weapons, then locates Sarah and tries to fly below the radar, before ultimately sacrificing himself to cripple the Terminator when that fails. The only oddity is that he would try to convince the authorities that he's from another time when he's arrested, which is either going to be disregarded, or potentially create a paradox, but given the stakes Reese is obviously desperate at that point, and that by his own admission later in the film, he doesn't really understand the mechanics of time travel, it doesn't feel hugely-illogical or out of character.

Sarah's actions make sense as well. Her initial confusion and fear, followed by disbelief, and gradual acceptance as the evidence piles up. Attempting to reach the authorities, going to a public place thinking she'll be safe, etc., and only trusting Reese fully once it is clear that he can help her more than the authorities can. She learns from her mistakes as she goes, and becomes steadily more capable throughout the film. You could argue that the romance is a bit rushed but... adrenaline, I suppose. Though I've always wondered if either Reese or Sarah guessed that they were fulfilling a temporal loop at the time.

The whole time travel plot, likewise, works- its a neat, self-fulfilling loop, no contradictions or numerous alternate timelines getting jumbled together (the later films in the franchise, of course, threw this away completely). Skynet loses the war in the future. It sends a Terminator back to kill John Connor's mother before he's born. The Resistance sends someone after it (John likely knew from Sarah how the whole loop would play out, and acted accordingly). Reese protects Sarah, they end up falling for each other, conceiving John, and the Terminator is destroyed, with its remains being recovered (not sure if this was revealed until Judgement Day) and reverse-engineered to lead to Skynet's creation in the first place. One might ask why Skynet would have a good enough grasp of time travel theory to build a working time machine, but not to figure out the whole paradox vs time loop issue, but at that point, it had nothing left to loose, and even if it was aware of what would happen, would also realize that it would have to act as it did to create its own existence (which would, interestingly, make Skynet not all that different from John in some respects- both built/raised to be weapons in future wars, both trapped by the time loop, and both ultimately choosing to act as they are predestined to do to ensure their own existence).*.

This could be argued to clash with the idea that "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves", but I suppose you could argue that the loop only came into being in the first place because of the choices the people on each side made. Or you could see a religious metaphor, with people having free will but "God" (aka John Connor) knowing what choices we will ultimately make (I've read at least one analysis that argued that it was not a coincidence that John Connor and Jesus Christ have the same initials, which would also put Sarah in the Virgin Mary role as the mother of the Savior).

Doctor Who's "Blink" is another excellent example of a fairly well-crafted time loop plot. I'm not saying this is the only good way to write time travel stories, but it is the easiest way to write a coherent one. Any other approach creates a lot of issues and implications that either need to be thought through very carefully, or are best not thought about at all. Endgame, in comparison, is an ill-considered, sloppy, amateurish mess.

Note that the above is also why I tend to consider all subsequent Terminator films, even the beloved Judgement Day, inferior- while Judgement Day surpasses the original on spectacle and quality of acting, its plot is far less flawlessly-constructed, and it actually seems to retcon some pretty important stuff from the first film (only organic matter can go back in time, the self-fulfilling time loop plot). I'd still hold up original Terminator as probably the best example of plotting in a Hollywood action or time travel film that I've seen.

*Damn it, now I have to write a fanfic of Skynet as a tragic villain trapped by its own destiny, who sends back the Terminator knowing it will always lose, but also knowing that if it doesn't, and that if it doesn't wage the whole genocidal war with humanity, neither it or the world it knows will ever exist at all.

My counterpoints is that there are different kinds of movies with different ways of entertaining the audience. Some movies are more plot-driven, requiring more of a well-crafted narrative to build an enjoyable experience. Other kinds of movies is more of a emotional roller-coasters, in which a collection of different snippet of scenes creates a "mood" for the audience to get excited and emotional about.

We're "taught" to value things that "makes sense" from a narrative/plot based perspective, but now I am increasingly less inclined to believe that is the only way people enjoy movies. Sometimes, people would rather "making sense" for an emotional roller-coaster ride like Endgame.

I think there's a danger in treating a film as a book. Films aren't text. The importance of plot does not matter in film the same way it does in a book. We forget the plot more easily when we are watching a film compared to reading a book because the other elements like acting, directing, visual spectacle, music creates a fundamentally different experience for the audience. The way you structure a film is more about how you go about designing a good roller-coaster ride, at what point do you speed up, at what point do you slow down. And if the plot itself have to suffer a little at the expense of giving the audience those emotional moments, then so be it.

A film reviewer, Mark Kermode from BBC makes a really good point why he thinks Endgames works even with all the plot issues. He argues that it is the film's ability to evoke emotions from the audience that is more important that other stuff.


8.15 mark.

Some people do value plot consistency more so than others, but it is not a universal thing. I think being too hung-up about plot is very much more of an internet movie-buffs thing more so than how many people enjoy a movie.

If a movie that doesn't makes much sense if you think too hard about it can make me feel emotional on a fundamental level, I think that is good enough for me. I don't think that's being insulting in any sense because I value the emotional experience in a movie more so than I value the plot of a movie.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

How a film makes you feel is illustrated perfectly in this Moment of Awesome:




Seems the moments that get the biggest reactions tend to involve Thor!

[Tribble]

*snip

Just a nitpick, but IIRC there was dialogue in The Terminator mentioning alternative timelines; Reese mentions to Sarah that he was from one possible future, and later on you have Johns message pointing out that the future was not set.

Anyways, while I don’t generally care about plot points in movies I do care when they deliberately draw attention to one only to ignore it later on. In Endgame they discussed the dangers of time travel and in particular the danger of creating alternate timelines, only to have the heroes go all Homer Simpson without much, if anything, in the way of consequences. Why bother bringing it up in the first place then? If your not going to be consistent anyways, you might as well take out the plot contrivances and save some run time - IMO Endgame felt pretty bloated at 3 hours.

[Crazedwraith]

*snip

Just a nitpick, but IIRC there was dialogue in The Terminator mentioning alternative timelines; Reese mentions to Sarah that he was from one possible future, and later on you have Johns message pointing out that the future was not set.

It was along the lines of "One possible Future maybe I don't know tech stuff" and Connor saying the future's not set was part of a general buck up message to Sarah telling her what she needed to hear.

I could be wrong but to me I'd interpret that 'the time travel works as a stable timeloop but the characters themselves don't know that'

[Tribble]

*snip

Just a nitpick, but IIRC there was dialogue in The Terminator mentioning alternative timelines; Reese mentions to Sarah that he was from one possible future, and later on you have Johns message pointing out that the future was not set.

It was along the lines of "One possible Future maybe I don't know tech stuff" and Connor saying the future's not set was part of a general buck up message to Sarah telling her what she needed to hear.

I could be wrong but to me I'd interpret that 'the time travel works as a stable timeloop but the characters themselves don't know that'

*Looks up dialogue*

Sarah- so you’re from the future?
Reese- one possible future, from your point of view. I don’t know tech stuff.

Well I guess it’s up to personal interpretation, though I’ve always taken Reese at his word (plus the sequels more or less confirm it). I don’t think Reese needed to be an expert on temporal mechanics to understand something along the lines of “the stakes here are real, and if Sarah dies Skynet wins in that timeline”.

That’s not to say I’m right either, IMO it could go either way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just a nitpick, but IIRC there was dialogue in The Terminator mentioning alternative timelines; Reese mentions to Sarah that he was from one possible future, and later on you have Johns message pointing out that the future was not set.

It was along the lines of "One possible Future maybe I don't know tech stuff" and Connor saying the future's not set was part of a general buck up message to Sarah telling her what she needed to hear.

I could be wrong but to me I'd interpret that 'the time travel works as a stable timeloop but the characters themselves don't know that'

*Looks up dialogue*

Sarah- so you’re from the future?
Reese- one possible future, from your point of view. I don’t know tech stuff.

Well I guess it’s up to personal interpretation, though I’ve always taken Reese at his word (plus the sequels more or less confirm it). I don’t think Reese needed to be an expert on temporal mechanics to understand something along the lines of “the stakes here are real, and if Sarah dies Skynet wins in that timeline”.

That’s not to say I’m right either, IMO it could go either way.

Note also that he specifies that its one possible future from Sarah's point of view.

The intention of the first film certainly seems to be a loop in which Skynet and John Connor essential create themselves. However, the later films move it towards multiple timelines (and, not coincidentally in my opinion, are considerably messier and less elegant, plot-wise).

*snip

Just a nitpick, but IIRC there was dialogue in The Terminator mentioning alternative timelines; Reese mentions to Sarah that he was from one possible future, and later on you have Johns message pointing out that the future was not set.

Anyways, while I don’t generally care about plot points in movies I do care when they deliberately draw attention to one only to ignore it later on. In Endgame they discussed the dangers of time travel and in particular the danger of creating alternate timelines, only to have the heroes go all Homer Simpson without much, if anything, in the way of consequences. Why bother bringing it up in the first place then? If your not going to be consistent anyways, you might as well take out the plot contrivances and save some run time - IMO Endgame felt pretty bloated at 3 hours.

Yeah. The time travel mainly exists so they can have lots of fan-service call-backs to prior films, but it isn't terribly well-executed, so the result is a movie which is a lot of fun for fans if you subject it to zero scrutiny. You could easily have written the story differently, so that Thanos didn't destroy the Gauntlet, and there would be not time travel plot. Hell, I could even envision a film where the Gauntlet is destroyed but they Infinity Stones reemerge (or someone figures out how to recreate them), because they're not just a piece of fancy tech., but fundamental cosmic forces. There was zero need for a time travel plot at all, much less one so muddy in its execution. If they were going to do it, they ought to have kept it as simple as possible.

Well, I guess they needed it to bring Gamora-but-not-really-the-same-Gamora into play. But does that really justify that whole swollen mess of a plot?

[Tribble]

Note also that he specifies that its one possible future from Sarah's point of view.
The intention of the first film certainly seems to be a loop in which Skynet and John Connor essential create themselves. However, the later films move it towards multiple timelines (and, not coincidentally in my opinion, are considerably messier and less elegant, plot-wise).

Which would be the same for her whether or not it is a loop or an alternate timeline. If it is a loop, it's a possible future in the sense that she's not yet fully aware of the details. If its an alternate timeline, it's a possible future in the sense that she could change it.

Again it really boils down to how you view the film and which way you prefer. Which is why people keep discussing it 35+ years later

Yeah. The time travel mainly exists so they can have lots of fan-service call-backs to prior films, but it isn't terribly well-executed, so the result is a movie which is a lot of fun for fans if you subject it to zero scrutiny. You could easily have written the story differently, so that Thanos didn't destroy the Gauntlet, and there would be not time travel plot. Hell, I could even envision a film where the Gauntlet is destroyed but they Infinity Stones reemerge (or someone figures out how to recreate them), because they're not just a piece of fancy tech., but fundamental cosmic forces. There was zero need for a time travel plot at all, much less one so muddy in its execution. If they were going to do it, they ought to have kept it as simple as possible.

Yeah, I was kind of taken aback by the whole time travel story and saw it as a bunch of bloated fan-service. Trying to get the gauntlet back would have been more interesting IMO. Or at least make more sense. Maybe even give a bit more screen time to Ronin, as opposed to him being a "villain" for what, maybe 10 minutes?

Well, at least Black Widow finally learned that there are more ways to kill people than jumping on their faces with her thighs. I was half-expecting her to due that to Hawkeye in order to flip herself over the cliff

Well, I guess they needed it to bring Gamora-but-not-really-the-same-Gamora into play. But does that really justify that whole swollen mess of a plot?

I actually thought going into the movie that Gamora's soul was trapped in the Soul Stone and use of the gauntlet would let them re-create a healthy body and put her soul into it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I must grudgingly admit, though, that it makes sense that you can't use the Gauntlet to bring back Soul Stone sacrifices, since you sacrificed them to get the Gauntlet in the first place.

[Tribble]

I must grudgingly admit, though, that it makes sense that you can't use the Gauntlet to bring back Soul Stone sacrifices, since you sacrificed them to get the Gauntlet in the first place.

On the other hand, one would think “Soul for a Soul” could mean that the initial sacrifice could be swapped.

Apart from demanding sacrifices and being needed for the gauntlet, does the Soul Stone actually do anything in the MCU?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I must grudgingly admit, though, that it makes sense that you can't use the Gauntlet to bring back Soul Stone sacrifices, since you sacrificed them to get the Gauntlet in the first place.

On the other hand, one would think “Soul for a Soul” could mean that the initial sacrifice could be swapped.

Apart from demanding sacrifices and being needed for the gauntlet, does the Soul Stone actually do anything in the MCU?

I'm not sure if Thanos demonstrated any abilities with the gauntlet once he got it that weren't present before; certainly it must have some (unknown) power besides the set bonus.

[The Romulan Republic]

I must grudgingly admit, though, that it makes sense that you can't use the Gauntlet to bring back Soul Stone sacrifices, since you sacrificed them to get the Gauntlet in the first place.

On the other hand, one would think “Soul for a Soul” could mean that the initial sacrifice could be swapped.

Possibly, and I'd have loved a scene of Cap trying exactly that with Red Skull during his end of film journey through time.

Problem is, getting the soul back would be of limited use if the body was dead. But would you need the whole Gauntlet to fix that? Or would just the Time Stone suffice? Or would using the Time Stone to reverse death mean they'd never jumped at all?

Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey.

Apart from demanding sacrifices and being needed for the gauntlet, does the Soul Stone actually do anything in the MCU?

Not that I can tell. Its kind of useless. It seems to just exist to force a sacrifice so they can have extra angst by killing their female leads.

Hmm, I wonder if it could be used to communicate with the spirits of the dead, or act as a portal to the afterlife?

[Tribble]

Hmm, I wonder if it could be used to communicate with the spirits of the dead, or act as a portal to the afterlife?

Even assuming there is an afterlife in the MCU, I don’t think so? When he sees Gamora it doesn’t appear to be her, but rather some child-like representation. Maybe it’s true power is to help you do some “soul searching?”

Now that I think of it, IIRC Thanos used the Soul Stone to dispel the multiple Stranges during their battle and knocked Strange out of his body, though Strange was able to put himself back in. Not exactly impressive feats given that the Reality Stone ought to be able to dissolve the copies as well and the Ancient One did the exact same thing to Bruce Banner.

Kinda sad that the Captain Planet’s Power of Heart is starting to look good in comparison

[Crazedwraith]

So the response to 'instantly gives you abilities that are only seen used by the sorcerer supreme, most poerful magic user in existence' is a solid 'meh'?

And people would prefer that the Avengers' initial desperate plan was the one that would work?just recover the stones and snap?