Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think they handled Captain Marvel really nicely.

She’s a very new addition to the cast, and clearly the ‘ardest of the lot. And by a country mile.

Yes, she could go toe-to-toe with Thanos, but not with great ease. He’s still too much when he’s got even a single Infinity Stone.

But we also see that she’s got the strength and skill to tackle him. She doesn’t even flinch when he nuts her (being nutted hurts, forcing him to take more drastic measures.

So much more interesting than doing a Supes and just turning The Bad into a greasy smear.

So, some things that seemed odd.

- Why didn't they stop Thanos from destroying the stones, instead of risking breaking time? That's a much more logical course of action than hopping around time and space and screwing up the time line. Yes, he has the gauntlet, but he's not expecting the Avengers to suddenly ambush him, they'll have Captain Marvel on their side and they've worked out how to stop him from using the gauntlet, as seen in the initial ambush at his garder.

- If removing the infinity stones have disastrous consequences, wouldn't destroying the stones do the same thing? Shouldn't Dornamu or whatever look and go "oh hey, the time stone is gone, so Strange can't stop me anymore. Time to turn this universe into a DOOM clone"

- Why didn't Nebula just teleport out? It takes like 3 seconds. Or at least destroy the teleport device. She had plenty of time to do that before getting captured.

- Hollywood should really stop trying to do huge battles. They never get it right. Ok, so they have tanks, aircraft and advanced firearms, and they decide to run at each other and go at it like school children? I thought the battle in the first part was dumb, this is worse. It should have just been Thanos and his generals, or just Thanos with the gauntlet. Melees are a great tactic if you want a bloodbath and don't care about your men dying. Otherwise they are dumb, especially when firearms are involved, where a combatant can just shoot some guy before his target could react.

How do they prevent Thanos destroying The Stones?

They didn’t know where he was until he did that. It was the energy signature of their destruction that allowed them to trace him.

And by then, it was done. There’s also his line about them just being temptation. That’s why he did it, as much as prevent his work being undone. That may well have rung true to the Goodies here. The Infinity Cat is out the Infinity Bag. They’re just going to become a target for every petty Warlord out there demanding the universe kneels before them. It’s genuinely better to let them be gone. Even if they failed in Endgame, things couldn’t get worse. There’s a lot to be said for that.

Removing the Stones from a passed timeline is dodgy. Removing them after the fact isn’t - as that timeline is still unfolding etc.

Nebula was clearly having some kind of technological fit. Gone haywire. She’s also not exactly noted for being completely rational.

It’s a cinema battle. Needs to be cinematic.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do they prevent Thanos destroying The Stones?

They didn’t know where he was until he did that. It was the energy signature of their destruction that allowed them to trace him.

Exactly, they traced the energy signature to that world. So they know exactly when and where Thanos is going to destroy the stones, meaning they can use time travel to intercept him.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
- Why didn't they stop Thanos from destroying the stones, instead of risking breaking time?

You cannot change the future by going back in time. The movie spells that out completely.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
- Why didn't they stop Thanos from destroying the stones, instead of risking breaking time?

You cannot change the future by going back in time. The movie spells that out completely.

Except that doesn't make sense? I mean, what is stopping Thanos from destroying the stones going to do exactly, other than make the movie shorter?
Like, I can understand that shooting baby Thanos is a bad idea, as there's a bunch of variables, but there's not that many variables behind not destroying the stones.
Edit: Ah wait, that's right, it would make a paradox. Ok, fair enough, but wouldn't stealing the stones also make a paradox or a bunch of nonsense? I mean, they basically freed Loki, right? And they killed past Thanos, which basically undoes everything.
Also, if returning the stones resolves the paradox, why didn't they just go back, steal the stones from Thanos by knocking him out (they have Thor and Captain Marvel, should be possible), go back to the present, wish everyone back, go back, destroy the stones, then return? Isn't that basically what they did with the Time Heist, except its 5 years back instead of 9-40 years back?

There’s no paradox.

Because the Stones are put back where and when they found them, the previous events all still happen in the same way.

Even Cap staying with Peggy changes little, provided Peggy kept schtum about it. Because whilst Future Cap is living the good life, past Cap remains a Capsicile.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s no paradox.

Because the Stones are put back where and when they found them, the previous events all still happen in the same way.

Even Cap staying with Peggy changes little, provided Peggy kept schtum about it. Because whilst Future Cap is living the good life, past Cap remains a Capsicile.

Except they killed past Thanos and freed Loki. Sounds like a paradox to me. Not to mention that he stole the Tesseract, and I don't even know what can of worms that opens in terms of space time continuity.

So here's what the new time line is like -

They kill past Thanos in 2024, meaning that he can't go back to gather the infinity stones to wipe out 50% of life in the universe, which SHOULD stop the events of Endgame from happening, resulting in a paradox

Loki is too busy being free to help Thor deal with the Dark Elves in Dark World, which probably has all sorts of implications, but I'm not sure what they are. Probably significant though considering how he's a main character.

I sat down to watch the series finale of a television show I know almost nothing about, it didn't make sense to me, so I didn't like it.

Oh I got most of it, I just still didnt enjoy it.

Anyways, I'll leave you chaps to the rest of the discussion

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s no paradox.

Because the Stones are put back where and when they found them, the previous events all still happen in the same way.

Even Cap staying with Peggy changes little, provided Peggy kept schtum about it. Because whilst Future Cap is living the good life, past Cap remains a Capsicile.

Except they killed past Thanos and freed Loki. Sounds like a paradox to me. Not to mention that he stole the Tesseract, and I don't even know what can of worms that opens in terms of space time continuity.

So here's what the new time line is like -

They kill past Thanos in 2024, meaning that he can't go back to gather the infinity stones to wipe out 50% of life in the universe, which SHOULD stop the events of Endgame from happening, resulting in a paradox

Loki is too busy being free to help Thor deal with the Dark Elves in Dark World, which probably has all sorts of implications, but I'm not sure what they are. Probably significant though considering how he's a main character.

Nope. They spell this out explicitly in the film. Changing the past does not change events that you have already witnessed, because you have already observed them. Observation of an event cements that event in time. This is a measurable phenomenon in our universe, through observations of quantum mechanical processes. If a quantum process means that you have two possible outcomes with a 50% chance each and you observe it at a specific time to be outcome A, then it was always outcome A at that point of time and will continue to evolve as if it was never possible for it to not be outcome A. Observation changes the universe by removing possible alternative observations.

So when they go back and Loki gets freed, that results in a separate timeline where Loki escaped. This does not change their timeline, only creates a different branch of time. Same with past Thanos. In their timeline he succeeded in the snap. They saw this, it is a part of their past, it happened. That cannot be changed. Past Thanos dying just creates an alternate timeline where Thanos went to their future and died.

Basically the only movie that did Time Travel right was Bill and Ted.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
- Why didn't they stop Thanos from destroying the stones, instead of risking breaking time?

You cannot change the future by going back in time. The movie spells that out completely.

They also would have had to face off against a Thanos wearing the Infinity gauntlet. So they ambush him, and...what? He uses the gauntlet to erase the team from existence before they can hurt him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s no paradox.

Because the Stones are put back where and when they found them, the previous events all still happen in the same way.

Even Cap staying with Peggy changes little, provided Peggy kept schtum about it. Because whilst Future Cap is living the good life, past Cap remains a Capsicile.

Except they killed past Thanos and freed Loki. Sounds like a paradox to me. Not to mention that he stole the Tesseract, and I don't even know what can of worms that opens in terms of space time continuity.

So here's what the new time line is like -

They kill past Thanos in 2024, meaning that he can't go back to gather the infinity stones to wipe out 50% of life in the universe, which SHOULD stop the events of Endgame from happening, resulting in a paradox

Loki is too busy being free to help Thor deal with the Dark Elves in Dark World, which probably has all sorts of implications, but I'm not sure what they are. Probably significant though considering how he's a main character.

Nope. They spell this out explicitly in the film. Changing the past does not change events that you have already witnessed, because you have already observed them. Observation of an event cements that event in time. This is a measurable phenomenon in our universe, through observations of quantum mechanical processes. If a quantum process means that you have two possible outcomes with a 50% chance each and you observe it at a specific time to be outcome A, then it was always outcome A at that point of time and will continue to evolve as if it was never possible for it to not be outcome A. Observation changes the universe by removing possible alternative observations.

So when they go back and Loki gets freed, that results in a separate timeline where Loki escaped. This does not change their timeline, only creates a different branch of time. Same with past Thanos. In their timeline he succeeded in the snap. They saw this, it is a part of their past, it happened. That cannot be changed. Past Thanos dying just creates an alternate timeline where Thanos went to their future and died.

If you can’t change the present by going to the past, how did old Steve get on that bench?

And sure, they have tech that lets them go forward and backwards in time. How do they hop between different alternate timelines?

 AduroT wrote:
If you can’t change the present by going to the past, how did old Steve get on that bench?

And sure, they have tech that lets them go forward and backwards in time. How do they hop between different alternate timelines?

Because either A) Cap always makes that choice and it's part of all branches every time. B) We have always been watching that branch. or C) The movie switched over to that branch when Steve went back in time.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Good. Do your personal feelings about Brie Larson have anything to do with Endgame?

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Good. Do your personal feelings about Brie Larson have anything to do with Endgame?

It certainly affected anytime she came on the screen. Which is why I said that I’m glad the SJW part lasted 30 seconds and she had roughly 13 minutes of screen time. The other 2 hours and 47 minutes were glorious though.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Good. Do your personal feelings about Brie Larson have anything to do with Endgame?

It certainly affected anytime she came on the screen. Which is why I said that I’m glad the SJW part lasted 30 seconds and she had roughly 13 minutes of screen time. The other 2 hours and 47 minutes were glorious though.

So that would be a No.

First, The "SJW part" is a direct reference to the comics. BTW if you don't like "sjw" parts, stop watching marvel movies. It sounds like the x-men are coming. They are one big "sjw part". Outside of the xmen, captain america would be a SJW, and has been, the entire time. Literally. An actual warrior for social justice since his first appearance. If SJW bothers you then Mavel is going to keep shoving it in your face.

Second, I hate Mel Gibson as a person. I don't watch movies with Mel Gibson in them. If I did, I wouldn't go on the internet, find a forum talking about the movie and then tell everyone about how much I hate Mel Gibson. Those are the actions of a person desperate for validation.

 Lance845 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
If you can’t change the present by going to the past, how did old Steve get on that bench?

And sure, they have tech that lets them go forward and backwards in time. How do they hop between different alternate timelines?

Because either A) Cap always makes that choice and it's part of all branches every time. B) We have always been watching that branch. or C) The movie switched over to that branch when Steve went back in time.

Also, because they're using the Quantum Realm to time travel, they may be locked to their own specific timelines when returning to the present, so that no matter how much they might change the past, they'll still return to the present they already have.

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Good. Do your personal feelings about Brie Larson have anything to do with Endgame?

It certainly affected anytime she came on the screen. Which is why I said that I’m glad the SJW part lasted 30 seconds and she had roughly 13 minutes of screen time. The other 2 hours and 47 minutes were glorious though.

So that would be a No.

First, The "SJW part" is a direct reference to the comics. BTW if you don't like "sjw" parts, stop watching marvel movies. It sounds like the x-men are coming. They are one big "sjw part". Outside of the xmen, captain america would be a SJW, and has been, the entire time. Literally. An actual warrior for social justice since his first appearance. If SJW bothers you then Mavel is going to keep shoving it in your face.

Second, I hate Mel Gibson as a person. I don't watch movies with Mel Gibson in them. If I did, I wouldn't go on the internet, find a forum talking about the movie and then tell everyone about how much I hate Mel Gibson. Those are the actions of a person desperate for validation.

Oof, not looking for any validation but I see someone is I’m free to watch if I enjoy the other 90%, just as I’m free to discuss why I didn’t enjoy the movie as those have expressed what they didn’t enjoy or did. I suggest you find a different soap box, my friend

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ahh I see we finally got to the "gak on Brie Larson" part of the thread.

When you do security fornher during her interviews, and only Sam talks to you, acknowledges you, thanks you and shows you any appreciation what so ever coupled with her stigma, yeah I don’t care for her much

Good. Do your personal feelings about Brie Larson have anything to do with Endgame?

It certainly affected anytime she came on the screen. Which is why I said that I’m glad the SJW part lasted 30 seconds and she had roughly 13 minutes of screen time. The other 2 hours and 47 minutes were glorious though.

So that would be a No.

First, The "SJW part" is a direct reference to the comics. BTW if you don't like "sjw" parts, stop watching marvel movies. It sounds like the x-men are coming. They are one big "sjw part". Outside of the xmen, captain america would be a SJW, and has been, the entire time. Literally. An actual warrior for social justice since his first appearance. If SJW bothers you then Mavel is going to keep shoving it in your face.

Second, I hate Mel Gibson as a person. I don't watch movies with Mel Gibson in them. If I did, I wouldn't go on the internet, find a forum talking about the movie and then tell everyone about how much I hate Mel Gibson. Those are the actions of a person desperate for validation.

Oof, not looking for any validation but I see someone is I’m free to watch if I enjoy the other 90%, just as I’m free to discuss why I didn’t enjoy the movie as those have expressed what they didn’t enjoy or did. I suggest you find a different soap box, my friend

Oh I never denied that you were free to do whatever you wanted. You are. Pull a "Gibson" all day every day. Your freedom to show up and express whatever you want doesn't come with immunity from critique. You liked the movie, except when all the people with tits were on screen together and when the one with tits who speaks her mind IRL was on screen. Got it. Opinion noted. I think it's a gross opinion. And again, it makes me think Marvel movies probably are not made for you. You are not their intended audience.

I have no problem with the girls banding up and not really
accomplishing much. That describes Infinity War

Seriously, the shot just shows that they recognize each other and
will fight together as needed. It's a tease for future teamups
and a reminder that not all endeavors are successful (the entire
plot of Infinitywar/Endgame)

 malfred wrote:
I have no problem with the girls banding up and not really
accomplishing much. That describes Infinity War

Seriously, the shot just shows that they recognize each other and
will fight together as needed. It's a tease for future teamups
and a reminder that not all endeavors are successful (the entire
plot of Infinitywar/Endgame)

Oh they were destroyed, provided nothing to the story and accomplished nothing lol. I did laugh at that part. I believe the above poster thinks I’m being sexcist, when I’m actuality annoyed when arrogant individuals such as Brie(whom some are as revolutionary or open minded or
Not afraid to speak her mind) try to make something about them. There is a petition guys to replace her with a female of color. She should do it, it’s what she is all about after all. Regardless her character is bland the worst marvel brought in to date.

 Lance845 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
If you can’t change the present by going to the past, how did old Steve get on that bench?

And sure, they have tech that lets them go forward and backwards in time. How do they hop between different alternate timelines?

Because either A) Cap always makes that choice and it's part of all branches every time. B) We have always been watching that branch. or C) The movie switched over to that branch when Steve went back in time.

I assume timelines that split off can merge together again once they're free of significant differences. Thinking the universe really cares whether you had Chex or Lucky Charms this morning has always felt a little self important. If putting the stones back can correct the timeline, then going back and living a simple life doesn't necessarily have to alter it either.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
If you can’t change the present by going to the past, how did old Steve get on that bench?

And sure, they have tech that lets them go forward and backwards in time. How do they hop between different alternate timelines?

Because either A) Cap always makes that choice and it's part of all branches every time. B) We have always been watching that branch. or C) The movie switched over to that branch when Steve went back in time.

I assume timelines that split off can merge together again once they're free of significant differences. Thinking the universe really cares whether you had Chex or Lucky Charms this morning has always felt a little self important. If putting the stones back can correct the timeline, then going back and living a simple life doesn't necessarily have to alter it either.

Well THAT time line does have 2 significant splits.

1) Loki grabs the space stone and feths off. We have no idea what that means yet. Loki show coming in November.

2) Thanos and Co. went to the future and never came back. That means no Gamora for either of the Guardians movies, no Nebula either, no infinity war or end game, no half the remaining Asgaurdians dieing in space.... It changes potentially a lot.

Those events happened at different times. So does that mean there is 2 time lines here? The "original" and the one with both divergences? 3? one for each? 4? one for each and one with both? Then toss in the cap staying back.

Doesn't actually matter. Just food for thought.

It's also possible Marvel will simply do the same thing as Elder Scrolls when it comes to "time stuff." I.E. If there is a divergence of events in time, the magic super dragon (Akatosh, or in Marvel's case the Time Stone itself), simply stitches time back into one thread by merging the timelines.

All timelines happen, run their course, then get stitched back up into a single line at the end. ES calls it a Dragon Break and it's the tidiest/coolest way of explaining time paradoxes I've ever seen in fiction. I'd like that route

I imagine we just never hear from those time lines again in any significant way. The marvel multiverse is vast in small and large changes.

The closest we will get is the what if series that will explore all kinds of major divergences.


However, I do agree that dragon breaks are pretty sweet.

I see it as potential story hooks for the future.

End Game tied up a lot of journies after all. So leaving new strands in the breeze makes sense.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also possible Marvel will simply do the same thing as Elder Scrolls when it comes to "time stuff." I.E. If there is a divergence of events in time, the magic super dragon (Akatosh, or in Marvel's case the Time Stone itself), simply stitches time back into one thread by merging the timelines.

All timelines happen, run their course, then get stitched back up into a single line at the end. ES calls it a Dragon Break and it's the tidiest/coolest way of explaining time paradoxes I've ever seen in fiction. I'd like that route

I like Discworld's approach, where the History Monks just steal time from other parts of history to put it all back together as needed, since only the most obsessive of historians will notice the differences, anyway. Just always remember Rule One.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's also possible Marvel will simply do the same thing as Elder Scrolls when it comes to "time stuff." I.E. If there is a divergence of events in time, the magic super dragon (Akatosh, or in Marvel's case the Time Stone itself), simply stitches time back into one thread by merging the timelines.

All timelines happen, run their course, then get stitched back up into a single line at the end. ES calls it a Dragon Break and it's the tidiest/coolest way of explaining time paradoxes I've ever seen in fiction. I'd like that route

One of the Star Trek novels explains time travel like that. The divergent timeline(s) ediet only between the time the traveler left and the time he visited, and outside of that range, forward and backwards, quantum mechanics merges the two timelines into one set of cause(s) and effect. IN that paradigm, old Cap suddenly snapped into existence the moment Endgame cap went back, with al of the intervening time leaving only a few alterations, not on the teams' past but only in their future...and extreme past if there are more Time Heist type events.