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.

Just because a soul has to be traded for the soul stone doesn't mean you get a soul back for returning it; this isn't like taking a sweater back to a department store.

 Ahtman wrote:
Just because a soul has to be traded for the soul stone doesn't mean you get a soul back for returning it; this isn't like taking a sweater back to a department store.

the real question is: Did Red skull have to trade a soul to get the soul stone back from Cap?

-

 Galef wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Just because a soul has to be traded for the soul stone doesn't mean you get a soul back for returning it; this isn't like taking a sweater back to a department store.

the real question is: Did Red skull have to trade a soul to get the soul stone back from Cap?

-

No, in the same way that Hulk, Tony, Spiderman, and everyone else who held all the stones didn't need to keep sacrificing people to get the stone. The soul for a soul deal is just to get the stone to appear to begin with.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Just because a soul has to be traded for the soul stone doesn't mean you get a soul back for returning it; this isn't like taking a sweater back to a department store.

the real question is: Did Red skull have to trade a soul to get the soul stone back from Cap?

-

No, in the same way that Hulk, Tony, Spiderman, and everyone else who held all the stones didn't need to keep sacrificing people to get the stone. The soul for a soul deal is just to get the stone to appear to begin with.

Right. I was joking, unsuccessfully apparently.

But on a more serious note, would Red skull have even been there? He was only there to guide people to the stone and inform them of the sacrifice needed. Once Hawkeye/Thanos got the stone, wouldn't Red Skull just peace-out.
Imagine him feeling the relief of his freedom just to turn around to see Cap giving him the stone back

-

I believe in an interview it was confirmed that once the stone was removed it was possible for Skull to leave Vormir.

 LunarSol wrote:
I believe in an interview it was confirmed that once the stone was removed it was possible for Skull to leave Vormir.

Potentially good for bringing a villain back, but rather begs the question of how a 1940s loony gets off an alien planet. Particularly one that doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic.
Plus as the quintessential Cap villain (and particularly a Steve Rogers villain), he's rather wasted without his protagonist.

Voss wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I believe in an interview it was confirmed that once the stone was removed it was possible for Skull to leave Vormir.

Potentially good for bringing a villain back, but rather begs the question of how a 1940s loony gets off an alien planet. Particularly one that doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic.
Plus as the quintessential Cap villain (and particularly a Steve Rogers villain), he's rather wasted without his protagonist.

The Red Skull works as a villain for Bucky as well.

Voss wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I believe in an interview it was confirmed that once the stone was removed it was possible for Skull to leave Vormir.

Potentially good for bringing a villain back, but rather begs the question of how a 1940s loony gets off an alien planet. Particularly one that doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic.
Plus as the quintessential Cap villain (and particularly a Steve Rogers villain), he's rather wasted without his protagonist.

There could be a storyline about resurgent Nazi-ism/Fascism I suppose where the Red Skull could play a part.

They manage to use him a lot in the Cartoons as a simple "evil genius" type character.

 Galef wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Just because a soul has to be traded for the soul stone doesn't mean you get a soul back for returning it; this isn't like taking a sweater back to a department store.

the real question is: Did Red skull have to trade a soul to get the soul stone back from Cap?

-

No, in the same way that Hulk, Tony, Spiderman, and everyone else who held all the stones didn't need to keep sacrificing people to get the stone. The soul for a soul deal is just to get the stone to appear to begin with.

Right. I was joking, unsuccessfully apparently.

But on a more serious note, would Red skull have even been there? He was only there to guide people to the stone and inform them of the sacrifice needed. Once Hawkeye/Thanos got the stone, wouldn't Red Skull just peace-out.
Imagine him feeling the relief of his freedom just to turn around to see Cap giving him the stone back

-

Well seems Joe Russo confirmed Cap did meet him while returning to stone. So he wouldn't peace out as he ended up stuck with the stone anyway!

BTW had missed that the two characters were same. Ah well. Not biggest MCU fan's anyway and actor changing didn't help.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I've also heard an argument that Steve returned all the stones to where he found them, then popped over to an alternate universe to live out his life with Peggy, then popped back to hand over the shield to Falcon. I'm not entirely happy with that* but there you go.

* Mainly because I find alternate realities irritating and an excuse for bad split-screen effects. However, the trailer for Spiderman Far From home seems to be going that way so I'll just need to suck it up.

Couldn't he have just gone to steal one of the stones... creating a split universe, lived out his life, then went back to the point he stole it, thus restablishing the original timeline, but Cap would be the only one who'd remember it, but he would return an old man?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh as a question... Black Widows states it was half of all living creatures doesn't she? We can also see that included the birds around that tree when they saw their gambit worked.

So what does that mean for some creatures that are on the verge of extinction? The last few rhinos or something?
Did he wipe out half of all living things, or just animals?
What about bacteria? Fungus? Trees? Plants etc? That's a lot of dust!

It seems as though it might be animals... so is the 50% distinguishing between species? So are exactly 50% of humans wiped out.... or is it just 50% of all creatures... so in some cases entire species wiped out, while others are untouched (as it's random).

TarkinLarson wrote:
Oh as a question... Black Widows states it was half of all living creatures doesn't she? We can also see that included the birds around that tree when they saw their gambit worked.

So what does that mean for some creatures that are on the verge of extinction? The last few rhinos or something?
Did he wipe out half of all living things, or just animals?
What about bacteria? Fungus? Trees? Plants etc? That's a lot of dust!

It seems as though it might be animals... so is the 50% distinguishing between species? So are exactly 50% of humans wiped out.... or is it just 50% of all creatures... so in some cases entire species wiped out, while others are untouched (as it's random).

Umm, I don't think anyone "really" thought about the deep practical or philosophical connotations of the narrative contrivance that was "The Snap." It's quite effective in it's superficiality as a narrative device, driving home Thanos' "ruthlessness" but as an actual principle, or a thing that could be done? Well, you highlight the various problems.

What happens if there is only one of a certain species left? Does it stay or go. What if there are 3, how many disappear? And why would plants be "exempt" from it?

I'd guess, if you really wanted to try to somehow "explain it" is to say that it performs some action in accordance with Thanos' "intent" rather than enacts a substantive process. So, it doesn't affect plants because Thanos could care less about plants. It only hits things he would consider "a problem." That category actually has no real "content" in-itself, but rather, is supplied on a sort of "determinate negation," that is, he knows what he wants to hit less as the properties of thing things in-themselves and more as what things he does not care about at all (seemingly, plants, for example).

In a manner, again, even though for cinematic purposes, it looks like a process, in my weird mind, the only way it works if that the stones make it so the world itself match the world Thanos desires. In other words, it just makes things as he "figures" they "should" be. So, does that mean is a .5 multiplier on all birds as whole, or .5 times each species. The answer is...who knows? It's however Thanos "envisions" the end in-itself. So, in his "ideal" world half of all life is gone, "proportionally" in all likelihood, and the Stone probably deliver that as nearly as possible. In some cases, where, say some unique creature exists, maybe literally half of it disappears. But, since the Stone should know his "desired" outcome, it likely rules any corner case in whatever favor he'd figure. Which is totally arbitrary and based on who-knows-what.

How messed up would it be if he removed half of all the food sources at the same time?

And did it include trees and general plant life?

If it was ‘half of all sentient life’, then his plan is a solid if horrific one.

If it wasn’t? What’s he actually solved? And how many endangered species did he set firmly on the path to extinction?

Magic space wishy glove gonna do what magic space wishy glove gonna do.

It's pretty clear it only snapped the equivalent of "people". I mean, the snap itself happened in a tree grove and nothing in the background changed. How that works? Magic space wishy glove magic. Earlier in the film the Reality gem is able to make a fake Benicio del Toro that for some reason trolls Star Lord when it fades out of existence. The implications of that are... kind of disturbing honestly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If it was ‘half of all sentient life’, then his plan is a solid if horrific one.

Well, then we have the non-trivial problem of solving for what "sentience" actually means.

Or what is consciousness? What if there is a planet full of p-zombies, does that one get Snapped or not?

I think, with a cursory Google search, that the writers implied that everything living gets Snapped, including plants, so there is that.

But you still have the same sort of problem, because now you need a good answer to just what qualifies as "life" or not. That actually is something that we don't have a particularly solid scientific definition of, although it sure seems we should. It really seems like something that has a clear-cut conceptual space, but there seem to "always" be holes in conceptual spaces we like to make.

For example, viruses are sort of living things, yet fail many of the criteria we would be apt to put to something to consider it living. So, like I said, it really would come down to Thanos' completely arbitrary desire. Would that include a virus? I think yes, it fits our "idea" of life, even if it fails some of the strict criteria. So, basically, the Stones would just arbitrary rule based on Thanos' arbitrary judgement. Thematically fitting, I think.

You have total control over Mind, Soul and Reality. I'm sure together they can come up with a definition better than our own understanding.

 LunarSol wrote:
You have total control over Mind, Soul and Reality. I'm sure together they can come up with a definition better than our own understanding.

Well, even better, with all that you have the power to decide and then that is just what-it-is.

We also need to remember Thanos was completeley insane

A calmly rational mind, in charge of the Infinity Gauntlet?

“Let the resources of all planets support their population at all times, and the relevant solar systems and celestial movements seamlessly allow whatever expansion is required. Let their be a universal plenitude, a veritable realities wide Horn of Plenty”

Does......does anyone have a spare Infinity Gauntlet?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
We also need to remember Thanos was completeley insane

Prime universe Thanos wasn't, particularly. He was just bad at math (as in, our pop growth curve is currently exponential. Suddenly cutting it in half just pushing things back a century. It doesn't actually solve any shortfall problems in any way, just puts them off).
But honestly that's more a writing problem than a character problem. More specifically a research problem, as this is a 'classic' economics dilemma, dating back a couple centuries now, one you give to first year students so they can chew on basic logic.

“Let the resources of all planets support their population at all times, and the relevant solar systems and celestial movements seamlessly allow whatever expansion is required. Let their be a universal plenitude, a veritable realities wide Horn of Plenty”

Unless the power of stones is literally without limit (and citation definitely needed), increasing supply runs into the same issue as cutting the population (its only a delay). And of course, this also leaves our current problem unsolved: no means of distribution, which is far more of an obstacle than the resources existing.

I think it's pretty clear, personally, by the end of Infinity War (which I *DO* like), nevermind Endgame (which I do NOT like, overall), Thanos is completely nuts.

He's a madman, offended by his people not listening to his ideas, deciding that, since they killed themselves, he was proven right, thus encouraging his own Messiah Complex. Over years he nursed and built on these ideas, completely fixating on them as the 'only sane man' in the galaxy that, as far as he could personally see, there was only One Way. One Solution. To Save LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

Because He's Thanos.

And He. Was. Right.

Because He's Thanos.

And he's the Only One that can save the universe.

Because He. Was. Right.

<Continue ad infinitum>
-----------------------------

It's a perfectly solid character rationalisation for a villain, and I'm all for it. - Note, I said Rationalisation, not Justification.

 Compel wrote:
He's a madman

Maybe we could come up with a nickname for him that helps emphasize this. The Crazy Grape? The Mad Titan? The Angry Prune? Just spitballin' here.

 Compel wrote:
I think it's pretty clear, personally, by the end of Infinity War (which I *DO* like), nevermind Endgame (which I do NOT like, overall), Thanos is completely nuts.

He's a madman, offended by his people not listening to his ideas, deciding that, since they killed themselves, he was proven right, thus encouraging his own Messiah Complex. Over years he nursed and built on these ideas, completely fixating on them as the 'only sane man' in the galaxy that, as far as he could personally see, there was only One Way. One Solution. To Save LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

Because He's Thanos.

And He. Was. Right.

Because He's Thanos.

And he's the Only One that can save the universe.

Because He. Was. Right.

<Continue ad infinitum>
-----------------------------

It's a perfectly solid character rationalisation for a villain, and I'm all for it. - Note, I said Rationalisation, not Justification.

But that's neither here nor there. Having a motive (which strikes me as more accurate than rationalization or justification) doesn't make a villain 'completely insane' or not 'completely insane.'
From the first hints of Thanos, up to the first 15 minutes of Endgame, Thanos acts consistently and rationally according to his motives. The only real disconnect is that his plan doesn't actually achieve his goals, but that again is writer failure rather than a character failure. The movies present his solution as a real outcome that's morally abhorrent, but workable.

Its only Endgame's Universe B Thanos that really goes off the rails and discards everything he's done and worked for in favor of total obliteration.

Even then, "I tried half, you wouldn't get back in your box, so now I'm going back to square one and starting over" has a certain logic to it that's consistent with his previous actions.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Compel wrote:
He's a madman

Maybe we could come up with a nickname for him that helps emphasize this. The Crazy Grape? The Mad Titan? The Angry Prune? Just spitballin' here.

The Mad Titan is in fact one of his legit nicknames in the Marvel Universe.

You don't say.

 Ouze wrote:
You don't say.

I thought maybe it was The Provoked Periwinkle Provocateur.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Compel wrote:
He's a madman

Maybe we could come up with a nickname for him that helps emphasize this. The Crazy Grape? The Mad Titan? The Angry Prune? Just spitballin' here.

The Mad Titan is in fact one of his legit nicknames in the Marvel Universe.

You really should straighten your hair, that joke flying so fast over your head mussed it a bit.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Even then, "I tried half, you wouldn't get back in your box, so now I'm going back to square one and starting over" has a certain logic to it that's consistent with his previous actions.

Kind of? It comes off as more personal and irrational than that in the moment, especially as their actions won't have any long term effect at all on his universe.

If anything, it would have made life easier for Thanos B to achieve his goals, as he now has leads on each and every infinity stone thanks to access to Nebula A's memories, and more detail on who exactly intends to thwart his plans.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Compel wrote:
He's a madman

Maybe we could come up with a nickname for him that helps emphasize this. The Crazy Grape? The Mad Titan? The Angry Prune? Just spitballin' here.

The Mad Titan is in fact one of his legit nicknames in the Marvel Universe.

You really should straighten your hair, that joke flying so fast over your head mussed it a bit.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Even then, "I tried half, you wouldn't get back in your box, so now I'm going back to square one and starting over" has a certain logic to it that's consistent with his previous actions.

Having subjectively internally consistent logic is not incompatible with total insanity.

If you're having vivid and utterly convincing hallucinations that make you believe the Queen is secretly an alien lizard running a vast conspiracy to use consumerism to make humanity docile in preparation for the arrival of the Snorfleglorbian invasion fleet who will render people down into hamburgers, you could develop an entirely logical argument that you should murder the Queen to stop her evil machinations. You'd still be utterly bugfeth insane, and any attempt to actually murder someone would still be morally reprehensible.

Thanos is insane because given the choice between using his magical wish gauntlet to fix the actual root problem(lack of resources relative to population) and using his magical wish gauntlet to annihilate countless trillions of sentient beings(and no "but the new resources solution is only temporary!" nonsense - the same is true of his lunatic plan to kill half of everyone everywhere because populations will just grow again), he chose the latter, not because it was actually necessary, but because it flattered and reinforced his delusional egotism.