Avengers: Endgame SPOILERS ALLOWED THREAD (4 Viewers)

[Jake Lipson]

But now that we know an alternate version of her is back in this universe, seems likely that the situation regarding her new status will be a significant part of the story.

I'd say it's a virtual certainty. I don't mind that Endgame left this particular thread dangling because it allows for James Gunn to fully explore it, and for him to provide the voice of the new Gamora, rather than being prescribed how to handle it by something that Endgame did. But if he didn't address that in a significant way, it would be sloppy storytelling. And he is definitely not sloppy as a writer or a director. I fully expect him to follow through on this. Actually, he's probably already done it, since we know a version of the script was complete before he was fired; it's just going to take a few years until we can see what's inside it.

Also, this development with Gamora makes me even happier than I already was that James Gunn is back at the helm of Vol. 3. It would have been a much more difficult challenge for another writer and/or director to essentially redefine who Gamora is as a character, rather than simply trying to carry on the version that Gunn helped create in the first two films. Because he knows so well who she has been, it will be easier for him to bend and change that to suit her new rebooted self than for someone else to do it.

 

[Hanson]

Gunn was heavily involved in Infinity War and Endgame ,contributing most of the dialog for the Guardians himself. So to think he didn't plan GOTG 3 with the consequences from Endgame seems impossible.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Yeah. I also suspect he was probably involved in the decision to reboot her. That's too big of a shift for him not to have input on it. As a fan, I'm disappointed for our Gamora that she lost her life, but the more I think about it, the more I think of interesting new avenues that can be explored with this new dynamic. I'm very excited to see what happens going forward. Last year, I thought they would just find a way to magic bullshit her back in exactly the form she was in when she died. I didn't expect to have questions about the dynamic of the team going forward into the third Guardians film, and the fact that I do have those questions is much more intriguing.

Here's another one: in the end credits of Guardians 2, we see Adam Warlock in a birthing pod because Ayesha wants to use him to get revenge on the Guardians for Rocket's battery theft. Because the bulk of Vol. 2 takes place a few months after the original, that would be 2014. We know there was a four-year time jump between Vol. 2 and Infinity War where the team was off having adventures we didn't see. Then there is the five-year time jump between Infinity War and the bulk of Endgame. So, nine years.

Is Ayesha really going to hold a grudge about batteries for nine years? If so, what took her so long to make a move against the Guardians? (Granted, half of the Sovereign would've also been snapped, but still...)

 

[NeilO]

I love Agents of SHIELD, but I didn’t like how they tried to incorporate Thanos in Wakanda into the season finale last year. You wanna do that? Ok. Now show me half of the characters turning to ash before the end of the episode. Didn’t do that. Now they are coming back in May. I’m really curious to see how they deal with this. Ignoring it isn’t an option.

Agents of SHIELD looks completely out of continuity unless they jump 5 years into the future. I remember thinking that they would somehow undo the dusting, but I never thought it would be 5 years later that they did that.

Just read an article that Agents of SHIELD is supposed to take place 1 year into the 5 years. It will be interesting if that really is the case and how many of them are still around.

 

[Tino]

Kinda agree with this.

Spoilers! How did 'Avengers: Endgame' get Captain Marvel so wrong?

Despite how prominently she's featured in the trailer and the movie's marketing, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers is shockingly absent from most of "Endgame." When she does appear, she's awkwardly inserted into scenes and underutilized as a character and a hero. And although March's "Captain Marvel" did well at the box office, it too was criticized for a lack of character development on Carol's part. This pattern of appreciating Captain Marvel for her punching over her personality doesn't bode well for the future of the beloved comic-book character.

Carol shows up exactly four times in "Endgame." She arrives in the beginning, sans introduction, to rescue Tony (Robert Downey Jr.) and Nebula (Karen Gillan), who are adrift in space, and then assists with the early assault on Thanos (Josh Brolin). Fifteen or so minutes later, she shows up in a glorified conference call with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and remarks that she won't be around Earth for a while, as she's helping other planets. She enters the film's climatic final battle halfway through, a ringer who faces down Thanos before he is finally defeated. She also appears in the background of a funeral near the end of the film.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...-captain-marvel-so-wrong-spoilers/3572243002/

 

[Robert Crawford]

Gunn was heavily involved in Infinity War and Endgame ,contributing most of the dialog for the Guardians himself. So to think he didn't plan GOTG 3 with the consequences from Endgame seems impossible.

Anybody think that wasn't Gunn's dialogue between Quill and Thor at then end of Endgame?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Kinda agree with this.

Spoilers! How did 'Avengers: Endgame' get Captain Marvel so wrong?

Despite how prominently she's featured in the trailer and the movie's marketing, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers is shockingly absent from most of "Endgame." When she does appear, she's awkwardly inserted into scenes and underutilized as a character and a hero. And although March's "Captain Marvel" did well at the box office, it too was criticized for a lack of character development on Carol's part. This pattern of appreciating Captain Marvel for her punching over her personality doesn't bode well for the future of the beloved comic-book character.

Carol shows up exactly four times in "Endgame." She arrives in the beginning, sans introduction, to rescue Tony (Robert Downey Jr.) and Nebula (Karen Gillan), who are adrift in space, and then assists with the early assault on Thanos (Josh Brolin). Fifteen or so minutes later, she shows up in a glorified conference call with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and remarks that she won't be around Earth for a while, as she's helping other planets. She enters the film's climatic final battle halfway through, a ringer who faces down Thanos before he is finally defeated. She also appears in the background of a funeral near the end of the film.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...-captain-marvel-so-wrong-spoilers/3572243002/

I don't agree she was awkwardly inserted into scenes. I thought they were very effective. Character development-wise is an issue, but I think they can address that with her next film.

 

[TravisR]

Kinda agree with this.

Spoilers! How did 'Avengers: Endgame' get Captain Marvel so wrong?

Despite how prominently she's featured in the trailer and the movie's marketing, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers is shockingly absent from most of "Endgame." When she does appear, she's awkwardly inserted into scenes and underutilized as a character and a hero. And although March's "Captain Marvel" did well at the box office, it too was criticized for a lack of character development on Carol's part. This pattern of appreciating Captain Marvel for her punching over her personality doesn't bode well for the future of the beloved comic-book character.

Carol shows up exactly four times in "Endgame." She arrives in the beginning, sans introduction, to rescue Tony (Robert Downey Jr.) and Nebula (Karen Gillan), who are adrift in space, and then assists with the early assault on Thanos (Josh Brolin). Fifteen or so minutes later, she shows up in a glorified conference call with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and remarks that she won't be around Earth for a while, as she's helping other planets. She enters the film's climatic final battle halfway through, a ringer who faces down Thanos before he is finally defeated. She also appears in the background of a funeral near the end of the film.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...-captain-marvel-so-wrong-spoilers/3572243002/

Captain Marvel doesn't have much to do in the movie but there's like 30 characters so I'm not surprised she's not in much of the movie (even Black Panther is barely in it!). I can understand how people expected more screen time for the character given the hype of how CM was integral to End Game but I guess it was Disney marketing BS to introduce a basically unknown character to a mainstream audience.

On the plus side, I don't think it's indicative of anything for future Captain Marvel movies. When she's the focus of the movie, I'm sure she'll do more than punch a few people.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I thought the movie had just the right amount of Captain Marvel. Here’s the thing - we’ve known most of the characters in the film for about ten years, give or take, and we’ve known Captain Marvel for ten weeks. It would have been a tremendous disservice to those legacy characters if Endgame turned into Captain Marvel 2. And it would have been disappointing if Marvel Studios telegraphed that when they get their characters into a difficult situation, instead of confronting that situation organically, that the solution would just be to introduce a new dues ex machina to save the day. It would have been so dramatically unsatisfying if the solution to the snap was “brand new character appears from nowhere and singlehandedly saves the day.”

Ultimately, she does save the day by destroying the invading ship, which allows the rest of the team the opportunity to defeat Thanos. That’s a big deal. But I’m glad the filmmakers didn’t make that the biggest moment in the battle.

 

[Josh Dial]

Pieces like that USA Today clickbait article make me thankful that the MCU films were created by people who actually know how to tell stories.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thought the movie had just the right amount of Captain Marvel. Here’s the thing - we’ve known most of the characters in the film for about ten years, give or take, and we’ve known Captain Marvel for ten weeks. It would have been a tremendous disservice to those legacy characters if Endgame turned into Captain Marvel 2. And it would have been disappointing if Marvel Studios telegraphed that when they get their characters into a difficult situation, instead of confronting that situation organically, that the solution would just be to introduce a new dues ex machina to save the day. It would have been so dramatically unsatisfying if the solution to the snap was “brand new character appears from nowhere and singlehandedly saves the day.”

Ultimately, she does save the day by destroying the invading ship, which allows the rest of the team the opportunity to defeat Thanos. That’s a big deal. But I’m glad the filmmakers didn’t make that the biggest moment in the battle.

"Endgame" did - and should - concentrate on the main Avengers. Yeah, Nebula got a lot of play, too, but she's integral to the Thanos side, so that's fine.

(And I know we got a lot of Ant-Man, who's not an Avenger in the MCU, but dammit, he was a founding member in the comics, so that gives him a pass! )

 

[Hanson]

It doesn't feel like the writer knew that Endgame was filmed well before Captain Marvel

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’m ok with the amount of Ant-Man. We’ve known him for four years, and his participation in Endgame was organically set up in Ant-Man and the Wasp.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Scott already knew the Avengers from Civil War, so it's building on that relationship, which I liked. And I absolutely believe he will cross paths with the remaining Avengers again if Paul Rudd wants to stick around the MCU post-Ant Man 3. He worked really well as part of this movie, as did Carol. She's clearly going to be around the MCU for a good while, so it was less important to focus on her and more important to focus on Downy and Evans and closing up their arcs. I really don't have any complaints at all about how her participation in the battle was handled, particularly because Endgame was filmed first.

 

[Tommy R]

(And I know we got a lot of Ant-Man, who's not an Avenger in the MCU, but dammit, he was a founding member in the comics, so that gives him a pass! )

Well in that case, Michael Douglas is the one who should have gotten Paul Rudd’s screen time!

But seriously, there couldn’t have been too much Ant-man in my book!

 

[Tino]

The part I agree with is that I thought she was somewhat underutilized but in the end of course they had to focus on the main Avengers so it made sense. A little bait and switch by Marvel I guess to keep us on our toes.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well in that case, Michael Douglas is the one who should have gotten Paul Rudd’s screen time!

Ha ha - you're 100% right!

That is a funny aspect of the MCU. Pretty much every other character is "original" - ie, the non-hero person is the same as in the comics. Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Peter Parker, Steve Rogers, etc - all the original people to be those heroes.

But not Ant-Man or Wasp!

Slightly tangential, but I don't know why Marvel decided to change Ant-Man from Hank to Scott.

I realize Scott was an Ant-Man in the later comics, but there are other "later versions" of the characters that the MCU didn't use, so it's not clear why they didn't go with Hank for the series...

 

[Josh Dial]

Slightly tangential, but I don't know why Marvel decided to change Ant-Man from Hank to Scott.

There is some controversy with the comic version of Hank. Due to an apparent miscommunication between a writer and a cartoonist, Hank was depicted as hitting his wife (Janet). Apparently the writer intended it to be an accident (Hank throws up his hands in dismay and accidentally hits Janet), but the artist drew it as a deliberate hit. The character was branded a spouse abuser for decades. There's a chance Marvel didn't even want to go near that controversy, so they focused more on the Scott Lang version instead.

Alternatively, perhaps they just wanted to have both versions of the character for the story they wanted to tell.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I liked how they had the best of both worlds scenario. You had the Ant-Man technology being developed by someone who you would think of as a more straight laced, trained government genius type in Pym, but then you get to have the protagonist as a more contemporary Everyman type without the baggage of it needing to be plausible that he invented the whole thing. It gives you the gravitas of the history and the freedom to ignore that when it’s more fun to.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I can’t say for certain, but I always assumed that it was simply Edgar Wright’s preference to focus on Scott Lang in adapting the “To Steal and Ant-Man” arc. Wasn’t he “working” on the project for years since the start of Marvel Studios before the MCU really got going?