Avengers: Endgame SPOILERS ALLOWED THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

On another note...

I was watching an interview with the Russos where they were discussing their history in the MCU and they said that they had to go pitch Civil War to Downy, because it was not in his original contract. (He was originally signed for his trilogy, plus three Avengers films (which ended up being four.) So they had to go over to his house and tell him what they were envisioning and essentially tell him why he should add it to his deal.

Obviously, that worked out well.

But I wonder...what would have happened if he had said no?

 

[Sean Bryan]

On another note...

I was watching an interview with the Russos where they were discussing their history in the MCU and they said that they had to go pitch Civil War to Downy, because it was not in his original contract. (He was originally signed for his trilogy, plus three Avengers films (which ended up being four.) So they had to go over to his house and tell him what they were envisioning and essentially tell him why he should add it to his deal.

Obviously, that worked out well.

But I wonder...what would have happened if he had said no?

Wasn’t dicko Perlmutter pushing for them to build the conflict between Cap and Banner because he didn’t want to pay Downey? Thank goodness Feige was able to break away from that jackass.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I hadn't heard that, but that certainly would have changed things a lot. If Banner had been on Earth in place of Tony, the end of Ultron would have to be changed drastically to eliminate his departure. And he wouldn't have been able to be in Ragnarok at all, where they really did a lot of cool stuff with that character. He also wouldn't have been the one to crash to Earth with the warning about Thanos. And much of what Tony did in these two films related back to Civil War. The scene with John Slattery in Endgame seemed extremely informed by the fact that Tony never got to say goodbye to his dad, which is something that Civil War set up.

 

[Joe Wong]

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.

I mentioned earlier I would have liked to see Cap M integrated into the main plot more than just be bookends, but the deus ex machina idea can rear its ugly head. One need look no further than another superhero film from 2017.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Who else lost it at the cheeseburgers scene? I thought that was one of the most effective and affecting scenes in the whole movie, and it was between Happy and the kid. None of the Avengers were actually in it.

Also, when Tony returns to the U.S. after being kidnapped in the first Iron Man, the first thing he wants is a cheeseburger. Whether or not that was an intentional thing that that's what his daughter would ask for, it worked nicely.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I mentioned earlier I would have liked to see Cap M integrated into the main plot more than just be bookends, but the deus ex machina idea can rear its ugly head. One need look no further than another superhero film from 2017.

I'm not sure how they could have done that logistically. In that Jimmy Fallon interview you referenced earlier, Larson says they were figuring out the script for Captain Marvel while she was shooting Endgame. So Endgame had to tiptoe around her a little bit so as not to contradict anything that would be figured out later within her solo film (even though we saw her solo film first.)

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

It also helped fill in the gap between Captain America: The First Avenger in the 1940s and Captain Marvel in the 1990s. We know there were at least two superheroes operating during that time, Hank and Janet.

Who else lost it at the cheeseburgers scene? I thought that was one of the most effective and affecting scenes in the whole movie, and it was between Happy and the kid. None of the Avengers were actually in it.

Also, when Tony returns to the U.S. after being kidnapped in the first Iron Man, the first thing he wants is a cheeseburger. Whether or not that was an intentional thing that that's what his daughter would ask for, it worked nicely.

It was definitely an intentional callback. And Jon Favreau sold the hell out of it.

 

[Joe Wong]

Who else lost it at the cheeseburgers scene? I thought that was one of the most effective and affecting scenes in the whole movie, and it was between Happy and the kid. None of the Avengers were actually in it.

Also, when Tony returns to the U.S. after being kidnapped in the first Iron Man, the first thing he wants is a cheeseburger. Whether or not that was an intentional thing that that's what his daughter would ask for, it worked nicely.

Not just a cheeseburger, but an American cheeseburger! Tony was quite specific.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Not just a cheeseburger, but an American cheeseburger! Tony was quite specific.

Because Morgan is in America when she makes her request, and has probably never lived anywhere other than America, there was no reason for her to be that specific. He did so after returning from captivity in a foreign country.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I keep forgetting that Jon Favreau directed the first two "Iron Man" films.

 

[Joe Wong]

Because Morgan is in America when she makes her request, and has probably never lived anywhere other than America, there was no reason for her to be that specific. He did so after returning from captivity in a foreign country.

Oh, certainly, not questioning Morgan's request.

It was more the humor behind Tony's request. Aside from having just returned from a foreign country, his patriotism chimed in to make sure it was not, for example, a cheeseburger from Canada.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The New York Times has a really good interview with Endgame screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.

I think a big part of why they have such a high batting average is that they're not precious at all about their work. They have the ability to see clearly what's working and not working, and take action accordingly.

Some quotes that speak to our discussion thus far:

• McFEELY In late 2015 they say, you’re writing the 19th movie [“Infinity War”] and the 22nd movie. So we chose to make lemonade. And that was a big moment — we figured out we can withhold Ant-Man because he’s in his own movie. And their movie is not affected until the tag, and that just gives us a place to go [in “Endgame”]. You can do this when you’re planning ahead this much. The tone is all weird, right? Because that’s a light, fun movie and then we just kill everybody in the tag.
• McFEELY Certainly, Captain Marvel is in [“Endgame”] a little less than you would have thought. But that’s not the story we’re trying to tell — it’s the original Avengers dealing with loss and coming to a conclusion, and she’s the new, fresh blood.
• MARKUS Look at some of the most popular movies of all time. They’re long as hell. When people want to see something, it doesn’t seem to get in their way. There’s some short, totally unsuccessful movies, too.
• MARKUS Tony gets a funeral. Natasha doesn’t. That’s partly because Tony’s this massive public figure and she’s been a cipher the whole time. It wasn’t necessarily honest to the character to give her a funeral. The biggest question about it is what Thor raises there on the dock. “We have the Infinity Stones. Why don’t we just bring her back?”
• McFEELY Everyone knew this was going to be the end of Tony Stark.
  MARKUS I don’t think there were any mandates. If we had a good reason to not do it, certainly people would have entertained it.
  McFEELY The watchword was, end this chapter, and he started the chapter.
  MARKUS In a way, he has been the mirror of Steve Rogers the entire time. Steve is moving toward some sort of enlightened self-interest, and Tony’s moving to selflessness. They both get to their endpoints.
• McFEELY From the very first outline, we knew he was going to get his dance. On a separate subject, I started to lose my barometer on what was just fan service and what was good for the character. Because I think it’s good for the characters. But we also just gave you what you wanted. Is that good? I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, it’s satisfying. He’s postponed a life in order to fulfill his duty. That’s why I didn’t think we were ever going to kill him. Because that’s not the arc. The arc is, I finally get to put my shield down because I’ve earned that.
• MARKUS But there also was a possibility, because “[Avengers: Age of Ultron”] made a little bit less than “Avengers” 1 — that we were taking on “Superman” 3 and 4. Maybe people were done with it.
  McFEELY The goal was not to advance it to the stratosphere. It was to just not screw it up.

EDIT: Link corrected

 

[Greg.K]

The New York Times has a really good interview with Endgame screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.

Your link is bad (just links to this thread, not to the interview)

 

[Josh Dial]

From the article Adam referenced:

"We’ve been sitting with these events for years. We no longer have an emotional reaction. And then you see people crying in the theater. We’ve got to honor that or it’s going to feel like we’re just jerking them around."

These guys absolutely get it.

 

[Tino]

 

[ScottHM]

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

Do we know that? Did we see her again after The Snap?

Why shouldn't we believe that everyone in Thanos' entourage was dusted?

---------------

 

[Sam Favate]

Why shouldn't we believe that everyone in Thanos' entourage was dusted?

Gamora was fighting alongside the Avengers against Thanos' army. It seems implausible she'd be dusted.

 

[Hanson]

Not sure of the mechanics of Tony not dusting Gamora, but she is alive and Quill is searching for her.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Your link is bad (just links to this thread, not to the interview)

Sorry about that! Fixed. Thanks to Josh for quickly stepping in with the correct link.

Gamora was fighting alongside the Avengers against Thanos' army. It seems implausible she'd be dusted.

If Tony's mental command was, for instance, "Dust Thanos and all people in this reality who are loyal to him" can the Stones perceive intent and know that Gamora switched allegiances? Given how powerful they are, probably.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Do we know that? Did we see her again after The Snap?

Why shouldn't we believe that everyone in Thanos' entourage was dusted?

---------------

What “thought” do you think Tony made when snapping his fingers? If it was simply “Destroy everyone that came through time with Thanos” then our Nebula would have been dusted as well as alternate Gamora.

I imagine he thought something more along the lines of “Destroy everyone here who is on Thanos’ side”