Avengers: Endgame SPOILER THREAD

MarkB · May 10, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
...and yet we have all the other movies indicating otherwise. Questions of religious redemption and the requirements therefor notwithstanding, how many times does a shady character have to save literally millions of people (or more) before we start thinking he or she is on a path of atonement?

I'll put it this way. I always knew Darth Vader was a villain in the Star Wars trilogy, but I still fully bought into his redemption arc in Return of the Jedi.

And then I retroactively unforgave him once I saw what he did during the invasion of the Jedi temple in Revenge of the Sith.

People can accept the idea of a character with a shady past who's on a path of redemption, right up until they're confronted with the full reality of that past, in detail.

Or to put it another way, a lot of us will judge someone on the basis of their worst day.

Umbran · May 10, 2019

Hussar said:
Are you seriously saying that this is a position that no woman would ever take? Really?

No. Nothing of the sort. And if that's what you are getting from this, there is no real point in continuing.

Mustrum_Ridcully · May 10, 2019

Hussar said:
Umm, they were sent to retrieve the stone. They already had motivation. The death of Black Widow in no way motivates Hawkeye to do anything. Still not seeing it.

Again, this is reaching pretty hard. Fridging is a very, very specific trope. It's when you kill off the female character pointlessly for the sole purpose of motivating the male protagonist. That is very much not true here in any, way, shape or form. Thanos didn't decide to do the snap because he killed Gamora, nor did he decide to get the stones because he killed Gamora. He killed Gamora because he had to kill something he loved in order to get the stones. Hawkeye doesn't even get that much. Black Widow kills herself. She sacrifices herself for the greater good because she believes that Hawkeye has to return to his lost family. She can never get a family back. This way, she gets to reunite a family, go out a big bloody hero and achieve her goals.

I think that is an important part - it's self-sacrifice. It's not someone murdering her to get at the hero (be the intention by the "author" or by the in-universe murderer). She has full agency, and is making a decision.

Ryujin · May 10, 2019

Hussar said:
Yeah, no. A female character dying is not "fridging" the character. Fridging means that you are providing a male protagonist a motivation that is entirely based on the needless killing off of a love interest character. Black Widow dying was neither needless (as someone had to die, be it BW or Hawkeye), nor does it provide any real motivation for the male protagonist(s). It's not like they suddenly want to stop Thanos because Black Widow died.

While I can see that a particular interpretation of Black Widow's death might be problematic, this particular issue isn't one of the problems.

The notion that the character is "disposable" is also stretching pretty hard. Professor Hulk makes a point of saying that he tried to bring her back with the Stones. IOW, he lost an arm trying to bring her back. Hardly seems "disposable" to me. And, as far as "she's a monster because she can't have kids" that's also missing the point. The audience is supposed to look at that and have the same reaction that every other character has - she's wrong. She's not a monster.

I think folks might be trying just a tad too hard to find interpretations that fit a specific narrative by cherry picking examples and ignoring the rest of the movies.

While there was an explicit "for Nat" moment, I have to agree with you. The motivation was already present.

Dannyalcatraz · May 10, 2019

MarkB said:
I'll put it this way. I always knew Darth Vader was a villain in the Star Wars trilogy, but I still fully bought into his redemption arc in Return of the Jedi.

And then I retroactively unforgave him once I saw what he did during the invasion of the Jedi temple in Revenge of the Sith.

People can accept the idea of a character with a shady past who's on a path of redemption, right up until they're confronted with the full reality of that past, in detail.

Or to put it another way, a lot of us will judge someone on the basis of their worst day.

But Darth Vader didn’t become a Sith because he was sterile.* I mean, really- imagine if the window into the Vader’s darkness revealed he became what he was and corrupted himself because he was infertile.

But somehow, this is OK with Black Widow?

* “Duh!”, as his kids might say.

Maxperson · May 10, 2019

Erekose said:
Good point! Although that didn’t help Red Skull too much at the end of the First Avenger! Mind you, he did hold it earlier in the film with no problem.

With a single stone I think holding it is okay. Using a stone is a different matter.

Ryujin · May 11, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
But Darth Vader didn’t become a Sith because he was sterile.* I mean, really- imagine if the window into the Vader’s darkness revealed he became what he was and corrupted himself because he was infertile.

But somehow, this is OK with Black Widow?

* “Duh!”, as his kids might say.

Except, if I remember the lore correctly, BW was sterile because she was a spy, as part of her training. She wasn't a spy because she was sterile.

MarkB · May 11, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
But Darth Vader didn’t become a Sith because he was sterile.* I mean, really- imagine if the window into the Vader’s darkness revealed he became what he was and corrupted himself because he was infertile.

But somehow, this is OK with Black Widow?

That isn't what I was saying. I simply meant that revealing actual horrific details about Black Widow's past for her to feel monstrous about runs the risk of leaving us, the audience, agreeing with her assessment, alienating us rather than evoking sympathy. The infertility does not.

Hussar · May 11, 2019

Dannyalcatraz said:
But Darth Vader didn’t become a Sith because he was sterile.* I mean, really- imagine if the window into the Vader’s darkness revealed he became what he was and corrupted himself because he was infertile.

But somehow, this is OK with Black Widow?

* “Duh!”, as his kids might say.

Becoming a cold hearted killing machine wasn't because she was sterile. She was forcibly sterilized as part of her transformation into a cold hearted killing machine. Why would anyone even think that her "dark side" moment is because of her forced sterilization? The forced sterilization was a symbol of the horrific things they did to her to turn her into a monster, not the reason she became a monster.

And then, when she destroys a family, she begins to try to redeem herself by switching sides - the whole "red ledger" thing. At the end, she balances the ledger by saving a family through her own self sacrifice.

As I said, I'm really not seeing the issue here. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], if the only thing you took out of my entire argument was that line, then, sure, there isn't much to talk about here. Talk about cherry picking an argument.

Gamora? Maybe, you might be able to make the argument, because the death of Gamora drives Quill. But, even then, that's stretching pretty hard. Not every female character that dies is a fridging. Sometimes, it's actually ok to kill off female characters. Heck, why isn't the death of Vision being touted as fridging? Seems to be the driving force behind Scarlet Witch after all.

Dannyalcatraz · May 11, 2019

Agreed with all about the facts of BW’s sterilization. (All similes ultimately fail at some point.)

The point is, regardless of the infertility’s causation, the prospective alternative Darth Vader’s negative view of himself based on infertility would probably be seen as a weakly written characteristic in him, and it isn’t any better for her. And some would assert it is worse, given the historical context of how men have viewed and valued women.