• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Avengers: Endgame SPOILER THREAD

MarkB

Hero
So does past Thor now no longer have Mjolnir, since future Thor turned up and stole it and took it back to the future? And when future Thor was talking to past mum, and called Mjolnir to him, did he rip it out of past Thor's hand? Is past Thor standing around with a confused look on his face wondering where Mjolnir just flew off to?

(I don't remember where past Thor is at that point in time?)
It seems to be more the case that any past they visit becomes an alternate universe. So alt-past-Thor loses his hammer, but also his girlfriend isn't dying of infinity-stone-poisoning anymore.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Past Thor is used to forgetting where he left his hammer, so it's no big deal.
There are a couple of points in his movies where he holds out his hand and he... waits for a moment for the hammer to show up.

I wonder if in The Dark World, there's one of those moments just after that point, where they are hustling Jane Foster away. That would be... pretty epic.
 
Last edited:

Janx

Adventurer
It seems to be more the case that any past they visit becomes an alternate universe. So alt-past-Thor loses his hammer, but also his girlfriend isn't dying of infinity-stone-poisoning anymore.
"Oh, hi. Are you Jane Foster?"

"Oh my god, you're Captain..."

"Yes, ma'am. Would you mind bending over, I need to..um.."

"Excuse me!?"

"I just have to put this infinity stone back in you."

"That still sounds as dirty as that rabid raccoon that attacked me a few minutes ago..."


Prelude to The real reason Jane Foster and Thor broke up...
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Though as a bit of a continuity bobble - why didn't she lose to Thanos as well? Where was she?

End of Ragnarok she was on that singular ship with Thor, Heimdeil, Loki and the rest. Which is destroyed in Infinity War. But here's Valkyrie as well as Korg and Miek.

But yeah, she stepped up in the 5 years.
Thanos always kills half, not everyone.

Oh, yeah, totally. I don't MIND that they were merged. I just don't think it was handled all that well. And most of the smart Hulk incarnations (I think there's a "Professor Hulk", and Joe Fixit, and the Maestro, and...others?) took on aspects of Hulk's personality. I didn't really see that. It was Hulk body and Banner mind. Potent, but...man. It would've been great to see Banner get really really angry. :)

I suspect Ruffalo has fun with the Hulk and he might turn up a few more times.
He was a mix of both, though. His confidence and sort of jocularity is Hulk. Banner doesn’t act like that in any MCU movie.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
So did anybody die in that massive battle at the end (other than Iron Man)?

And why didn’t Chewie get a medal. I mean Black Widow get a funeral?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
So did anybody die in that massive battle at the end (other than Iron Man)?
Nobody named - I presume some Wakandans and sorcerers bought the farm, but all other named characters survive.

And why didn’t Chewie get a medal. I mean Black Widow get a funeral?
I am pretty sure there's no good answer to that one.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
Nobody named - I presume some Wakandans and sorcerers bought the farm, but all other named characters survive.



I am pretty sure there's no good answer to that one.
Well, the movie had an extended run time already, and it's not like group funerals are common in such scenarios. It was either Stark or Black Widow, and if anyone would have a big funeral with plenty of visitors, it's probably the rich guy, and not the spy.
 

MarkB

Hero
Could they use the stones to bring Stark back?
The only people they bring back via the stones are the Snapped, and as I recall it's suggested at some point that they can't bring back people who were outright killed via other means.

Besides, using the stones is what killed Stark. Whoever used them to bring him back would likely suffer the same fate.
 

Janx

Adventurer
So did anybody die in that massive battle at the end (other than Iron Man)?
Iron Man
Vision didn't come back (died pre-snap)
Natasha

NPCs.

Many Bothans. Notice how there was not a disclaimer about "No Bothans were hurt or killed in the making of this film."
 

Hussar

Legend
Yeah. She literally fights her way to jump off a cliff and straight into the fridge.
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.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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.
1) While they are not romantically involved, there is a love between them, or her sacrifice would not have worked. 2) Hawkeye wanted to die. His stint as Ronin is him basically going out to kill people until one of them finally gets him. Her death makes it so he *has* to keep going on, or her death is in vain.

Sounds like giving a male character a motivation to me.

Note, also - two out of two people sacrificed to get the stone are women. And they do it so men can get the stone, and go do big things with them. The sacrifice is very much used as 'kill a female character so the male character is enabled to do what they do'. So, I think the fridging point has merit.


Black Widow dying was neither needless (as someone had to die, be it BW or Hawkeye)
Setting up the plot specifically with "someone dies here" and only using it on women who have a love-relationship with a male character, and claiming it isn't fridging is kind of like saying something really snarky, but claiming it is okay because you put a smilie face on it.

The movies are still good, but this isn't their finest moment.

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.

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.
With respect, you are missing part of the point of the pushback on this.

The issue isn't about her feeling she's a monster, and being wrong about that. I mean, yeah, she's not shown to be a person with flawed judgement, so suddenly she's wrong about this one thing? But, okay, we can swallow that.

The issue is that it is positioned and presented such that, for however many people she has killed, that isn't what makes her a monster. In her eyes, not being able to have babies is what makes her a monster. Now, that's a thought you could spend some time with, and maybe work it around and have *her* come to he conclusion that's she's wrong, and that's fine. But, they don't have time to do that. They just dump it out there, and leave her with it.

I know a woman who is barren. Can't have kids. It is kind of a sore spot for her. She left the theater in tears when those lines came out in Ultron. Another woman I know had her tubes tied, for personal reasons. That scene, suggesting that a powerful woman - her representation in that movie - feels that what makes her a real person is her womb, made her angry.

*DO NOT* tell me how these women were "supposed to" feel there. They felt as they felt - and those feelings were valid. The film makers didn't think enough about how those words could come across to the audience. Having made that error, they should have learned from it, but apparently didn't.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
1) While they are not romantically involved, there is a love between them, or her sacrifice would not have worked. 2) Hawkeye wanted to die. His stint as Ronin is him basically going out to kill people until one of them finally gets him. Her death makes it so he *has* to keep going on, or her death is in vain.

Sounds like giving a male character a motivation to me.
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.

Note, also - two out of two people sacrificed to get the stone are women. And they do it so men can get the stone, and go do big things with them. The sacrifice is very much used as 'kill a female character so the male character is enabled to do what they do'. So, I think the fridging point has merit.
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.

Again, not seeing the problem.

Setting up the plot specifically with "someone dies here" and only using it on women who have a love-relationship with a male character, and claiming it isn't fridging is kind of like saying something really snarky, but claiming it is okay because you put a smilie face on it.

The movies are still good, but this isn't their finest moment.

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.
Yeah, only if we reach really, really hard to find interpretations that fit a specific narrative and misapply tropes. Black Widow dies to save a family. How else would you expect Black Widow, the character that BECOMES the hero Black Widow because of destroying a family, to die?

With respect, you are missing part of the point of the pushback on this.

The issue isn't about her feeling she's a monster, and being wrong about that. I mean, yeah, she's not shown to be a person with flawed judgement, so suddenly she's wrong about this one thing? But, okay, we can swallow that.

The issue is that it is positioned and presented such that, for however many people she has killed, that isn't what makes her a monster. In her eyes, not being able to have babies is what makes her a monster. Now, that's a thought you could spend some time with, and maybe work it around and have *her* come to he conclusion that's she's wrong, and that's fine. But, they don't have time to do that. They just dump it out there, and leave her with it.

I know a woman who is barren. Can't have kids. It is kind of a sore spot for her. She left the theater in tears when those lines came out in Ultron. Another woman I know had her tubes tied, for personal reasons. That scene, suggesting that a powerful woman - her representation in that movie - feels that what makes her a real person is her womb, made her angry.

*DO NOT* tell me how these women were "supposed to" feel there. They felt as they felt - and those feelings were valid. The film makers didn't think enough about how those words could come across to the audience. Having made that error, they should have learned from it, but apparently didn't.
Are you seriously saying that this is a position that no woman would ever take? Really? That being unable to have children is something that would never cause any woman to question herself? Because, well, there's a rather large amount of research and whatnot that would tell you differently.

But, the point is, and it's hammered home that SHE'S WRONG. She's never presented as being right in this. She feels this way, but, those feelings are not supported by anything else. She's a hero in the movies who has overcome her past to become the leader of the Avengers, keeping the world together when everyone else has buggered off to do their own thing.

Heck, I'll see your anecdote with one of my one, where friends have had their tubes tied and reacted EXACTLY the same way as Black Widow. I'd say it's a lot more important to show that despite losing the ability to have children, you can still be a hero that everyone loves and looks up to. Remember, two characters - Banner and Hawkeye are shown to show great affection for Black Widow. The other female characters all look up to her and treat her as an equal or a superior even. At no point is she shown to be anything less than a hero, regardless of her ability to have children.

I'd say that's a much, much more powerful message to send out there than trying to claim that her death is "fridging". That's so disrespectful to the character and what the character does. You're basically saying that her sacrifice is pointless and completely outside of her control. Which, frankly, is the opposite of the truth.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
I’m thinking that the pushback is a result of feeling that “barren = monster” is pretty lazy, male-centric writing, considering some of the things the character would have done in her history as a former KGB agent and one of the most talented spies and assassins in the entire world.

Certainly someone like that has some pretty nasty secrets and made decisions that resulted in homicides by her own hand, some of which would require some extremely warped ethics to justify to herself.
 

MarkB

Hero
I’m thinking that the pushback is a result of feeling that “barren = monster” is pretty lazy, male-centric writing, considering some of the things the character would have done in her history as a former KGB agent and one of the most talented spies and assassins in the entire world.

Certainly someone like that has some pretty nasty secrets and made decisions that resulted in homicides by her own hand, some of which would require some extremely warped ethics to justify to herself.
Perhaps they chose to go with that precisely because it's a completely forgivable 'sin' in the eyes of the audience, whereas some of the crimes you allude to would have left many audience members convinced that she truly could not be redeemed.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Perhaps they chose to go with that precisely because it's a completely forgivable 'sin' in the eyes of the audience, whereas some of the crimes you allude to would have left many audience members convinced that she truly could not be redeemed.
...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?
 

Advertisement

Top