if the infinity stones can make people who were already alive dead and they can make people who were previously dead alive and the TVA has a giant stack of infinity stone just sitting there and its established that the stones can control if someone lives or dies then technically marvel could easily bring the dead heros who are ‘for good’ dead back to life without complications in this essay i will-
Heeeyy, okay, so I finally saw Endgame tonight. I’ve known what happens in it for months, but this was the first time I actually saw it. Yeah, stuff happened, moving on.
So, let’s get right down to the biggest problem in Endgame, and the one thing keeping it from being one of the single most epic movies of our time; the time travel shenanigans.
This post is gonna get long, so read more below the cut.
To illustrate precisely how Endgame went wrong with time travel, I am going to compare it to the time travel in DC’s Legends of Tomorrow TV show. Specifically the final two episodes of season 2, “Doomworld” and “Aruba”. Yeah, I’m comparing Marvel and DC, there’s a good reason, I promise.
Okay, so Endgame’s plotline is pretty well known, but in case you don’t know it, here’s a brief summary; Thanos kills half of the population of the universe, the Avengers (what’s left of them) freak and kill Thanos, who has unfortunately already destroyed the Infinity Stones, the only things that could fix the universe. 5 years pass, and Scott Lang (Antman), previously presumed dead, comes out of the Quantum Realm and tells everyone that time travel is possible and that they can use it to reverse what happened. They go back in time to get the Infinity Stones before Thanos, they do, and, long story short, one epic battle later they kill Thanos and his army. They put the stones back, and almost everyone lives happily ever after.
Now, on to the plotlines of Legends’ “Doomworld” and “Aruba”. Before I go any further, let me just say that season 2 of Legends came out in 2016, several years before Endgame OR Infinity War.
Alright, so there’s this thing called the Spear of Destiny that can change reality. The bad guys, called “The Legion of Doom” manage to get it from the Legends and use it to create their perfect reality, which turns out to be a Doomworld for everyone else. The Legends exist in this world, but at first don’t remember who they are. I’m not gonna get into how they get their memories back, but most of them do, and they decide that they have to go to the past to steal the Spear of Destiny from themselves to stop the Legion from getting it. They manage to do this, but they all die, except their leader Sarah, who uses the Spear to 1. Revive her friends, 2. Get rid of the most annoying member of the Legion (Eobard Thawne, long story, watch The Flash) and 3. She uses the Spear to remove the power of the Spear, making it useless. Everyone lives, they return the Legion to their proper places in time (did I mention they’re all time travelers?) and decide to go on vacation in Aruba. Unfortunately, they do not land in Aruba, they land in Los Angeles in 2017, which is covered in dinosaurs and features Big Ben and a number of other buildings not from LA in the background. The season ends with Sarah saying, “Guys, I think we broke time.”
Okaaaaay, still with me? Good.
So, to give you my thesis statement; Endgame’s time travel was wrong because there are no consequences. This also happens to be what Legends does right.
The problem with Endgame is that you have so many people who get taken out of their proper times and not returned. A few examples; Loki stealing the Tesseract after the battle of New York, Gamora from 2014 just chilling now in the future somewhere. The Thanos that was defeated in the big battle was from the past and therefore him dying then creates a massive paradox. Like, what the heck? Other noteworthy additions; Nebula shot her past self and didn’t die. Steve Rogers went and apparently lived an entire life in the past with Peggy???? (Without telling her about Hydra, rescuing Bucky, saving the Starks, meeting young Tony, or doing a whole host of other things. Steve Rogers who in Civil War said, “If I see a situation headed south I can’t just ignore it.” Yeah, right, Marvel, that’s exactly the kind of life Steve would live in the past.)
Now, literally all of this (except the part with Steve, but that’s another post) would be fine if Endgame had shown us that there were consequences to these actions. Like, for instance, Loki leaving after the battle of New York completely changes the next two Thor movies at least. Gamora never meeting Peter Quill in the past but him still remembering her is also a paradox. But no, Marvel leaves us with the sunny, cheerful ending where everyone but Tony’s family and Bucky Barnes live happily ever after. No consequences to time or anything.
Meanwhile, Legends of Tomorrow (and The Flash, for the record) is all about consequences. It is made very clear that the Legends going back in time to meet with their past selves will have consequences, and the show delivers those consequences when the group crashes in LA and finds dinosaurs and Big Ben there, and with Sarah’s line “I think we broke time”. To diverge a little, every time Barry Allen (the Flash) has gone back in time and changed something, there have been massive consequences for his friends and family and city that he then has to deal with (black holes, portals to other universes, his friends losing family members, his friends gaining superpowers, ect.). Another way to handle this is demonstrated in Doctor Who season 3, where in the final two episodes the villain makes a “Paradox Machine” to remove the consequences of humans from the future coming back in time to kill their ancestors.
So, by all rights we should have a third movie titled, “Avengers: We broke Time” that deals with the consequences of Endgame. Because there are consequences, even if Marvel wants to ignore them. (Also, if you’re not looking at my comparisons of the plots of Legends and Endgame and wondering of Marvel blatantly ripped off DC then, well, I don’t know what to tell you. I could be wrong, but I can’t unsee the similarities.)
As always, these are just my own opinions and thoughts so do with them what you will.
One of the most poignant scenes in the MCU, to me, is Yondu’s funeral in the second Guardians. I think part of that is the emotional pay off and subtle bits of foreshadowing throughout the story. (“You’ll never hear the horns of freedom when you die, Yondu”, for example.) Nothing terribly obvious that he’s going to die, but when he does, it makes narrative sense. And the funeral, while still about honoring Yondu’s life and sacrifice, is also about what the Guardians learned from him:
Peter realizes that Yondu was the father figure he was looking for all along, Peter’s speech gives Gamora the motivation to reach out to Nebula, and Rocket realizes that it’s possible to fight and disagree with your family and still be worthy of their love and forgiveness. It’s satisfying, emotional, and memorable in terms of both character and narrative development.
(Side note, Lindsay Ellis has a fantastic video essay on this scene: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8VulkN5OLEM)
Compare this to Tony’s funeral in Endgame, and it can’t even hold a candle to the GOTG scene. It’s about Tony for roughly the first two minutes of the scene with his pre-recorded message, but even that is played over the “happy ending montage” featuring everyone but Tony and his family. You could argue that this makes sense, as Tony’s sacrifice is what enabled these happy endings to occur, so it’s honoring his legacy and showing that his sacrifice wasn't in vain.
But after the message ends, the funeral stops being about Tony entirely. Instead, it seems to shift to showing off how many characters the studio can fit into one scene. The camera pans from the arc reactor floating away, then focuses on what is essentially the entirety of the MCU cast. (Most of which don’t even make sense to have at the funeral. Hank Pym never got along with Tony, and the Guardians/Black Panther crews barely worked with him. So those people wouldn’t logically be invited to the funeral.)
While it was undeniably cool to see all of the superheroes in one scene, it again shifts the focus away from Tony at his own funeral. And remember, we just saw everybody together in the final battle! The scene would have been much more impactful if the funeral was more intimate; with very few people besides Peter, Pepper, Morgan, Rhodey, Happy, and the OG Avengers.
To add insult to injury, of all the days Steve could have chosen to reveal his older self to the team…he chose the day of Tony’s funeral. Again, the funeral is less about honoring Tony and how he impacted the team and more about the MCU showing off all the cool stuff to come. Which, again, is undoubtedly cool! Give us the transfer of the shield/Captain America mantle to Sam! Give us Valkyrie becoming the new king of Asgard! Give us Clint and Wanda talking about how they miss the people they viewed as siblings! (I know she was technically talking about Vision, but in my mind, she was talking about Pietro.) But give it to us in a scene that isn’t supposed to be about Tony!!! The return of the infinity stones, the transfer of the shield, and the crowning of Valkyrie could have all easily been separate scenes that weren’t happening during the funeral. The entire scene just feels muddled and overloaded, and I feel that it could have been executed a lot better to honor not just Tony but also the legacy of the MCU so far.
Like I said, this is all just my opinion so feel free to agree/disagree and add your own thoughts!
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Clint should have died instead of Nat.
I got nothing against Clint, I like him a lot, but it would make a lot more sense to swap him with Nat.
First off, the implication of Nat "wiping the red off her lodger" isn't very good. She died for her sins? Her death meant she was finally forgiven? No! Nat's actions after her so called crimes are what counts. All the good stuff she did ever since the Avengers... does that mean nothing? Should Bucky die for his "sins"? I dunno, it just makes me uncomfortable to think of it this way. It implies that once you make mistakes, you can't fix them. Which is veeeeery fishy because guess which character gets away with literally everything and faces no consequences?
That's right, Tony. In the end he dies, yes, but unlike Nat, there are no implications like that. It is viewed as a selfless act. Everyone attends his funeral. Atleast he got a funeral. Nat didn't even get that and I hate that the biggest reaction we got was Hulk yeeting a bench. Atleast Clint and Steve had the decency to look sad and cry because they cared about her deeply. Unlike a certain someone who didn't even know if Nat had had any family.
Anyways, back to the main issue. While Nat spent those 5 years helping people, trying to hold her family - the Avengers - together, Clint went on a murderous rampage. Yes, he was grief-stricken, and he killed bad guys, and the main point of that was so that we could see Ronin, but it's still murder. We can see how much everyone had changed over the course of 5 years. The biggest changes are without a doubt Clint and Thor.
Which brings me to this: Thor's arc in Endgame atleast had a resolution. Hate him, love him, but don't deny that it had some structure. The purpose of it (besides that ill taste in comic relief) was to show that even when you're at your lowest point, you can pick yourself back up. You're still worthy. Plus, he got his closure with his mom. Throwing Loki into the bunch would maaaybe make it better, but this movie is full-packed anyways.
Now, what was Clint's arc about? Going on a rampage is okay and doesn't haunt you in any way? Getting something you want can be accomplished by someone else doing it for you? I dunno, to me, this was the weirdest part Endgame (yes, it surpasses that Russo cameo and the whole Bruce/Hulk thing), because I can't figure out what was the purpose of it. Why make him all edgy if you're not going to address the change? How did it serve his character? So many questions, man. Atleast fat Thor had a payoff and tbh he looked more like a viking so that was nice.
Clint's arc would wrap up nicely if he could sacrifice himself for his family. It would also be similar to Nat's wiping of the "red", but the focus would be on his family. Because that's what's most important to him. Clint undeniably lost the most in the Snap. Without question. He would be willing to do ANYTHING to get them back. If not with him, atleast back to life. All the focus on Clint in Endgame would have a payoff. Because that's another thing: Nat didn't have that much screentime in Endgame, died halfway through, and was mentioned only twice afterwards. This isn't okay. Her death felt undeveloped. Now, Clint - he had much more of an emotional turmoil in this movie. To me, it would make sense if it got topped off with his death. And maybe the directors would give the man a funeral. Who knows.
Lastly, this one is a bit more opinionated, because not everyone ships it, but. If the Russos weren't cowards and gave us a Romanogers throughout the course of the Avengers and the Cap movies, instead of that pointless Bruce and Sharon romance (how did that pay off in any way?), Steve's ending could be a lot different. More in character. The directors chickened out of Clintasha a long time ago, but I wouldn't have been surprised if after the five-year skip, Steve and Nat were a thing. (Besides the fact that Cevans and ScarJo played a lot together and have great chemistry!) Afterall, they have been with each other for a very long time. They led the Avengers together. Natasha let Steve go in CW despite the risk of breaking apart her family (which happened anyways). She found him and Sam throughout the gap between CW and IW and they were fugitives together. It doesn't even have to be romantic, ffs, just very close friends, but it would be great to see Steve finally move on, and thus complete his arc. Besides, come on! The "we should both get a life. You first" spiel would have been a perfect set up! Even if it wasn't a romantic pairing, I would still dig the hell out of them working together - they could become the new directors of Shield for all I care and that way it would put them away from the new movies. Sam would still have the Shield. Nobody would be bitching about abandonment. Hell, have Steve pass out during the final battle and get his closure with Peggy that way. Or when he returns from the time-travel, he tells them about his closure (Btw I love Steggy, but I don't like the way it went down. It went against Steve's arc). Or how about this - Steve and Nat both leave the main timeline and go on time adventures together. That would take them away from the future movies aswell, and they could return at any time, if the actors signed another contract. Boom, fixed your Endgame!
And lastly. This way, Nat could have led the female group-up scene and kicked ass on the frontiers, symbolizing her relevance as the first major female character in the MCU that paved the way for the others. She could even get to wield Mjolnir, symbolizing that the red had been wiped! Boom! Fixed your arc!
Oof, this went on longer than I thought it would have. Anyways, just my two cents. Wish it was something more along these lines, but eh the final product was fine - enjoyable, emotional experience in the cinema.
I need to avoid Pinterest for a while. I'm getting Endgame pins with comments defending the ending and I can literally feel my blood pressure going up. 'Steve got the ending he deserved.' 'They had a conversation before he left, Bucky knew what he was going to do.' 'Steve didn't abandon Bucky, he knew he'd be okay with his couple of friends.' I'm paraphrasing because I stormed out of the pins and can't find them again 😡
I don't normally post much of my own but I just saw a pin on Pinterest about how someone wondered why Bucky didn't go with Steve and the realised it was because he had a "reason to stay" -insert picture of him looking at Sam at the end of Endgame before he goes over to old Steve. Ignoring the whole point of Bucky travelling with Steve to return the stones (I need to give that more thought), correct me if I'm wrong but at this point, despite much fanfic showing it, Bucky and Sam don't have much of a relationship at this point? They may in the comics (I've never read so have no idea) and the actors may have a good friendship in real life. And of course they probably will in the future given the upcoming series but this is MCU not the comic verse or actors and that friendship doesn't exist yet. Certainly not in the manner they're inferring. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to the Falcon and Winter Soldier series (if and when I ever get to see it) but don't use this as an excuse for the crappy writing in that film. *Returns to her lurking*
