Dr R Dizzle

@AnkitSharma I mean, Vision and Gamora and Loki didn't get funerals either.

The argument that article is trying to make is that Avengers: Endgame treats its women badly because they suffer. But everyone suffers in Avengers: Endgame, and most of them don't have the same kind of say that Black Widow did.

But the article is wrong. It doesn't become right because more people than just you don't understand what fridging is.

@AnkitSharma Avengers: Endgame is the better of the two in my opinion

I figured you still like it overall

I'm glad Captain Marvel was only in it at the start and end, to be honest. Avengers: Endgame was first and foremost a film about saying goodbye to the old Avengers, so I'm glad they got their time.

Well, think about it - Thanos sacrificed Gamora, but he didn't romantically love her. He loved her like a daughter.

There are multiple forms of love. People love their friends and family, not just their romantic partner.

Also, Hawkeye doesn't need redemption. That's not his character

She isn't a love interest of Hawkeye though

Black Widow's entire arc in these films is about her believing that she is, at heart, a good person, despite her past. Sacrificing herself for trillions of people is the conclusion to that arc.

Yeah, she does. That's the whole point of the character. Think back to what Loki says to her in Avengers Assemble, about having red in her ledger, or she "swapped one set of lies for another" in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, or how she "doesn't need an answer" to the question of if she's worthy enough to pick up Mjolnir in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Black Widow didn't sacrifice herself for Hawkeye. She sacrificed herself for trillions of people, concluding her semi-redemptive character arc

The TL;DR is that fridging removes a female characters agency - that isn't what happens in Avengers: Endgame, as it is Black Widow's choice to sacrifice herself

I don't agree to disagree. Please read this page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators) for a better understanding of what fridging is.

And I promise, that's not what fridging is. Black Widow objectively did not get fridged.

@AnkitSharma The reason she calls herself a monster is because she's a trained assassin who has killed hundreds of people, not just because she can't have kids lol. Every Avenger in Avengers: Age of Ultron calls themselves a monster or something similiar at one point or another - it's kinda the overriding theme of the movie

Haha, that would've been funny actually. Steve beating the crap out of a ghost

No idea. I think there's a reason they skipped past "putting all the stones back" - it'd be boring

Also, I don't think you know what "fridging" means. It's not just the death of a female character - it's specifically when a love interest of the main character is killed in order to motivate the main character into revenge. Black Widow sacrificing herself to get the Soul Stone is not an example of fridging.

For me, the time travel logic worked fine and I think that a lot of people are misunderstanding how the film explained time travel. As for representation, I was glad to see the first canonical, indisputably gay characters in the MCU even if they were just a random dude.

@PaulD.Waite Maybe the Scarlet Witch we follow in WandaVision isn't our Scarlet Witch, but the one from the timeline where Thanos ceases to exist in 2014?

So, branched realities can be created without the removal of an Infinity Stone. The removal of an Infinity Stone just means that the branch will wither and die

@PaulD.Waite You might want to read this: ew.com/movies/2019/04/30/…

I wish we had a transcript of the conversation between Banner and The Ancient One

Well, he doesn't have it when we see him old afterwards. It just, at least to me, seems like Marvel Studios have left far too many clues about timelines for it to be anything else

One point of order about timeline branches - we see Cap take Mjolnir back in time with him, presumably to return to Thor in 2013 when he puts the Reality Stone back. Why would he bother doing that if returning the Reality Stone alone would stop the timeline from splitting?

I remember a fan theory at the time with the "8 years later" title card was that since Strange used the Time Stone to "fix" Hong Kong, time was slowly breaking.

I'll have to try to pay more attention to exactly what The Ancient One says when I rewatch it in a few weeks. I was too busy geeking out about Tilda Swinton being in the film lol

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see lol

Basically, I think the purpose of the scene with the Ancient One is to establish why they have to give the stones back, not to rule out alternate timelines being create, which I believe will be important to the MCU going forwards.

I think the best way I can phrase what I'm trying to get at is that I don't think The Ancient One says that the only way a new timeline can be created is if the Infinity Stones are taken. I think that's one of the ways a new timeline can be created, one that's automatically disastrous because the flow of time would stop, which is why they have to return the stones. But other timelines can logically be created in other ways - demonstrated by Loki escaping with the Space Stone.

Again, I wonder why the Russo brothers would bother showing us Loki escaping in 2012 with the Space Stone if it doesn't matter.

For example though, the only change made in the 2013 Thor: The Dark World timeline was the Aether and Mjolnir disappearing, both of which are (implied) to be put back. The other "trips" both create additional changes that the return of the stones wouldn't prevent.

No one says it in the movie, no, but as far as I recall, The Ancient One's concern is that the flow of time will stop without the Infinity Stones, not that new branches can only be formed by losing the Stones.

@PaulD.Waite Putting the stone back the moment it disappears would prevent a new branch being formed, yes - but only if that's the only change to the timeline made, and as we see, there are other changes made when the Avengers travel back in time, such as Loki escaping in 2012 or Thanos and his armies disappearing in 2014. I don't see how putting the stone back prevents branches caused by those changes. I could be wrong, of course, but like I said, I suspect this is deliberate set up for the future. Or, to put it another way - why else show us Loki disappearing?

It's also worth noting that with my reading, there are now 3 timelines in the MCU - there are also 3 TV shows planned, two of which star characters that are no longer alive in the main timeline but would (or at least, could) still be alive in the other timelines created. I suspect this was deliberate set up for whatever Phase 4 ends up being, not merely coincidence.

Sorry Paul, but I disagree. It's true that the Ancient One shows us that timelines with Infinity Stones removed are unstable, but she explicitly shows us a new "branch" being formed by time travel. Putting the stones back doesn't mean that branch disappears - it simply means that the branch doesn't turn black and decay, at least that's my reading. Yes, Cap puts the stones back at the end - but that doesn't mean that Loki didn't escape with the Space Stone in 2012 in another timeline, or that Thanos didn't disappear in 2014 in another.

@AnkitSharma Why would I bitch about it? I thought it was great

I haven't seen Aquaman yet, no, but I probably will at some point.

@steelersquirrel I really dug Creed II. Not quite as good as the first IMO, but still a really solid movie

@steelersquirrel Yeah, it's good stuff IMO. I really liked it

@AnkitSharma I didn't think it was quite that good, but yeah, pretty enjoyable.

Has anyone here seen Shazam! yet?

Review: Jordan Peele's Us fails to live up to the expectations set by Get Out, but that doesn't mean it can't still make for an entertaining (if confusing) couple of hours. 3 stars.

I'd say it's worth a watch, as long as you've got an open mind

Well, it's a really disturbing movie. But there's real meaning behind it too

@AnkitSharma Why?