Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realized just a bit ago that it was not necessary for Steve to return each stone to exactly its same circumstance. According to how The Ancient One described the cosmic activity of the stones since the beginning of time, it was only necessary to return them to the precise point in time from which they were originally extracted so that there is no gap in the time stream in which a stone is missing. So he didn't have to get the soul stone to the same place, just to the same moment.
Some people are upset because it was out of Steve Rogers' character for him to sit out history. But while it was a bit out of the character he had always displayed, I think there is an explanation.
We saw with the Endgame rules of time travel (they having deftly disposed of all other "rules" of time travel displayed in other movies) that a person who travels back to his own past essentially became an entirely different person, and that past continued as his future.
So when Steve went back to the past, he did not interfere with the Captain America that was already in the past that would now become his future, or anything that Cap would accomplish.
Captain Marvel broached it a bit when Roady faulted her for not being on earth to fight Thanos the first time. She mentioned that earth already had a lot of heroes. When Captain America called "Avengers Assemble," he saw a bajillion super heroes answer his call.
Nor would he have contributed much more. He was essentially superfluous to that timeline at the macro level, and only significant at the personal level.
It's also clear that Bucky knew he planned to stay in the past. When everyone else was saying, "See you in five seconds," Bucky said, "I'll miss you." And then Bucky turned to see where the old Steve would show up...and was totally unsurprised, but rather pleased.
Wow... I remember some of these details but definitely didn’t put them all together. Definitely think this is one where I will need to watch again to be able to uncover the nuances.
It's partly his fault. His personality just isn't meshing. It's been a downhill slide since the first Avengers.
If the writers are writing around his personality, then that is the fault of the writers. If the director is allowing it or allowing the actors to ad lib their characters, then that's on the director. I just have a hard time placing the ultimate blame of a movie character on the actor. Not that he isn't blameless, but he's not at the front of the line.
The MCU has ruined the Hulk. But I just can't see how that is ultimately Ruffalo's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
The crack wasn't the problem. The crack pointed out the problem: that Thor was a badass in Infinity War, and the punchline of a bad joke in Endgame.
Complaining about Thor being goofy is like complaining about Howard being a Duck.
Complaining about Thor being goofy is like complaining about Howard being a Duck.
That doesn't make sense. I know you're making a[nother] crack, but nowhere is it written that Thor was always intended to be the Norse embodiment of The Dude.
If the writers are writing around his personality, then that is the fault of the writers. If the director is allowing it or allowing the actors to ad lib their characters, then that's on the director. I just have a hard time placing the ultimate blame of a movie character on the actor. Not that he isn't blameless, but he's not at the front of the line.
The MCU has ruined the Hulk. But I just can't see how that is ultimately Ruffalo's fault.
Complaining about Thor being goofy is like complaining about Howard being a Duck.
It’s interesting because from what I have seen online, it seems like fans are completely split down the middle on how Thor was used. Seems like people equally loved it and were annoyed by it. I didn’t love it honestly. I thought it was funny for a little while, but wanted to see the badazz Thor from Ragnorak and Infinity War by the end. I personally felt that they overused it.
It’s interesting because from what I have seen online, it seems like fans are completely split down the middle on how Thor was used. Seems like people equally loved it and were annoyed by it. I didn’t love it honestly. I thought it was funny for a little while, but wanted to see the badazz Thor from Ragnorak and Infinity War by the end. I personally felt that they overused it.
"But Marvel movies are about FUN!"
They will continue to pull a bait-and-switch with the trailers and the films. It's a theme. I have accepted it. I'll no longer expect anything less. The Winter Soldier was a fluke.
Lots of talk about seeing it again. Could this become the new #1 movie in gross box office? Ticket prices have gone up quite a bit since 2009 - that inflates the numbers.
Would be nice if all numbers were inflation adjusted so true comparisons could be made. I think box office is a decent indicator of the entertainment value of a movie. Most people just want to be entertained.
That doesn't make sense. I know you're making a[nother] crack, but nowhere is it written that Thor was always intended to be the Norse embodiment of The Dude.
Thor is an inherently goofy character. Always has been. I have never liked the character, in comics or movies. So complaining about a goofball being treated as a goofball makes no sense to me.
But I do realize I am in the minority on this, even amongst comic book nerds.
Thor is an inherently goofy character. Always has been. I have never liked the character, in comics or movies. So complaining about a goofball being treated as a goofball makes no sense to me.
But I do realize I am in the minority on this, even amongst comic book nerds.
No, he has not. Even when Simonson infused his run with humorous occurrences (he even turned Thor into a flippin' frog), Thor was the most badass he'd been since his creation.
Being a badass doesn't make the character any less goofy. He was made goofy, from the concept to the costume to the winged helmet to the thees and thous. He has always been a goofy cartoonish character.
You could cast Anthony Hopkins as Egghead and make him a sadistic murderer who eats puppies on Gotham All Access Television. No matter how crazy or badass you made him, he'd still be goofy. Thor is the same way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
