Marvel Media (This is the spoiler thread, Q-Stone - You're welcome)

I'm far more disappointed that we didn't get a real payoff for Nat and Bruce's romance than that we didn't spend more time watching Gollum and Smeagol talk out their issues.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm far more disappointed that we didn't get a real payoff for Nat and Bruce's romance than that we didn't spend more time watching Gollum and Smeagol talk out their issues.

This is really it.

Hulk is arguably the main character in Avengers 1 as he's re-introduced in this movie along with introducing a new Bruce Banner actor.

Much of Avengers 2 is about him and Nat and how Nat can calm him down, can they work as a couple, etc.

In Thor: Ragnarok he's one of the main characters and we learn that he got lost in Hulk after a traumatic escape from Earth because he was afraid of hurting people he loved.

So basically through those 3 movies it's established that Banner/Hulk have a thing for Nat. More importantly, Hulk is totally not his own living entity. The fact that he likes Nat / feels he has to leave Earth are emotions and thoughts that both Banner and Hulk share at that time.

So yeah, the real question is what did Nat and Banner / Hulk talk about in the 5 years?

Maybe they're setting that aside for Disney Plus. Maybe that's what the Black Widow movie is about.

BadKen wrote:

And why is Nat's hair still blonde at the ends? How slowly does her hair grow, anyway?

Clearly she kept dying it for 4.5 years, then the hydrogen peroxide supplies ran out.

Umm, to be clear - I respect and loved what they accomplished with Endgame. Please stop acting like criticizing some of the plot points is being bad at fanboy. I can't wait to watch it again, but #notmycap.

They're just straight up showing Cap holding the hammer in commercials now. Guess there's an official time limit on spoilers.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

They're just straight up showing Cap holding the hammer in commercials now. Guess there's an official time limit on spoilers.

Yes, it was Monday May 6. Very clearly announced everywhere. You had two weekends (and one bargain Tues) to see the movie if you wanted to avoid spoilers.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Why don't we ever see anyone going to the bathroom.

Hey, Endgame was brave enough to have a scene where a central element was one character being bored because they had to take too many stairs. We're making great strides here!

SallyNasty wrote:

Umm, to be clear - I respect and loved what they accomplished with Endgame. Please stop acting like criticizing some of the plot points is being bad at fanboy. I can't wait to watch it again, but #notmycap.

This was a nicer way to say how I feel I think.

I acknowledge that it is an incredible film but I can still see things that left me unhappy.

farley3k wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Umm, to be clear - I respect and loved what they accomplished with Endgame. Please stop acting like criticizing some of the plot points is being bad at fanboy. I can't wait to watch it again, but #notmycap.

This was a nicer way to say how I feel I think.

I acknowledge that it is an incredible film but I can still see things that left me unhappy.

Being unhappy with something isn't the problem. Being oblivious to the answers that were given inside the movie is what people are teasing you about.

There's a difference between being unsatisfied with the way the answers were given, and being "oblivious."

It's less "I don't understand how Banner became Professor Hulk!" and more "That seems like an interesting story, and it kinda sucks that it all happened offscreen in between films!"

The original question was "was this explained" not "I don't get it", though.

Yonder wrote:

We're making great strides here!

TOO MANY STRIDES! [smash]

He doesn’t do that anymore. It’s uncouth.

Maybe we will get a 4 hour Directors cut that will focus on the 5 year gap that shows some character development. Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

TheGameguru wrote:

Maybe we will get a 4 hour Directors cut that will focus on the 5 year gap that shows some character development. Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

Disney+ has a Hawkeye show coming

MannishBoy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Maybe we will get a 4 hour Directors cut that will focus on the 5 year gap that shows some character development. Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

Disney+ has a Hawkeye show coming :)

Hopefully only covering the time between Infinity War and Endgame.

DSGamer wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Maybe we will get a 4 hour Directors cut that will focus on the 5 year gap that shows some character development. Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

Disney+ has a Hawkeye show coming :)

Hopefully only covering the time between Infinity War and Endgame Fraction/Aja run.

Typo.

<--

Pizza dog and Katie-Kate or gtfo.

I wasn't hugely bothered by the off-camera Hulk progression, but I totally get the people that were. For me the crux of what makes that an issue isn't the fact that there was progression during the five-year skip, it was that that progression wasn't an extension of developments we had actually seen. If we had left Hulk and Banner right after they had had some sort of (even minor) positive interaction with one another then it would seem more reasonable/natural that that had led to something good over five years.

Ironically I think that Hulk Endgame feels more natural without Infinity War, because Hulk/Banner sort of regresses during Infinity War (albeit not as much as Thor does). Banner's bridge jump at the end of Ragnarok is a surrender to Hulk: Banner expects to never come out of the transition and throws himself at Hulk's mercy, asking only that he helps protect the Asgardian refugees. Not only can that be seen as a positive interaction with Hulk, but that sort of self-sacrifice is exactly the sort of action that our culture is obsessed with and our media is all about rewarding heroic martyrs with level-ups, from Jesus to Thor.

I think that Infinity War was going for a more mature/realistic take than that trope, where the airing and discussing of the grievances is a more important action than a grand "one and done" gesture. However I can totally see it being disappointing, not only was Infinity War just an airing of grievances, with the resolution of those grievances tucked away, but for people that were hopeful for a resolution that was character based... this isn't exactly that. Regardless of what invisible heart-to-hearts and mutual respect may have been involved, the fact that an eighteen month gamma ray exposure was ALSO involved sort of cheapens the moment in favor of throwing technobabble at something that could have gone differently, IMO.

That said, I think that it's also worth looking at Hulk/Banner not only alone, but in context of the entire team. The Russo brothers (and writers et al) seemed to very consciously portray a spread of different responses and coping mechanisms across the entire team of Avengers. In this case we already have a lot of Avengers that get screen time showing how they struggle to put themselves back together over the course of the 5 years. We see Cap trying to help himself and others in group counseling, Nat immerses herself in her work, Hawkeye goes into a downward murder spiral, and Thor just totally checks out for booze and video games. Captain Marvel, Rocket, and Nebula don't really get screen time on the subject. That leaves Bruce and Tony as the only ones that have successfully picked up and moved forward. I wonder if they thought that a less complicated and more upbeat take on Hulk was necessary to help Tony's recovery balance out the others.

farley3k wrote:

Perhaps you are right Hobbes, and they had to do it. There was just too much otherwise but that doesn't mean it was an elegant way to explain a fairly big thing in the movies.

My apologies if I wasn't clear: I'm 100% with you. They should have tried to do something elegant. I'm just assuming anything that addressed the issue with any depth didn't fit because it killed the movie's already difficult pacing. Pacing in a movie is always important, more so if you make a 3hour movie.

DSGamer wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Maybe we will get a 4 hour Directors cut that will focus on the 5 year gap that shows some character development. Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

Disney+ has a Hawkeye show coming :)

Hopefully only covering the time between Infinity War and Endgame.

Rumored to be showing him training Kate Bishop, but after End Game, it might be his daughter instead.

I think it will be post End Game. But that's pure speculation.

Might be just as well to switch the idea to him working with his daughter. MCU Hawkeye is different from Hawkguy in more than enough ways that trying to adapt the Matt Fraction run too closely probably wouldn't work all that well.

That would also mean we've seen three or four of the inevitable (if Marvel has any sense) Young Avengers: Barton's daughter, Cassie Lang, Ms. Marvel (Maria Rambeau's daughter), and probably Spiderman, because why not? My armchair quarterback guess is that they'll work on developing most of this lineup through CW style young adult shows/miniseries on Disney+, and then pull them into the theaters with the next big crossover event.

TheGameguru wrote:

Lord knows Cloq wants some more sweet Hawkeye backstory.

The only MCU story that could possibly get me more excited than a TV show dedicated to Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye is if they announced a show solely and entirely about Grant Wart coming back from the dead again.

I'm leaving that "Grant Wart" typo.

zeroKFE wrote:

Might be just as well to switch the idea to him working with his daughter. MCU Hawkeye is different from Hawkguy in more than enough ways that trying to adapt the Matt Fraction run too closely probably wouldn't work all that well.

That would also mean we've seen three or four of the inevitable (if Marvel has any sense) Young Avengers: Barton's daughter, Cassie Lang, Ms. Marvel (Maria Rambeau's daughter), and probably Spiderman, because why not? My armchair quarterback guess is that they'll work on developing most of this lineup through CW style young adult shows/miniseries on Disney+, and then pull them into the theaters with the next big crossover event.

Don't forget Morgan Stark's potential down the road, too.

zeroKFE wrote:

That would also mean we've seen three or four of the inevitable (if Marvel has any sense) Young Avengers: Barton's daughter, Cassie Lang, Ms. Marvel (Maria Rambeau's daughter), and probably Spiderman, because why not? My armchair quarterback guess is that they'll work on developing most of this lineup through CW style young adult shows/miniseries on Disney+, and then pull them into the theaters with the next big crossover event.

Throw in a young Artemis Cho, and we got ourselves a show! His mom was in Age of Ultron, so why not?

I'm starting to wonder if Infinity War didn't cause more problems with the overall story line than it solved, or set up satisfyingly.

If you take Ragnarok>Infinity War>Endgame as a continuum IW reset a lot of the growth of Thor and Hulk as people so where they go in Endgame feels weird. Endgame Hulk especially feels more like a development of Ragnarok Hulk than IW Hulk and the transition wouldn't be so jarring if he hadn't spent the whole of IW as Banner in an Iron Man suit.

I actually have the feeling that over time Infinity War is going to be seen as one of the weaker of the 'big' MCU movies. It's tonally very dark, Thanos' motivation makes no sense and undercuts a lot of the character development that has taken place.

I hope that going forward Marvel will minimise the big 'event' movies a big, or at least scale them back. They achieved something remarkable, but planning the next phase out better will, IMO, make for stronger movies.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I hope that going forward Marvel will minimise the big 'event' movies a big, or at least scale them back. They achieved something remarkable, but planning the next phase out better will, IMO, make for stronger movies.

Every 10 years seems like a decent pace...

ranalin wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

I hope that going forward Marvel will minimise the big 'event' movies a big, or at least scale them back. They achieved something remarkable, but planning the next phase out better will, IMO, make for stronger movies.

Every 10 years seems like a decent pace...

There have been four, arguably five, Avengers movies over the last ten years.

I really like Infinity War because it is so subversive. Completely apart from the sheer logistical accomplishment of creating a work with so many characters, each of which could carry or has carried their own movie or series, and ending up with something that is entertaining and even accessible (though opinions differ on accessible)... Completely apart from that, we have a rare bit of fiction that is a hero's journey in which the hero is a villain. It successfully uses misdirection throughout to encourage the audience to believe that the massive cast of heroes will win the day. At some points it even succeeds (for some of the audience, at least) at generating sympathy towards its sociopathic megalomaniacal protagonist.

And its ending is downright unpleasant. When was the last time a movie this big, from a studio this big, with a budget this big, ended up with a box office this big, despite being such a major downer of a story? Inconceivable!