# Avenger's Infinity War *Spoiler* Discussion



## OB1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Thought it would be good to start a new thread specifically for those who have seen Avenger's Infinity War and want to discuss!

So, in case you missed it in the thread title

****Spoilers!  This thread is for people who have seen the movie and want to discuss***
*
My initial reactions, first the positive,

* Lot's of great Tier IV level moments in the battles.
* Lot's of great character interaction
* All words are made up
* Giant Dwarf!  That's how you forge a freaking Legendary magic item!
* I don't want to go...


Now the not so positive
* I thought Thanos was supposed to be smart.  Yet neither his motivations nor his actions showed INT 20.  Litch level this guy is not.  And because his motivation is so silly, he doesn't come close to as good a villain as Loki, Ultron, Killmonger or Hydra.

* It was a huge mistake not having Dr. Strange reveal the 1 way to win against Thanos to someone.  By keeping that in the mystery box, it undercuts the deaths of every single character in the film, because you don't know if that is part of the plan or not.  The minute Strange has the plan, the movie has to become a Heist Film to maintain narrative cohesion. Right now, I'm assuming that every single character killed in AIW will come back, and if some don't, that means that I won't really mourn them until the next film.  It's weird.

* And really, that leads me to this.  Narratively, the film should have started in the third act.  It's not interesting how Thanos get's the stones, it's interesting what the hero's have to sacrifice to eventually triumph over him.  Cause, if you are going to do a time travel story, it should be that from the beginning.  By starting in the third act and then seeing some of how Thanos gets the stones later in the film via time travel shenanigans, the structure of the film becomes much tighter and you can't be sure whether any death will be permanent or reversed via time travel.


----------



## Derren (Apr 28, 2018)

Thanos motivation is far from silly.  Sure, there are better ways to solve the problem of overpopulation when you have the power of the gauntled but the general idea that in face of limited resources a low population will enjoy a higher living standard than a high one is sound.

And imo the sacrifices of Thanos are as interesting to see as what the Avengers have to sacrifice. The Soul Stone part was quite a character building moment.

Personally I really liked that Red Skull is back. Ever since The First Avenger I have been saying that he was teleported and not killed.
I wonder if the Captain Marvel movie will play before or after Infinity War.


----------



## ccs (Apr 28, 2018)

I assumed that since Strange said that he only saw 1 path to success, specifically asked Thanos to spare Stark, then surrendered the stone - that he set that 1 path he saw I'm motion.
I also assume he couldn't smirk as he surrendered the stone as that'd tip Thanos off.

Thanos isn't smart, he's just really powerfull.  And insane.  Hence his moniker in the comics as The Mad Titan.

As for morning any particular character?  Why would you at this point?  The story isn't over.

Why do you think this is a time travel story?


----------



## OB1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Derren said:


> Thanos motivation is far from silly.  Sure, there are better ways to solve the problem of overpopulation when you have the power of the gauntled but the general idea that in face of limited resources a low population will enjoy a higher living standard than a high one is sound.




It isn't the least bit sound, it's completely mad.  First off, populations grow to use the available resources.  So Thanos killing half the Universe might lead to a generation or two having slightly higher standards of living as the amount of available capital is spread among the survivors (see America after WWII) but it's just as likely to completely cripple those worlds (see eastern Europe after WWII).  In either case, the population will be back to whatever level the resources can sustain within a few decades at most.

So what we have is an insane villain.  Which is fine, but not particularly interesting.  The Avengers are facing him not because of choices they made or faults that they have, but simply because someone insane and powerful exists.  There is nothing in Thanos' story that ties him to the Avengers.  It could literally be any group of superheroes in the Galaxy facing him.  Now, that could still lead to an interesting movie, as we see characters have to make impossible choices in the face of certain doom, and we get some of that, especially with Vision and Scarlet Witch.  But will it stick?  Who knows, because we don't know what the rules of the game are.  Only Dr. Strange does.  And that's why it's such a travesty that the film keeps that a secret from the audience



ccs said:


> Thanos isn't smart, he's just really powerfull.  And insane.  Hence his moniker in the comics as The Mad Titan.
> 
> As for morning any particular character?  Why would you at this point?  The story isn't over.
> 
> Why do you think this is a time travel story?




Agreed that he is the Mad Titan, just don't understand why in the pre release hype people kept talking about what an intelligent villain Thanos was and how people would be able to understand, if not approve, his reasoning.  He's insane, his reasoning doesn't make any sense, and to me, it makes the character more distant.  He's just a powerful random force, like a supernova.  Ultron at least believed that by causing an extinction level event, it would lead to the next phase of evolution and forge something stronger.  That's a believable motivation.  Ego wanted the entire universe to be him.  Killmonger wanted revenge and to protect his tribe.  The point is, their motivations have there start in something real and understandable.  Thanos does not.  They would have been better off keeping his motivation that of trying to court Death.

The Soul Stone challenge was also weird.  So, he had to sacrifice something he loved to get the stone.  But how does he love Gamora if he's willing to kill her to get what he wants?  That's kind of the opposite of love.  Hmmm, makes me wonder if perhaps he doesn't really have the Soul Stone in the Gauntlet, but a fake.

If it's not a time travel story, how else do you bring back all the Avengers who just died?  I guess it could be multiple universes as well, but really that's kind of the same thing. If it is just one timeline, and somehow they can use the real Soul Stone to bring everyone back, and this is all going according to Dr. Strange's vision for how to win, the film would still be better served by a little less mystery.  As it is, I don't trust anything I saw, and that makes the film fall flat to me.


----------



## Derren (Apr 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> It isn't the least bit sound, it's completely mad.  First off, populations grow to use the available resources.  So Thanos killing half the Universe might lead to a generation or two having slightly higher standards of living as the amount of available capital is spread among the survivors (see America after WWII) but it's just as likely to completely cripple those worlds (see eastern Europe after WWII).  In either case, the population will be back to whatever level the resources can sustain within a few decades at most.
> 
> So what we have is an insane villain.  Which is fine, but not particularly interesting.  The Avengers are facing him not because of choices they made or faults that they have, but simply because someone insane and powerful exists.  There is nothing in Thanos' story that ties him to the Avengers.  It could literally be any group of superheroes in the Galaxy facing him.  Now, that could still lead to an interesting movie, as we see characters have to make impossible choices in the face of certain doom, and we get some of that, especially with Vision and Scarlet Witch.  But will it stick?  Who knows, because we don't know what the rules of the game are.  Only Dr. Strange does.  And that's why it's such a travesty that the film keeps that a secret from the audience
> 
> ...




Have you even seen the movie? It doesn't look like it. Nothing ties the Avangers to Thanos? The Avangers were formed because of him and Thanos is specifically hunting one of them (two if you count Strange).

And the real world proves you wrong. Rich nations tend to have a low or even negative population growth despite easily being able to support more people while the poorer a nation is the higher the population growth tends to be.

And you can love something and still sacrifice it because it is necessary. For Thanos getting the stone is as otherwise he believes the universe will slowly die just like Titan did.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> The Soul Stone challenge was also weird.  So, he had to sacrifice something he loved to get the stone.  But how does he love Gamora if he's willing to kill her to get what he wants?



You mean like the Scarlet Witch doesn't actually love Vision, because she sacrificed him to get what she wanted?



> It isn't the least bit sound, it's completely mad. First off, populations grow to use the available resources. So Thanos killing half the Universe might lead to a generation or two having slightly higher standards of living as the amount of available capital is spread among the survivors (see America after WWII) but it's just as likely to completely cripple those worlds (see eastern Europe after WWII). In either case, the population will be back to whatever level the resources can sustain within a few decades at most.



I am pretty sure that his methods are pretty flawed, but one thing to consider: When the resources are low, what happens? 
- People die of starvation or thirst, leading to great suffering
- People fight over the resources, leading to violence, death, loss of more resources as they get destroyed in conflicts or used up to continue conflicts, and more suffering.

Thanos basically just removes enough people so there is no need to fight over resources. And he can repeat it, if the need arises again.


----------



## ccs (Apr 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Agreed that he is the Mad Titan, just don't understand why in the pre release hype people kept talking about what an intelligent villain Thanos was and how people would be able to understand, if not approve, his reasoning.




Well, those people are about as smart as Thanos....
And probably think that the assorted Infinity stories in the comics are fantastic.   




OB1 said:


> He's insane, his reasoning doesn't make any sense, and to me, it makes the character more distant.  He's just a powerful random force, like a supernova.  Ultron at least believed that by causing an extinction level event, it would lead to the next phase of evolution and forge something stronger.  That's a believable motivation.  Ego wanted the entire universe to be him.  Killmonger wanted revenge and to protect his tribe.  The point is, their motivations have there start in something real and understandable.  Thanos does not.  *They would have been better off keeping his motivation that of trying to court Death.*




On that we agree.

But movie Thanos HAS a goal.  Now when voiced aloud it sounds stupid, & it's logic is alien & questionable.  Remember, it's made by a not-smart insane alien.  But it's a goal and he has a plan on how to accomplish it.... 



OB1 said:


> The Soul Stone challenge was also weird.  So, he had to sacrifice something he loved to get the stone.  But how does he love Gamora if he's willing to kill her to get what he wants?  That's kind of the opposite of love.  Hmmm, makes me wonder if perhaps he doesn't really have the Soul Stone in the Gauntlet, but a fake.




You're not familiar with the Bible (or other religions) are you.  There's numerous examples of people having to sacrifice their children at the behest of their deities.



OB1 said:


> If it's not a time travel story, how else do you bring back all the Avengers who just died?




You missed the fact that one of the stones is called the Reality Stone?
Just re-order reality to your liking.  Like Thanos did.



OB1 said:


> I guess it could be multiple universes as well, but really that's kind of the same thing. If it is just one timeline, and somehow they can use the real Soul Stone to bring everyone back, and this is all going according to Dr. Strange's vision for how to win, the film would still be better served by a little less mystery.  As it is, I don't trust anything I saw, and that makes the film fall flat to me.




I think you've completely missed the fact this this story is not done.  This is like reading the 1st several issues of an Infinity comic series.  Or watching 1/2 of a 5 hour show.  And then complaining that everything's not all wrapped up.
Tune in next summer for IW pt2 (or whatever they've changed the name to).


----------



## Jester David (Apr 28, 2018)

As I said in another thread, I was saddened we don't get to see Starlord reach Earth. Or get a moment where Tony and Steve have to interact and deal with what went down in _Civil War_. 

Having read the comic I saw the ending coming. But still surprised they had the balls to go that route, even if the deaths will be undone. After all, we _know _Spider-Man, Black Panther, and Doctor Strange are going to get sequels. There's little tension there.



OB1 said:


> I thought Thanos was supposed to be smart.  Yet neither his motivations nor his actions showed INT 20.  Litch level this guy is not.  And because his motivation is so silly, he doesn't come close to as good a villain as Loki, Ultron, Killmonger or Hydra.



He's smart, but he's not a genius. He's not the Lex Luthor smart villain. But a big, strong villain that isn't stupid and is surprisingly cunning. Devious enough to set a trap for the Guardians. 

His motivation rather works. The purges in the population following the Black Death in the 14th Century reshaped Europe and ended serfdom. And the reduction of the workforce following WWII was also instrumental in advancing women's rights and civil rights. Massive cuts to population can have a positive effect on societies, especially when the infrastructure remains.

Think about what happens if, overnight, 150 million Americans just turn to dust. 
Suddenly, there's job openings across the board. With fewer people for every occupation, everyone has their pick of employment and has an instant choice. They can ask for a higher salary and get it, because the demand is there. Meanwhile, because there's a desperate need for workers, there's increased incentive to release non-violent offenders and offer treatment to the mentally and physically ill to get them back in the job market. Discriminatory job practices drop because it's deeply unprofitable and you can't afford to be that picky in hiring. 
Meanwhile, there's a massive turn around in politics. The bureaucracy is upended and there's not enough time to bother with the rules and regulations of a proper election. Anyone can get elected. This shakes the two party system.

And that's just one country. Half the world's dictators are gone. Half the people in charge of oppressing nations. Half the warlords. Half the drug barons. 

His plan is insane. He is the Mad Titan. But it's also just crazy enough to work...



OB1 said:


> It was a huge mistake not having Dr. Strange reveal the 1 way to win against Thanos to someone.  By keeping that in the mystery box, it undercuts the deaths of every single character in the film, because you don't know if that is part of the plan or not.



Well... yeah. 
That's the point. We don't know. 
Strange's comment before dying about "entering the end game" is clearly a hint that he knows what's coming and surrendering the stone was part of the plan. Keeping Iron Man alive was essential to their one chance at victory. But if he outright tells us the plan, there's zero tension. 



OB1 said:


> The minute Strange has the plan, the movie has to become a Heist Film to maintain narrative cohesion. Right now, I'm assuming that every single character killed in AIW will come back, and if some don't, that means that I won't really mourn them until the next film.  It's weird.



Would you _really _expect them to stay dead otherwise? 



OB1 said:


> And really, that leads me to this.  Narratively, the film should have started in the third act.  It's not interesting how Thanos get's the stones, it's interesting what the hero's have to sacrifice to eventually triumph over him.  Cause, if you are going to do a time travel story, it should be that from the beginning.  By starting in the third act and then seeing some of how Thanos gets the stones later in the film via time travel shenanigans, the structure of the film becomes much tighter and you can't be sure whether any death will be permanent or reversed via time travel.



I suppose they could have done "snap" closer to the start of the film. That really is how the _Infinity Gauntlet_ comic begins. 
They could have started with him having the Power and Reality gems. We'd seen them before and a couple lines of dialogue can tweak how he gets them. And it could start with him acquiring the Soul stones. Then they could have had the next 10-15 minutes having Thanos getting the Space, Time, and Mind Stones. 

But I think having half the universe dead has a little more impact when those characters are gone for a longer period. Plus, then you're speeding through the defeat of Doctor Strange and the Vision. I imagine _Avengers 4_ will be packed enough as it is without having to add in the extra 20 minutes of set-up. 

The neat part is it allows the next film to be smaller. This one was big and massive with all hands on deck (except Hawkeye and Antman). Avengers 4 can really focus on Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, and Banner/ Hulk. (Possibly with Captain Marvel and Hawkeye.) Those heroes will be "retiring" after that movie because the actor's contracts are up. This allows it to be their swan song before the rest of the characters can potentially take over. And with a full movie, they have more time to show the losses being felt by the characters. Tony mourning Pepper and having to visit Aunt May. Cap feeling the loss of Bucky again, and remembering how he lost his nation to save him. Banner dealing with the Hulk's refusal to emerge.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> If it's not a time travel story, how else do you bring back all the Avengers who just died?  I guess it could be multiple universes as well, but really that's kind of the same thing. If it is just one timeline, and somehow they can use the real Soul Stone to bring everyone back, and this is all going according to Dr. Strange's vision for how to win, the film would still be better served by a little less mystery.  As it is, I don't trust anything I saw, and that makes the film fall flat to me.



In the comic, Nebula gets ahold of the gauntlet and wishes everything back the way it was a day prior. 
In the film this could translate to a year prior. Or everyone killed by Thanos.
Or it could be Tony remaking the universe. Perhaps with Cap. The two of them sacrificing themselves to fix the universe while balancing each other's impulses.


----------



## megamania (Apr 28, 2018)

OB1 said:


> [/B]
> 
> * Lot's of great Tier IV level moments in the battles.
> * Lot's of great character interaction
> ...




Lots of character growth and interaction.  Some could have been better or better explored.    Pointing at you Banner/Hulk.  I am guessing Hulk is scared of Thanos from how easily he was taken down but unclear.

Thanos is MAD as in insane.   This reason for killing half of the universe is better than to impress Death (whom gets everyone eventually) and makes him more sympathic.   I liked it.

Only 1 way of 14,000,000+ possibilities / futures lead to Thanos' defeat.  Part of this is NOT explaining the idea to everyone.   Thanos has to learn his mistake first to undo things.   He is now on Soul World (inside the Soul Gem).   Its time to think this over and bring in Adam Warlock.

I see your point on the time taken to gather the gems but this way we see he will do ANYTHING to get the gems and no one may stop him.

I thourghly enjoyed the movie and just wish I didn't have to wait a year for the final chapter.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 29, 2018)

I felt like someone could have saved the universe a lot of pain by just asking Thanos "If you've got the power to reshape the universe, why not just double the available resources instead of halving the population? Mathematically it works out the same, only nobody dies."


----------



## Joker (Apr 29, 2018)

MarkB said:


> I felt like someone could have saved the universe a lot of pain by just asking Thanos "If you've got the power to reshape the universe, why not just double the available resources instead of halving the population? Mathematically it works out the same, only nobody dies."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 29, 2018)

MarkB said:


> I felt like someone could have saved the universe a lot of pain by just asking Thanos "If you've got the power to reshape the universe, why not just double the available resources instead of halving the population? Mathematically it works out the same, only nobody dies."




1. Can the Infinity Stones actually create something from nothing, or must they convert something into something else? If so, then doubling the resources is fundamentally impossible, since everything in the universe is a form of resource.

2. If they can, or if you find some resources that no one would be able to use (like say, uninhabited star systems far off the path), how do you double the resources? Let's say a planet is overpopulated and lacking in space. So you double the planet's size? But that means double the mass, and suddenly the entire population of the world is suffering under twice their usual weight. You could create a copy of the star system and teleport half of the population to the other star system, but that would cause almost as much anguish as them turning to dust in front of your eyes. And you suddenly get galaxies twice their usual size, which probably wreaks havoc in the long term.

Removing half the population to dust seems a lot less intrusive on a cosmic scale. The amount of mass or energy contained in a single person is a lot less than the mass and energy needed to create the person in the first place.


----------



## OB1 (Apr 29, 2018)

Derren said:


> And the real world proves you wrong. Rich nations tend to have a low or even negative population growth despite easily being able to support more people while the poorer a nation is the higher the population growth tends to be.




Right, because rich nations also tend to be well educated and use reason and science to confront the problems of limited resources.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You mean like the Scarlet Witch doesn't actually love Vision, because she sacrificed him to get what she wanted?
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that his methods are pretty flawed, but one thing to consider: When the resources are low, what happens?
> ...




Pretty sure the Scarlet Witch sacrificed Vision because it's what he wanted, not what she wanted.  If Gamora had begged Thanos to kill her so he accomplished his goal, that would have been tragic and heartfelt.

There is one other thing that happens when resources are low, people use reason and science to innovate, adapt, and find new solutions.  Those solutions will eventually lead to new problems, but there will be solutions to those problems as well.  There is no snap your fingers and the Universe will live happily ever after.  Life will constantly come up against challenge, and we have the ability to meet that challenge and beat it.



ccs said:


> I think you've completely missed the fact this this story is not done.  This is like reading the 1st several issues of an Infinity comic series.  Or watching 1/2 of a 5 hour show.  And then complaining that everything's not all wrapped up.
> Tune in next summer for IW pt2 (or whatever they've changed the name to).




This is exactly my problem with this film.  It's not an actual film, it's half of a 2 part TV series finale.  That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, I did.  I just expected much more.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> This is exactly my problem with this film.  It's not an actual film, it's half of a 2 part TV series finale.  That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, I did.  I just expected much more.



Which is a temporary complaint. Because it's a year until the next one. Eighteen months from now, this complaint is moot.

And season finale cliffhangers are often very popular. If it works for them, why not here?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 29, 2018)

Derren said:


> Thanos motivation is far from silly.  Sure, there are better ways to solve the problem of overpopulation when you have the power of the gauntled but the general idea that in face of limited resources a low population will enjoy a higher living standard than a high one is sound.
> 
> And imo the sacrifices of Thanos are as interesting to see as what the Avengers have to sacrifice. The Soul Stone part was quite a character building moment.
> 
> ...




Given the post credits bumper, I think that Captain Marvel will have to come before the next movie in this series. When I saw it today there were an awful lot of people wondering aloud what the symbol on Fury's "pager" meant and no one was saying, which rather surprised me. A lot of movie fans and not so many comic fans, I guess.


----------



## ccs (Apr 29, 2018)

Ryujin said:


> Given the post credits bumper, I think that Captain Marvel will have to come before the next movie in this series. When I saw it today there were an awful lot of people wondering aloud what the symbol on Fury's "pager" meant and no one was saying, which rather surprised me. A lot of movie fans and not so many comic fans, I guess.




You are correct.
Captain Marvel is slated for March 2019.
Avengers #4 arrives in May 2019.

Introduction to the movie goers in march & cover her backstory, throw her into saving the universe two months later.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Pretty sure the Scarlet Witch sacrificed Vision because it's what he wanted, not what she wanted.  If Gamora had begged Thanos to kill her so he accomplished his goal, that would have been tragic and heartfelt..




yeah the Thanos loves Gamora thing wasn't very well established, and even the "saving the baby gamora" scene didn't show Thanos being merciful as much as him taking another child soldier on a whim. The story needed something more to show that Thanos actually cared for Gamora so that his choice to sacrifice her was tearing at his Soul instead of just another resource transaction.

A lot of that going on, while there were some nice character moments, they didn't really achieve the deep emotional feels that they should have.

I liked it a lot but the movie was a series of interelated vignettes and the ending while suprising was more surreal than emotional

-I liked the return of Red Skull
-DUnno what was up with Hulk
-and Star Lord losing it and attacking Thanos while the others were mid-assualt was just dumb


----------



## OB1 (Apr 29, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> yeah the Thanos loves Gamora thing wasn't very well established, and even the "saving the baby gamora" scene didn't show Thanos being merciful as much as him taking another child soldier on a whim. The story needed something more to show that Thanos actually cared for Gamora so that his choice to sacrifice her was tearing at his Soul instead of just another resource transaction.
> 
> A lot of that going on, while there were some nice character moments, they didn't really achieve the deep emotional feels that they should have.
> 
> I liked it a lot but the movie was a series of interelated vignettes and the ending while suprising was more surreal than emotional




This really sums up my feelings exactly.  I'd argue that the lack of deep emotional feels comes from the fact that it's half a movie.  If you look at say, Empire Strikes Back instead, that's how you do both a serial cliffhanger but have a complete movie unto itself.  While I certainly recognize how hard it is to do that effectively, it doesn't excuse the fact that AIW made some very poor choices.  




Tonguez said:


> -I liked the return of Red Skull
> -DUnno what was up with Hulk
> -and Star Lord losing it and attacking Thanos while the others were mid-assualt was just dumb




As for the Hulk, a workmate made it simple for me.  Hulk is a bully who got his a** kicked and is now hiding at home behind his mom.

I'm back and forth on Star Lord.  I sort of think it was set up in his reaction to Ego killing his mom (blasting Ego instantly without thought), but where that scene was earned through two movies, I'm not so sure I buy the emotional connection between Star Lord and Gamora.  

Making a film is hard, making a good film is unbelievably difficult and making a great film requires immense talent, immense dedication and quite a bit of luck.  I don't envy anyone having to try and write a story for 22 characters, each played by actors with egos, a Studio looking over your every move and the expectations of millions of fans on your shoulders.  But the Russo brothers took it on, and while they put on a good show, they didn't knock it out of the park.  And that's okay.  They don't all have to be great.  But don't make this film the standard. 

One other thought.  How great would it have been for Loki to have tricked Thanos out of the Gauntlet, went after the rest of the stones himself and used it to set himself up as supreme leader of the Universe.  Instead of a brand new boring villain, we get the ultimate Loki.


----------



## Derren (Apr 29, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Right, because rich nations also tend to be well educated and use reason and science to confront the problems of limited resources.




Which proves that you are wrong about the population automatically grows to the point of overpopulation in a short time.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2018)

I'm surprised no one remembers Doctor Stranger saying he would let Iron Man and Spider-Man die to save the time stone. The writers and directors really made it clear that Strange ment it and it was foreshawoding. 

The reality Doctor Strange saw where the Avengers win is a reality were Thanos gets all the stones and kills randomly half the universe's population, including that one reality where Spider-Man is randomly killed. The death of Spider-Man motivates Iron Man to do all that is possible to revive Peter Parker. That means get the Infinity Gauntlet and revive everyone Thanos has killed, and that also means Iron Man sacrificing himself in the process (probably as tribute to the soul stone as Tony Stark really loves himself and writers won't let him kill Pepper, unless Steve Rogers is the one who agrees to die because Tony loves him and he understands sacrifice must be made to bring back everyone and is a throwback to what was discussed with Vision in this film). 

With this scenario what Doctor Strange said about letting Stark and Parker die really comes to pass. He let Spider-Man and Tony Stark die to get the time stone back. 

As for Steve Rogers and Thor, they probably also die in the next Avengers film. Althought I would bet Thor has more chances of surviving. Their deaths, and Iron Man's, will mean more once the Gauntlet is dismantled and a page will be turned in the MCU.

I do not mind knowing all of this or knowing that a lot of people were going to die in this film or knowing they were gonna come back to life. I was curious to see how they would do it, who they would chose and how far they would go. I wasn't disappointed.


----------



## Eltab (Apr 30, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Thanos basically just removes enough people so there is no need to fight over resources.



Based on a discussion in another thread (which admittedly is of no help if the people in charge of _Avengers_ don't read it), Thanos could move mineral-rich asteroids into orbits and/or positions where they would be easy to reach.  Vast expenditure of energy necessary, but vast resources available.  The hard part: how much resources does each person "need"?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 30, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> yeah the Thanos loves Gamora thing wasn't very well established, and even the "saving the baby gamora" scene didn't show Thanos being merciful as much as him taking another child soldier on a whim. The story needed something more to show that Thanos actually cared for Gamora so that his choice to sacrifice her was tearing at his Soul instead of just another resource transaction.
> 
> A lot of that going on, while there were some nice character moments, they didn't really achieve the deep emotional feels that they should have.
> 
> ...




The Thanos loves Gamora thing was meant to be set up through the previous two Guardians movies with many comments about how she was his favourite, while Nebula was constantly beaten-down. (Yeah, not sure it was telegraphed very well either.) They tried to build the Starlord-Gamora relationship. To be fair, Starlord has some control issues anyway.

The Hulk thing is fear. Either the Hulk persona is afraid of Thanos or Banner is now just plain afraid, instead of "angry all the time", meaning that he can't just whistle up Hulk whenever he wants.


----------



## OB1 (Apr 30, 2018)

Derren said:


> Which proves that you are wrong about the population automatically grows to the point of overpopulation in a short time.




So then what is Thanos worried about?

Also, I never said populations grow to overpopulation, I said they grow to the size of the resources available.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 30, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I'm back and forth on Star Lord.  I sort of think it was set up in his reaction to Ego killing his mom (blasting Ego instantly without thought), but where that scene was earned through two movies, I'm not so sure I buy the emotional connection between Star Lord and Gamora.



Starlord had fallen pretty hard for Gamora in _Guardians 2_. Their relationship was a big part of that film. I accepted his anger without hesitation. 
Her having feelings for him less so. I'm uncertain if she really loved him or was just telling him what he wanted to hear. 



OB1 said:


> Also, I never said populations grow to overpopulation, I said they grow to the size of the resources available.



Human history is quite full of examples of civilisations that exhausted their resources and collapsed.


----------



## OB1 (Apr 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Human history is quite full of examples of civilisations that exhausted their resources and collapsed.




I’d ask you to name one, but even if you could I’d just counter that exhausting resources wasn’t what led to collapse but rather inability to adapt and innovate in the face of a changing environment or circumstance.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 30, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I’d ask you to name one, but even if you could I’d just counter that exhausting resources wasn’t what led to collapse but rather inability to adapt and innovate in the face of a changing environment or circumstance.



Look up the history of Easter Island. That’s the big one.
Otherwise, humans just tend to move on and abandon lands where we’ve depleted all the resources. They adapt by leaving rather than innovating.


----------



## megamania (Apr 30, 2018)

Here's a thought completely unmentioned.

Hawkeye.

Half the universe's population is gone.    Includes his wife and children.   Game On.

Just a thought.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> yeah the Thanos loves Gamora thing wasn't very well established, and even the "saving the baby gamora" scene didn't show Thanos being merciful as much as him taking another child soldier on a whim. The story needed something more to show that Thanos actually cared for Gamora so that his choice to sacrifice her was tearing at his Soul instead of just another resource transaction.




Keep in mind that the majority of our view of Gamora's and Thanos's relationship has been based on Gamora's perspective - the playing off of rivalries between her and Nebula, the manipulation, the anger and betrayal. We know about those from her. I'm sure Thanos has a completely different take on them, certainly one colored by him being the Mad Titan and his generally effed up values, but one that he'd probably characterize as love. All I really needed was the look on his face before sacrificing Gamora to know what his feelings for her were and that they would qualify to get him the stone (and possibly the complication of a soul stone toting around Gamora's soul...).



Tonguez said:


> A lot of that going on, while there were some nice character moments, they didn't really achieve the deep emotional feels that they should have.




Depends on your moment. The moments between Wanda and Vision were, I thought, really well done.



Tonguez said:


> -and Star Lord losing it and attacking Thanos while the others were mid-assualt was just dumb




We should already know by now that Peter Quill isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He isn't stupid, but he's not exactly cold and calculating. He's an emotional and impulsive. And unlike OB1, I can see that they've been building an emotional connection between him and Gamora since GotG1 - particularly on Peter's part.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2018)

megamania said:


> Here's a thought completely unmentioned.
> 
> Hawkeye.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think there's a good chance he will have lost at least one. That would motivate him to break the house arrest. Infinity War 2 - we know we've got Thor, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Widow, and Rocket. 

We know Captain Marvel is on her way, Hawkeye's an easy activation. Depending on Ant-Man and Wasp, they could make an appearance too.
Adam Warlock is a possibility too considering we saw him being created in the stinger at the end of GotG2.

Long shot - so I don't think it's terribly likely - Shuri repairs the Vision and he's reactivated.
I'd love to see it, they foreshadowed her potential to do it. It's just a question of will they do it?


----------



## MarkB (Apr 30, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> yeah the Thanos loves Gamora thing wasn't very well established, and even the "saving the baby gamora" scene didn't show Thanos being merciful as much as him taking another child soldier on a whim. The story needed something more to show that Thanos actually cared for Gamora so that his choice to sacrifice her was tearing at his Soul instead of just another resource transaction.




I felt like the "Gamora kills fake Thanos" scene did reasonably well in setting it up. With the Reality stone to command, he could have played out any number of scenarios to capture her, or simply blown through all her allies with sheer strength. Instead, he set up a scenario that allowed her to kill him, because he genuinely needed to know whether she still cared about him. Which would only have mattered to him if he cared about her.


----------



## megamania (Apr 30, 2018)

I had assumed (silly me) she would before he "died".

Another thing I am wondering about is The Hulk.   Thanos kicked his backend readily and now it seems the Hulk is agraid to come out and fight him.

Is Mr. Fixit afraid?


----------



## megamania (Apr 30, 2018)

Also thinking about other heroes that may rise to the occation.  Marvel Studios is not releasing any further new movie info beyond what is already out there.   Could there be new heroes on the way?

Keep thinking a certain smart guy, his girl friend and her brother along with his best friend could be there and get "zapped" in the battle and Fantastic things come of it.

Feige was quoted as they don't want to release new info since it would be all for Phase four.    Galactus with Black Panther, Fantastic Four and others would be logical.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2018)

May have to add another hero to the mix for part 2 - who here really thinks Loki is dead? I have my doubts.


----------



## Tonguez (May 1, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I think there's a good chance he will have lost at least one. That would motivate him to break the house arrest. Infinity War 2 - we know we've got Thor, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Widow, and Rocket.
> 
> We know Captain Marvel is on her way, Hawkeye's an easy activation. Depending on Ant-Man and Wasp, they could make an appearance too.
> Adam Warlock is a possibility too considering we saw him being created in the stinger at the end of GotG2.
> ...




Gwyneth Paltrow was seen on set in a Mo-Cap suit, which suggest she might show up in the Rescue Armour (Iron Man Mk 1616) and Shuri has worn the Black Panther suit while her brother was 'absent'

I'm also wondering how this is going to spill over into Marvel TV, might be a nice time to shake things up and promote some of the TV heroes




billd91 said:


> Keep in mind that the majority of our view of Gamora's and Thanos's relationship has been based on Gamora's perspective - the playing off of rivalries between her and Nebula, the manipulation, the anger and betrayal. We know about those from her. I'm sure Thanos has a completely different take on them, certainly one colored by him being the Mad Titan and his generally effed up values, but one that he'd probably characterize as love. All I really needed was the look on his face before sacrificing Gamora to know what his feelings for her were and that they would qualify to get him the stone (and possibly the complication of a soul stone toting around Gamora's soul...).




yeah, the whole playing off Nebula and Gamora just seemed like manipulation of Gamoras emotions rather than love, but then perhaps thats because I don't think like a Universe slaying psychopath But the idea of Gamoras soul being in the stone is a nice peice of poetry


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Look up the history of Easter Island. That’s the big one.
> Otherwise, humans just tend to move on and abandon lands where we’ve depleted all the resources. They adapt by leaving rather than innovating.




You’re kidding right?  There’s a reason the world is supporting ten times the population now than it had even a century or two ago. 

Adaptation and innovation. 

I’m not saying that famine isn’t a thing. It certainly is. But our ability to sustain population has increased to unimaginable levels in the past century. 

What “moving on” have you seen in the past century?


----------



## Imaculata (May 1, 2018)

I enjoyed the movie a lot, and I genuinely liked Thanos. After the movie I joked that I thought the movie ended on a positive note, since the main character won. And that is perhaps what I like best; Thanos seems like the main character, and the Avengers are merely getting in his way.

Other positives:

-Among all the action, there is plenty of meaningful dialogue.
-Every character gets to shine.
-They set Thanos up as a truly epic threat. It never feels like a fair fight.
-I was never bothered by Thanos being an all CGI character.
-They subverted all my expectations regarding who lives and dies.
-I loved the fake out of almost killing Tony Stark.
-I loved the fake out of almost killing Vision, and then killing him anyway later.
-Spidey's death was pretty sad.
-They show just how utterly terrifying and insane the powers of all Infinity Stones combined are.

However, I have two negatives:

-All the deaths are undercut by the magic relic that can alter reality and rewind time. Its like one big red-con device that is in your face throughout the movie. It makes you not really care much about any of the deaths, since you know just how easy and plausible it is for them to just be resurrected again in the second movie.
-There are several special effect shots where they've pasted an actor's head on a CGI body, and you can really tell. Especially when we saw Mark Ruffulo's head peeping out of the top of the Hulk-Buster suit near the end. That looked fake as all hell.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> You’re kidding right?  There’s a reason the world is supporting ten times the population now than it had even a century or two ago.
> 
> Adaptation and innovation.
> 
> ...




How long can the statu quo last with finite resources and infinite needs?  100 years is rater young for a civilisation.


----------



## megamania (May 1, 2018)

Devil's Advocate Time:    Did Thanos think of the improved use or greater amounts of resources also?    Would that teach / educate anyone by just "giving" them their goodies?

He did it this way to put fear and terror in our hearts so that WE would learn to quell population.

Just sayin'......


----------



## Jester David (May 1, 2018)

Hussar said:


> You’re kidding right?  There’s a reason the world is supporting ten times the population now than it had even a century or two ago.
> 
> Adaptation and innovation.
> 
> ...



“The past century”. Also known as 0.05% of the lifespan of humanity. 
Permanent settlements, aka cities, have only existed for maybe 8% of humanity’s time on Earth.

Humanity survives, the culture does not. We’re spread out enough now that no one disaster will doom all of humanity, but our foolishness has killed numerous civilizations in the past. The Anasazi, the Indus Valley civilization, Rapa Nui, Olmecs, the Mayans, and Sumeria. Likely more who have been forgotten by time.
As Arnold Toynbee said “great civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide.”
Malthusian collapse isn’t the only reasons civilizations collapse. But it’s a big one.

And the above is just talking food. It’s ignoring all the other scare resources that have driven wars and conflicts. We’re 30 years past Peak Oil and consumptions has only increased. To say nothing of the rare elements necassary for modern electronics.

During our time, humanity still managed to turn the cradle of civilization into desert through improper agriculture, and almost did it again to North America with poor farming techniques (see the Dirty Thirties/ Dustbowl). We adapted quick enough to recover from the latter but not the former. 

Throughout all of human history, in general humanity adapts... but it also didn’t grow much. The world population was tiny for most of recorded history, barely using the potential resources of the planet. But even then, humanity continually moved and spread across the world. 
Our population was fairly stable until the 1700 when it began to increase before shooting up in the 20th Century. From 2 billion to 6 billion in a century. It will be 8 billion by 2024.
We’ve gone past the period when poor resource management will doom a city state.


----------



## Istbor (May 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> “The past century”. Also known as 0.05% of the lifespan of humanity.
> Permanent settlements, aka cities, have only existed for maybe 8% of humanity’s time on Earth.
> 
> Humanity survives, the culture does not. We’re spread out enough now that no one disaster will doom all of humanity, but our foolishness has killed numerous civilizations in the past.




I can think of a few disasters on their own that could still wipe out Humanity. Don't count our extinction out just yet.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 2, 2018)

I'm just fascinated with Disney producing a vilain who creates a debate around his motivations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> You’re kidding right?  There’s a reason the world is supporting ten times the population now than it had even a century or two ago.
> 
> Adaptation and innovation.
> 
> ...




There is however a fear that we might run out of our capability to sustain our innovation fast enough, and that we will run out resources. In the real world, it happened mostly in isolated places, but Earth is kinda an isolated place as well, unless we innovate to find a way to expand our resource consumption beyond Earth (which doesn't neccessarily mean colonization, depending on what we need.)

Anyway, all that is reality and speculative. In the fictional world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the world Titan apparenty did face a resource crisis and they weren't able to innovate beyond it, ending with their species destruction.


----------



## Tonguez (May 3, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> I'm just fascinated with Disney producing a vilain who creates a debate around his motivations.




yeah, even Forbes has gotten in on it, with at least three different articles discussing the Thanos' sustainability plan  , we do live in truely bizarre times


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2018)

I liked it more than Thor, and a lot more than Ultron, but less than the first Avengers film.


----------



## Hussar (May 4, 2018)

Just saw it yesterday.  A very good movie.  Not just a good "superhero" movie, but, a good movie all the way around.  Thanos was fantastic.  

It will be very interesting to see how they go forward.


----------



## megamania (May 4, 2018)

My son watched it a second time the other day.  He made an observation I thought was note worthy.   Comic book followers are "WoW!" while people whom don't know / understand the comic it is based on are outraged.  Outraged that heroes died.  Outraged the Villain "won".

Anyone else see this in the theaters?


----------



## Nutation (May 4, 2018)

megamania said:


> Outraged that heroes died.  Outraged the Villain "won".




It's a Part 1. At the end of any part 1, regardless of genre, the villain will have won or at least be in a really, really good strategic position.


----------



## Tonguez (May 4, 2018)

Nutation said:


> It's a Part 1. At the end of any part 1, regardless of genre, the villain will have won or at least be in a really, really good strategic position.




At the end of Star Wars the Death Star is destroyed - how is that a really good strategic position for the Empire?


People go to see complete movies, with a clear beginning - middle - end point - bridge to sequel. Infinity War didnt do that, we are left at the middle point and now have to wait a year for the resolution.

what the Marvel Movie machine has achieved is a way to churn out movies so quickly that it mimics a TV series, using MArvel TV, Trailers and other movies to maintain the interest despite the time lags.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> At the end of Star Wars the Death Star is destroyed - how is that a really good strategic position for the Empire?
> 
> 
> People go to see complete movies, with a clear beginning - middle - end point - bridge to sequel. Infinity War didnt do that, we are left at the middle point and now have to wait a year for the resolution.




Empire Strikes Back did that too. I think there’s room for long form storytelling in the movies.


----------



## billd91 (May 4, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> At the end of Star Wars the Death Star is destroyed - how is that a really good strategic position for the Empire?
> 
> 
> People go to see complete movies, with a clear beginning - middle - end point - bridge to sequel. Infinity War didnt do that, we are left at the middle point and now have to wait a year for the resolution.




Oh, it's way more complex than that. Back when my parents were kids, they went not just for complete stories but also serial stories - the exact type of story the that the original Star Wars saga paid homage to and that the various large project movies we've seen over the last 18 years have incorporated. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 1 and 2, the Hobbit. This isn't new and there really isn't an excuse for movie-goers to not understand that.


----------



## OB1 (May 4, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> yeah, even Forbes has gotten in on it, with at least three different articles discussing the Thanos' sustainability plan  , we do live in truely bizarre times




Great article. Articulated what I as trying to say about how silly Thanos’ plan is while also helping me to see that Thanos was indeed just crazy. Where I still think the film has a flaw though is in following Thanos’ motivation from seeing his world destroyed and thinking he knew the reason to why he believed there was a similar problem in the universe as a whole. I can see him seeking out individual planets where his bizarre view on overpop might come into play, but what has made him think that it’s a universe wide problem that will be solved if he acts now to reduce the population. 

Furthermore, that lack of connectivity in his motive leads to thematic issues with the film itself, as the MCU movies are largely about the right way to use power. We clearly see Thanos using power the wrong way, but how does that directly tie into the character choices of the Avengers?  They didn’t create him, like with Ultron, nor did they allow him to come to existence because of anything they did wrong in their part. Are the Avengers in danger of following Thanos’ path?  It doesn’t seem like the film was implying that. 

And for AIW to be a complete film on its own, we need to know. 

Imagine ESB where Vader doesn’t reveal himself to Luke. Wouldn’t that whole film feel like just a setup for the next?   Because it would be missing its emotional climax. The moment that makes a film with a plot cliffhanger still have a complete thematic, character, and emotional story. 

And the killer thing is, after GotG2, DrS, Spidey, Ragnorock and especially Black Panther did such a great job of having emotionally resonant cores, it’s too bad AIW stepped back into being just a punch up comic book movie.


----------



## billd91 (May 4, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Great article. Articulated what I as trying to say about how silly Thanos’ plan is while also helping me to see that Thanos was indeed just crazy. Where I still think the film has a flaw though is in following Thanos’ motivation from seeing his world destroyed and thinking he knew the reason to why he believed there was a similar problem in the universe as a whole. I can see him seeking out individual planets where his bizarre view on overpop might come into play, but what has made him think that it’s a universe wide problem that will be solved if he acts now to reduce the population.
> 
> Furthermore, that lack of connectivity in his motive leads to thematic issues with the film itself, as the MCU movies are largely about the right way to use power. We clearly see Thanos using power the wrong way, but how does that directly tie into the character choices of the Avengers?  They didn’t create him, like with Ultron, nor did they allow him to come to existence because of anything they did wrong in their part. Are the Avengers in danger of following Thanos’ path?  It doesn’t seem like the film was implying that.
> 
> And for AIW to be a complete film on its own, we need to know.




Oh, I don't think we do in general. There are a lot of ways in which the MCU movies are about the right way to use power. But there's no need for the Avengers to do anything to put Thanos on his path or make him as they did with Ultron. In fact, if he was somehow the result of their actions, then that would probably be evidence of the movies stuck in too much of a rut since there would be no variation on the theme. Rather, a totally external actor intersecting with the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy feels like a more organic story and works just fine to me. We still have direct comparisons between the Avengers and Thanos in their pursuit and use of power - we have all of the previous examples of the heroes using the power of the stones in limited ways, controlling the stones' impact, giving up the power, serving as custodians of the power rather than exploiters. All of that stands in stark contrast to Thanos. We also have characters like Cap unwilling to simply sacrifice even one friend while Thanos murders the daughter he loves for power. More satisfying contrast between the perspective of the heroes vs Thanos's warped perspective.


----------



## ccs (May 4, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> At the end of Star Wars the Death Star is destroyed - how is that a really good strategic position for the Empire?




You do realize that the original SW was made to function as a standalone movie in the likely event that it was the only chapter to ever get made.  Right?





Tonguez said:


> People go to see complete movies, with a clear beginning - middle - end point - bridge to sequel. Infinity War didnt do that, we are left at the middle point and now have to wait a year for the resolution.




Well what do you want?
*A)* The complete story all at once?  That'd be about a 5hr movie.  With about another 40some minutes tacked on for trailers, credits, & the post credit scene. (then add some more time for the staff to clean up for the next showing)
Most of the movie going audience don't want to sit through something that long.
The theatres absolutely don't want that length of movie.  Because that greatly limits how many showings per day they can schedule.  Less showings = less tickets sold = less food sold.  Long shows = less $.

*B)* Everything crammed into 2.5hrs?  I guarantee you'd be complaining you saw a crappy movie.

*C)* Pt1 & Pt2 released simultaneously or back to back?  That won't work.

*D) *Not make this story?  Or any other long term story that takes several/many movies to set the stage for?

Edit:  Oh, BTW.  Nothing is forcing you to see A:IW - or any other movie you think is incomplete - right when it comes out.
You've known for a year or two that it was initially called A:IW pt1....
So wait until just before Pt2 hits the theatres, watch Pt1, then go watch the 2nd part.


----------



## billd91 (May 4, 2018)

ccs said:


> You do realize that the original SW was made to function as a standalone movie in the likely event that it was the only chapter to ever get made.  Right?
> 
> *C)* Pt1 & Pt2 released simultaneously or back to back?  That won't work.




I'm not sure about that. There's nothing magic about releasing them a year apart. The real and practical question is whether or not they have the capacity to complete the post-production work on a faster schedule. If they had the capacity, there's certainly no reason they couldn't release them 4-6 months apart. I think the market would respond positively and people would turn out to both as well as they would separated by a year. They'd just have to be able to complete the work and block off the marketing time with the actors.


----------



## Derren (May 4, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Great article. Articulated what I as trying to say about how silly Thanos’ plan is while also helping me to see that Thanos was indeed just crazy.




You probably should read the link first before commenting on it. Scenario 7 is closest to Thanos plan and as you can see on the graph the population problem would be solved for quite some time.


----------



## OB1 (May 5, 2018)

ccs said:


> Well what do you want?
> *A)* The complete story all at once?  That'd be about a 5hr movie.  With about another 40some minutes tacked on for trailers, credits, & the post credit scene. (then add some more time for the staff to clean up for the next showing)
> Most of the movie going audience don't want to sit through something that long.
> The theatres absolutely don't want that length of movie.  Because that greatly limits how many showings per day they can schedule.  Less showings = less tickets sold = less food sold.  Long shows = less $.
> ...




Not sure about [MENTION=1125]Tonguez[/MENTION] but what I want is a complete story inside a larger story.

Kind of like an adventure that tells a complete story while still being part of a larger campaign.

And while you can leave things unresolved, at the end of the adventure, that piece should still have it's own satisfying beginning, middle and end.

AIW tries to do this by making Thanos the protagonist of the story, but because his motives are compromised by his insanity, instead of getting an anti-hero that you empathize with even while abhorring their actions (see The Godfather, Wolf of Wall Street, Empire Strikes Back, Dexter), you end up in this weird space where to see things from Thanos' point of view you actually have to think he was RIGHT in killing half the Universe's population as if the idea weren't both completely illogical, insane and evil.  

I have no doubt that the creators of AIW wanted people to empathize with Thanos in the same way people do with Darth Vader or Don Corleone, but those movies earn that.  AIW does not.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2018)

Who sympathizes with Darth Vader?  Vader was a monster by the end of Empire.  He was not sympathetic at all.    I might see it by the end of Jedi, when Vader is somewhat redeemed, but, at the end of ESB?  He's a murdering psychopath with zero redeeming qualities.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 5, 2018)

So it’s the original 6 Avengers plus War Machine and Rocket, and possibly Ant-Man and Wasp (although I have a feeling their post credit scene may involve one of them turning to dust). And certainly Captain Marvel, although exactly how she fits into it is a bit unclear. Supposedly, her film takes place years ago in the MCU. So perhaps she’ll arrive in the present day MCU somehow? Or she’ll simply be older and come out of retirement. We’ll see.

And I agree with those who’ve said Hawkeye will lose some or all of his family. There are shots of him from the set of Avengers 4, and he’s in an alternate costume that he only wore in the comics when he was going through some dark stuff.

I wonder what the next film’s title will be. “Avengers Assemble” seems appropriate but almost too optimistic given the current state of things.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2018)

I wonder why everybody doesn’t have Mjolnir+ level artifacts. According to giant Tyrion, it only takes a few minutes and one guy to make one when the forge is running.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I wonder what the next film’s title will be. “Avengers Assemble” seems appropriate but almost too optimistic given the current state of things.




I think that’s what the first Avengers film was called here in the UK. To avoid confusion with the Avengers stuff in the 60s.


----------



## hawkeyefan (May 5, 2018)

Ah, that makes sense. I guess that title is out then.


----------



## megamania (May 5, 2018)

There was a more recent "Avengers" movie based on that show.   Don't remember much except for the thousands of mechanical killer bees.


----------



## megamania (May 5, 2018)

Found an image....


----------



## Tonguez (May 5, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> So it’s the original 6 Avengers plus War Machine and Rocket, and possibly Ant-Man and Wasp (although I have a feeling their post credit scene may involve one of them turning to dust). And certainly Captain Marvel, although exactly how she fits into it is a bit unclear. Supposedly, her film takes place years ago in the MCU. So perhaps she’ll arrive in the present day MCU somehow? Or she’ll simply be older and come out of retirement. We’ll see.
> 
> I wonder what the next film’s title will be. “Avengers Assemble” seems appropriate but almost too optimistic given the current state of things.




Avengers Assemble would be a truely awesome name for the last movie, optimism may be a good thing since we would assume that the finale will be the last hurrah that defeats Thanos, restores the losses and launches the future MCU, Maybe Avengers Re-Assembled if they need an alternative 

2, I'm assuming that Captain Marvel comes back from deep space (she can survive in space and fly at light speed) and that she hasn't aged much due to her cosmic powers

3. Valkyrie is whereabouts unknown and Pepper could don the Rescue Armour to come and find Tony.



Morrus said:


> I wonder why everybody doesn’t have Mjolnir+ level artifacts. According to giant Tyrion, it only takes a few minutes and one guy to make one when the forge is running.




because even _giant_ dwarfs are greedy bustards who don't turn on the dying star forge for anyone except Asgardian royalty. Besides I don't think Uru metal is particularly abundant or easy to forge (hence the need for afore mentioned dying star channeled through a Thunder gods pectoral muscles)


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> because even _giant_ dwarfs are greedy bustards who don't turn on the dying star forge for anyone except Asgardian royalty. Besides I don't think Uru metal is particularly abundant or easy to forge (hence the need for afore mentioned dying star channeled through a Thunder gods pectoral muscles)




Do they only work when Thor turns up?

I thought the implication was that there were loads of giant dwarves forging stuff and an active star, but Thanos killed them all last week and turned off the forge. 

They didn’t all just hang around for millennia waiting for Thor did they?


----------



## Maxperson (May 5, 2018)

Tonguez said:


> At the end of Star Wars the Death Star is destroyed - how is that a really good strategic position for the Empire?




Part one ended with Qui-gon dead and the Sith master elected as leader of the Republic.  By part 4, things were beginning to turn around.


----------



## Tonguez (May 6, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Do they only work when Thor turns up?
> 
> I thought the implication was that there were loads of giant dwarves forging stuff and an active star, but Thanos killed them all last week and turned off the forge.
> 
> They didn’t all just hang around for millennia waiting for Thor did they?




while the others dwarfs were workers (was it 300?) I took the scene to mean that only Eitri was able to design the weapons that could contain the enchantments - I'm basing that on three lines
Eitri - _ I made what he wanted: a device capable of harnessing the power of the stones_
Thanos (via Eitri)- _'Your life is yours', But Your hands are mine alone._" and 
Thor - "_Every weapon you've ever designed, it's all inside your head_"

Theres also the deleted scene from the Trailer which shows Thor first raising Stormbreaker amidst a whole lot of lightning which I suspect was the scene where Thor actively enchants the weapon with _his_ powers (just as Odin enchanted Mjolnir before him)

So Yes my assumption is that while Dwarfs are great craftsmen, it is Eitri alone who had the ability to design weapons able to harness the enchantments/powers of Others be it the Odinforce, Thors power or the Infinity Stones


----------



## OB1 (May 6, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Who sympathizes with Darth Vader?  Vader was a monster by the end of Empire.  He was not sympathetic at all.    I might see it by the end of Jedi, when Vader is somewhat redeemed, but, at the end of ESB?  He's a murdering psychopath with zero redeeming qualities.




I didn't say sympathize, I said empathize.  I agree with you 100% on Vader, and don't believe that his actions redeem him at all at the end of Jedi.  He made one right choice, to save his son's life, but that doesn't make up for the monster he was.

Empathizing with monsters in works of art only means that you see the real human emotions and desires that led them to the choices they make so as to recognize the danger of the same emotions and desires within yourself or from those around you to do great harm.


----------



## Hussar (May 6, 2018)

Yes, but, even empathize?  With Vader at the end of ESB?  We know virtually nothing about him other than he's a murdering psychopath who happens to share DNA with Luke Skywalker.  Even his motivations are clearly self serving - "Join me and together we will rule the galaxy"  Mwahahahaha!  This is the same guy that just spent a good chunk of the movie torturing Han Solo for fun "they didn't ask any questions!".  

I really don't think Darth Vader is a good example here.


----------



## MarkB (May 7, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I wonder what the next film’s title will be. “Avengers Assemble” seems appropriate but almost too optimistic given the current state of things.




"Avengers - Some Assembly Required"



Morrus said:


> I wonder why everybody doesn’t have Mjolnir+ level artifacts. According to giant Tyrion, it only takes a few minutes and one guy to make one when the forge is running.




According to Odin in Thor: Ragnarok, Mjolnir was never a source of power for Thor - it merely channeled his innate powers.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 7, 2018)

MarkB said:


> "Avengers - Some Assembly Required"



Damn! That's exactly what I was going to post :-D


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 7, 2018)

Morrus said:


> I wonder why everybody doesn’t have Mjolnir+ level artifacts. According to giant Tyrion, it only takes a few minutes and one guy to make one when the forge is running.



It seems the problem is that most simply cannot wield such items, so it's really more something for the... cosmic players on the level of Thanos and Thor, and they probably have a weapon like that already.


----------



## Istbor (May 7, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It seems the problem is that most simply cannot wield such items, so it's really more something for the... cosmic players on the level of Thanos and Thor, and they probably have a weapon like that already.




It also seemed like finding the place was difficult, as Rocket thought the place was a Myth.  Making it seem like only some are aware of how to get there in the first place.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Think about what happens if, overnight, 150 million Americans just turn to dust.
> Suddenly, there's job openings across the board. With fewer people for every occupation, everyone has their pick of employment and has an instant choice. They can ask for a higher salary and get it, because the demand is there.




No.  It isn't that simple.  I mean, realistically...

First, all your cities burn down.  Because half of all the aircraft in the air crash - some of them into cities.  We've seen what happens when planes meet skyscrapers.  And the roads are clogged with half the cars crashed into the other half.  So the first responders (now only half as many) can't get anywhere.  And the cities burn.  

In general, you now have loads of infrastructure, but only half the people to operate it and maintain it.  Power and water systems fail.  You probably have some ecological disasters as nuclear plants melt down, refineries blow up, offshore drill rigs are undermanned and not capped off.  There are only half the people you expect watching over the nuclear and chemical weapon arsenals in the world.... It gets ugly, for a while.

There's probably massive economic depression.  There's not enough people to make the world as we know it function.  It will take some time to adjust.

But, we don'e have time.  And this is why Thanos is not the Mad Titan.  He is the Dumb-as-a-Rock Titan.  More on that in a bit.




> The bureaucracy is upended and there's not enough time to bother with the rules and regulations of a proper election. Anyone can get elected. This shakes the two party system.
> 
> And that's just one country. Half the world's dictators are gone. Half the people in charge of oppressing nations. Half the warlords. Half the drug barons.




Yeah.  The other half the warlords and barons are still there, and there's not enough people to run proper elections... You don't see a problem growing there?  People are *SCARED AS HECK* because *HALF OF EVERYONE THEY KNOW JUST TURNED TO ASH!*  This is not what we call a recipe for new and enlightened political systems.



> His plan is insane. He is the Mad Titan. But it's also just crazy enough to work...




Ultimately, no it won't.  Someone needs to teach Thanos some math.

If the Universe is using up its resources too fast, and you cut the population in half, you really only double the time until we use up those resources.  It slows down the problem, but does not stop it.

But, much more importantly, _the population won't stay halved!_.  Specifically, even at very modest rates of growth (like, under 1% growth per year), your population still doubles in less than a century.  All this work, fighting, pain, misery and loss, and we will be back exactly where we were in less than a hundred years.  

This bugs me, because as Thanos monologues to Dr. Strange about the whole thing, Doc asks him, "And then what?" and Thanos says he'll retire.  And I was just waiting for Doc to bust out that Thanos was a dunderhead, because people keep frelling having babies, and unless he's setting himself to cut the population in half every century or so, forever, there's no point to what he's doing at all!

But, no, they missed that opportunity.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2018)

There’s an even nastier problem as well. With half the population gone, you just massively cut the gene pool, resulting in all sorts of nasty stuff down the line. 

And when we cut half the populations, where is the cutoff line?  Technological races?  How advanced?  After all, humans conquered the planet with stone axes. And probably did some spectacularly bad things to the ecosphere. 

So is it anything with intelligence?  Or even just potential intelligence?

In any case it’s a bloody stupid plan.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2018)

Hussar said:


> There’s an even nastier problem as well. With half the population gone, you just massively cut the gene pool, resulting in all sorts of nasty stuff down the line.




On that score, I think it is okay.  Cutting a gene pool in half is dangerous when the population is already small.  But going from a gene pool of 7+ billion, to 3.5 billion?  YOu still hae plenty of the genes you need.  The chances of completely losing something important, or forcing inbreeding with a population that's still that large isn't significant.


----------



## megamania (May 14, 2018)

Depends on what part of the pool remains.  If its the shallow end......


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2018)

He did state that it was randomly chosen.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2018)

Umbran said:


> He did state that it was randomly chosen.




But, that's the thing about randomness.  Sure, you might get an even distribution, but, there's no guarantee of that.  It's equally possible that you get group in random choices, meaning that you might wind up wiping out everyone with any medical training, for example, simply through random chance.

It really is a mad idea.


----------



## billd91 (May 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing about randomness.  Sure, you might get an even distribution, but, there's no guarantee of that.  It's equally possible that you get group in random choices, meaning that you might wind up wiping out everyone with any medical training, for example, simply through random chance.
> 
> It really is a mad idea.




Well, he is the *Mad Titan*. Would it seem less mad if all the destruction were still essentially Thanos's love letter to the personification of Death? It may seem like that's, at least, is a bit better thought out than annihilating half the population for population management - but it's still madder than a hatter.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's the thing about randomness.  Sure, you might get an even distribution, but, there's no guarantee of that.  It's equally possible that you get group in random choices, meaning that you might wind up wiping out everyone with any medical training, for example, simply through random chance.




Technically, that could happen, yes, but it is not "equally possible".  

The best way to see this is probably with a much smaller example.  Imagine a room with 10 people in it when Thanos snaps his fingers.  Five of these people are doctors, the rest are not.  What is the chance that you lose the five doctors, and none of the others in the room?

The number of different groups of five that might be chosen is given to us by combinatorics - and if I hae my numbers right, there are 252 distinct groups of five you could choose.  Only *one* of these is all the doctors.  So, the chance that you lose all the doctors is 1 in 252, or just under 0.4%.  Not likely.

It is as likely as any other *particular* arrangements (like, say, 4 of the doctors and Fred).  But we are implicitly comparing "lost all the doctors" to "not lose all the doctors" - teh ensemble of possibilities where all teh doctors are dead is small compared to *all the other * possibilities, which include some living doctors.

Or, to put it more graphically - There are something over one million doctors in the US.   The chance of losing all the doctors is basically the same as the chance of losing specifically the entiretyof Dallas, Texas (which something over 1 million people).  When Thanos snaps his fingers, do you expect to then walk into Dalls, specifically, and find it completely and utterly empty?  No.  That's not a likely scenario.  Same thing here.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2018)

Using your .4% idea, out of a thousand worlds, 4 have Texas vanishing.  Since the MCU posits a pretty full universe with lots and lots of inhabited worlds, then this sort of rare grouping will happen and the consequences become that much worse.  That's the funny thing about randomness.  The more times you spin the wheel, the weirder the results you start to get.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Using your .4% idea, out of a thousand worlds, 4 have Texas vanishing.




No.  The 0.4% was for a room full of 10 people, five of them doctors.  

I said the probability of *all* doctors in the US biting the bullet was equivalent to having, specifically, Dallas vanishing.  But is not equal to 0.4%.  I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you they are equal, because being a doctor is not the functional bit - being a member of a specifically chosen 1 million people is the important bit.


Let us be clear:  There's a difference between, "Given a nigh-infinite number of planets, this will happen on one of them, somewhere," and, "it is equally possible."

That's what I am responding to - the mis-statement of the probability.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 15, 2018)

Interestingly, it seemed that Thanos's original "half-off sale" actually worked on Gamora's home planet (at least, that is what Thanos said in IW).  This was when he had to do things the old-fashioned way, pre-Snap.

Anyhow, I liked the movie a lot.  I look forward to the sequel next year.  Hmmm . . . 6 infinity stones, 6 original avengers . . . Lessee: Captain America - Soul, Iron Man - Mind, Thor - Reality, Hulk - Power, Hawkeye - Space (can put those arrows anywhere), Black Widow - Time (good at planning in advance).  Don't know if the movie will go for a sextuple sacrifice though.

Also, if Loki lived, perhaps he is somehow hitching a ride on the hidden Hulk?  Because Loki is definitely tricky enough to fake his own death.


----------



## OB1 (May 15, 2018)

Particle_Man said:


> Interestingly, it seemed that Thanos's original "half-off sale" actually worked on Gamora's home planet (at least, that is what Thanos said in IW).  This was when he had to do things the old-fashioned way, pre-Snap.




Maybe not the best idea to trust the word of a genocidal sociopath?

We have no information that Gamora’s planet was in any kind of risk of collapse. 

We only have Thanos’ word that the planet is better off now than before. 

Even if it is “better off” now, it came at the cost of the brutal slaughter of half the population. How do those who lost a loved one feel about that trade off?

Even if the planet actually was on the verge of collapse, and even if what Thanos did prevented that collapse, it’s still an anecdotal example and no logical person should have any reason to believe it would work in all cases, and even if it did, it’s still an act of pure evil. 

Thanos is a sociopath who is completely disconnected from reality. He is not smart, deep, or interesting. He is just a force of nature.  Killing his adopted daughter to fulfill his quest doesn’t humanize him, it further locks him in as a sociopath. 

Making him the protagonist of the story is akin to making a volcano or a hurricane the main character.  You can’t empathize with a volcano or hurricane, so they can’t be characters. The same is true for Thanos. 

They should have set up the film as a disaster movie.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 16, 2018)

Actually I have at least one friend IRL and a few message board folk that liked it being the story of Thanos and got a movie where the villain wins.


----------



## MarkB (May 16, 2018)

Particle_Man said:


> Interestingly, it seemed that Thanos's original "half-off sale" actually worked on Gamora's home planet (at least, that is what Thanos said in IW).  This was when he had to do things the old-fashioned way, pre-Snap.




On Gamora's world they knew exactly who had attacked them and why - and they also knew they didn't stand a chance against him. So after the horrors he'd inflicted, they could eventually rebuild.

But right now in this universe, on every planet that hadn't heard about Thanos and his grand schemes, it seems like half the population's been turned to ashes through some unknown means. Maybe some of them will blame a vengeful god, but in the vast majority of cases any planet on which there is any history of conflict is going to see the various factions blaming each other. Anywhere that the random chance happens to favour one side, everyone else will pin the blame on them. Even when both sides are equally affected, people will assume that one or another faction created a doomsday weapon that got away from them.

And then, since pretty much everyone who survived has lost people they loved and is looking for someone to blame and get angry with, there's going to be war.

Lots and lots and lots of war, the whole universe over.

Half the population of the universe was just the start. By the time the dust settles, there may not even be 10% left.

I feel like if there's anything that can turn back the clock on the whole thing, that will be it. The future that Doctor Strange envisioned that led him to choose this endgame - I think it was allowing Thanos to succeed, and then allowing him to witness the result of his success. Hopefully he learns enough of a lesson that he'll eventually use the Time stone to go back and fix it himself.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 18, 2018)

Clearly, Thanos overapplies his strategy: One presumes that some planets face immanent overpopulation crisises, such as arguably us, or did in the past, as is shown happened on a Titan.  But civilizations have existed over many thousands of years in the Marvel Universe.  I haven’t gotten a sense that all of them fail to find a balance.  Also clearly, the solution is short termed.

But, I think we are using the literary prentation to evade the real question: Are people, here, facing collapse?  Will we be able to find a sustainable mode before failing?  If we won’t, is Thanos solution worse than the collapse?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Jhaelen (May 18, 2018)

tomBitonti said:


> Clearly, Thanos overapplies his strategy



Yup, it's just like the saying: "If all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."


----------



## Mighten (May 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> In the comic, Nebula gets ahold of the gauntlet and wishes everything back the way it was a day prior.
> In the film this could translate to a year prior. Or everyone killed by Thanos.
> Or it could be Tony remaking the universe. Perhaps with Cap. The two of them sacrificing themselves to fix the universe while balancing each other's impulses.




Interesting, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Yup, it's just like the saying: "If all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."




Except he doesn't actually have the hammer - he has to go thorugh a whole oot of effort to assemble the hammer.

And then, withe the stones in question, really the only solution he can think of is to kill half the universe?  He can't.. impost growth limits?  Create resources?  ENlighten every sentient in the universe so that they can choose good local ways to deal with the problem?  With those stones, the only thing he can manage is to *KILL*?

Thanos is not terribly imaginative.


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Except he doesn't actually have the hammer - he has to go thorugh a whole oot of effort to assemble the hammer.
> 
> And then, withe the stones in question, really the only solution he can think of is to kill half the universe?  He can't.. impost growth limits?  Create resources?  ENlighten every sentient in the universe so that they can choose good local ways to deal with the problem?  With those stones, the only thing he can manage is to *KILL*?
> 
> Thanos is not terribly imaginative.




Are we missing the fact that he's the *MAD TITAN* here? You're basically second-guessing someone who demonstrably has a really effed up moral compass. There's not really much of a point to doing that since your views on what's rational are completely different.

Of course, there may be all sorts of other limitations on what the stones can actually do. Can they really create resources on the same scale as they can annihilate life forms? Can they actually enlighten every sentient in the universe?


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Are we missing the fact that he's the *MAD TITAN* here?  You're basically second-guessing someone who demonstrably has a really effed up moral compass.




No.  I'm noting that they don't actually establish his madness in the movie!  He's presented as _entirely rational_.  

Every leader in history who has presided over war has had to do the calculus of, "Is the end I/we seek worth the lives it costs."  The vast majority of them are not considered mad - so being willng to have people die for an end is not, itself, sign of madness.  If he is correct, that the future of the Universe is doomed unless the excess population is culled, then he may not be considered "mad" at all, as he is saving people in the long run, and is at worst Maciavellian in his appraoch.

He even presents a pretty solid example - his homeworld, that was consumed by its own population.  Again, his conclusions that something drastic must be done to save all worlds with sentient life seems supported by evidence!

He only becomes mad when we make it abundantly clear that his position is not rational, that he is moving contrary to reality.  And they don't actually do that in the movie! 



> Of course, there may be all sorts of other limitations on what the stones can actually do. Can they really create resources on the same scale as they can annihilate life forms? Can they actually enlighten every sentient in the universe?




They just spent the past decade establishing how immensiey powerful these stones are, and now we are supposed to just accept that they have criticaly plot-relevant but unstated restrictions?  If the Stones have such limitations, that needs to be established _in the movie_ to be a strong argument.  

The stones are clearly capable of things other than destruction - see the Vision, who was effectively given life/sentience by one.  Thanos uses them to create very realistic ilusions.  From the Snapocalypse we know he can reach at least half the population of the Universe simultaneously.  The suggestion is that the fact that he limits to half is his invention - he was killing half of worlds before he had the stones.  So, he can reach everyone.  He has Mind, and can reach everyone.  How should he *not* be able to enlighten everyone?  

And again, this would all be fine if _anyone_ rejected his thesis, or suggested alternatives, such that we could see his devotion to this one course is irrational.


----------



## Morrus (May 18, 2018)

Umbran said:


> No.  I'm noting that they don't actually establish his madness in the movie!  He's presented as _entirely rational_.




Agreed. He’s not portrayed as mad, or called “the mad Titan”.  I don’t know the comics, but the movie does not display an irrational protagonist (and he is this movie’s protagonist).


----------



## Morrus (May 18, 2018)

billd91 said:


> Are we missing the fact that he's the *MAD TITAN* here?




We’re not missing it. The movie is. That’s not a thing in this film.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 18, 2018)

My thoughts - 

1) This is a timeline movie - in the battle with Iron Man & Doc Strange vs Thanos henchmen we see the time stone doing some crap, that was the "record start here moment".  

2) I am not 100% positive that the ones that disappeared where the ones to "die".  Those that where left may have been the ones to go, aka alternative timeline.


----------



## billd91 (May 19, 2018)

Morrus said:


> We’re not missing it. The movie is. That’s not a thing in this film.




What are you expecting? That he acts like one of the Three Stooges? That he laughs maniacally like a cliche? That he raves like a lunatic? How boring that would be! His method is to act relatively calmly and entirely ruthlessly toward a crazy end. He’s *far* more menacing as a result (and far more in keeping with his character from the comics).


----------



## Morrus (May 19, 2018)

billd91 said:


> What are you expecting? That he acts like one of the Three Stooges? That he laughs maniacally like a cliche? That he raves like a lunatic? How boring that would be! His method is to act relatively calmly and entirely ruthlessly toward a crazy end. He’s *far* more menacing as a result (and far more in keeping with his character from the comics).




I don't know what that means. 

I watched a film. I didn't expect anything, and I haven't read the comics.


----------



## Ryujin (May 19, 2018)

I'd say that the movie portrays Thanos as the scariest kind of crazy; the calm sort.


----------



## Morrus (May 19, 2018)

Ryujin said:


> I'd say that the movie portrays Thanos as the scariest kind of crazy; the calm sort.




He's Hans Gruber, rather than the Joker.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2018)

But that hardly makes him rational.  Do audiences really need someone to point at Thanos and exclaim, "You are mad, mad I say!"?  Do they really need to spell it out that Thanos is crazier than a poop house rat?  I mean, the whole plan is irrational, and, even the justifications for it are the flimsy rationalizations of someone whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best. 

I mean, follow the crazy train here.  "My world experienced resource depletion because of overpopulation.  So, in order to save everyone else from the same fate, I'm going to commit universe wide genocide.  First, I'm going to do it in person, visiting world after world murdering millions and billions, but, now, I got my hands on the thing that could restore my planet, save all my people and bring about a golden age, so, I'm going to ignore all that and murder half the universe so I can sit on a lake and feel good about myself."

Do we actually need someone in the movie to tell the audience that this is bug nuts?


----------



## Ryujin (May 19, 2018)

Morrus said:


> He's Hans Gruber, rather than the Joker.




He's no Hans Gruber. Gruber was smart and sane. Thanos is far from a genius and nuts.


----------



## Maxperson (May 19, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Agreed. He’s not portrayed as mad, or called “the mad Titan”.  I don’t know the comics, but the movie does not display an irrational protagonist (and he is this movie’s protagonist).




His very plan and the way he carried it out is "mad."  He's had decades to figure things out and settle on a plan that doesn't work, as opposed to others that would.  The world has gone from 3 billion in 1960 to 7 billion in 2011.  It more than doubled in just 51 years.  Halving the population doesn't do much to save resources since the populations will replace themselves very quickly.  His plan is insane.  His single minded pursuit of it, to the point of murdering what he loved most is also kinda crazy.  

If he was rational, he would have settled on a solution that works, such as altering birth rates so that the populations drop to half and stay that way, or just replenishing the resources while making sure that populations don't increase further.  

So while they don't explicitly call him the Mad Titan, he portrays it pretty well in the movie.


----------



## Hussar (May 19, 2018)

Let's also not forget that much of the movie is told from Thanos' perspective.  So, of course he's not going to call himself "mad".  To him, he's perfectly rational and his solution is also perfectly rational.


----------



## Rabulias (May 19, 2018)

So any speculation on the Avengers 4 title? Word is that it has been kept under wraps as it is too spoilery. 
I guess that means it was a spoiler for the end of _Avengers: Infinity War_. I wonder if it will be something along the lines of _Avengers Reassembled_ or _Avengers: Heroes Return_?

I was also thinking about _Avengers Forever_, as that limited series involved time travel, but it's not too spoilery.


----------



## Joker (May 19, 2018)

Rabulias said:


> So any speculation on the Avengers 4 title? Word is that it has been kept under wraps as it is too spoilery.
> I guess that means it was a spoiler for the end of _Avengers: Infinity War_. I wonder if it will be something along the lines of _Avengers Reassembled_ or _Avengers: Heroes Return_?
> 
> I was also thinking about _Avengers Forever_, as that limited series involved time travel, but it's not too spoilery.




Avengers: The Dustbin Chronicles


----------



## trappedslider (May 19, 2018)

I finally saw it last night and well :   T-Tesseract (Space Stone) H-Hurl his (step)daughter off a cliff A-Aether (Reality Stone) N-Necklace (Time Stone) O-Orb (Power Stone) S-Scepter (Mind Stone)


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 19, 2018)

Yea, no one needs to say Thanos is mad; he has ultimate power literally in his hand and does away with half the population WITHOUT thinking about what other options he had at his finger tips.  Nope, not once does he say; with this power I could unify the galaxy, create food replicators, do away with hunger, war, and lead the galaxy into an age of enlightenment.


----------



## OB1 (May 21, 2018)

Great! So now we agree that Thanos as presents in the film is completely mad, it also means that he has no character arc. The one choice he seems to make, throwing Gamora off the cliff, is a part of his madness. That’s why he fails so completely as a protagonist and why the film can’t stand on its own. The film fails because it’s nothing more than a series of, then this thing happened. It’s not a story, it’s a list.


----------



## Ryujin (May 21, 2018)

It's half of a story.


----------



## Umbran (May 21, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Great! So now we agree that Thanos as presents in the film is completely mad




I still don't.  The film establishes that he is willing to do something extreme.  The film does not establish that this is, in fact, madness.



> That’s why he fails so completely as a protagonist and why the film can’t stand on its own.




That would be because he is the antagonist, not a protagonist.  He is an antagonist with a lot of screen time, but an antagonist regardless.



> The film fails because it’s nothing more than a series of, then this thing happened. It’s not a story, it’s a list.




I think you'll have to make more clear what you classify as a list of events, and what you classify as a story, if you want folks to accept that assertion.

However that comes out, I whould note that as an antagonist, we are not really watching for his character development.  We are given his basic motivations, but we are not expecting him to change over the course of the film - that is nice to have, sometimes, but not really necessary for a satifying conflict.  If he's going to change at all it'll be in the second movie.  For now, he's effectively a force of nature.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 21, 2018)

So here's the thing:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/enviro...ense-magazines/wildlife-population-management



> Conversely, when the numbers of a target population have become too great to be sustained by the food or territory available, then predators can be introduced, or a *human-mediated cull* can be done.




Bold added by me.

Is the presentation, above, rational?

If it is, then the critique of Thanos cannot be that culling in general is non-rational.

(There is a deeper point, which is a strong argument against culling, which is that the need for population management arises because of what people have done to disrupt the environment, and the focus really needs to be on people and their behavior.)

Thx!
TomB


----------



## OB1 (May 21, 2018)

[MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION] that’s exactly the problem! Instead of two complete stories with a cliffhanger, we are getting two non stories that might become one story when watched together. 
 [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] - a story is about a character who wants something and has to overcome one or many obstacles to achieve it by making choices that affect the outcome.  Thanos wants something and faces obstacles (driving the plot), but his choices are rendered meaningless due to his madness. 
 [MENTION=13107]tomBitonti[/MENTION] - two points here, culling works because it’s highly controlled, with the decision on how much to cull based on the particular needs of each population and it’s resources. Second, animals need to be culled because they don’t have the human capability of reason to find solutions to the problems facing them. Rational beings understand you can’t snap your fingers and make everything happy ever after. Problems have solutions and there will always be new problems to solve.


----------



## trappedslider (May 21, 2018)

In case anyone has forgotten he pointed out how his home world refused to listen to him and his solutions and was then self destroyed, then he later pointed out how his method worked on Gamora's home world. He figures it worked on one planet, now let's try all the others.....


----------



## Umbran (May 21, 2018)

OB1 said:


> a story is about a character who wants something and has to overcome one or many obstacles to achieve it by making choices that affect the outcome.  Thanos wants something and faces obstacles (driving the plot), but his choices are rendered meaningless due to his madness.




I suppose that's one interpretation.  But, it is easily argued that every character with a spoken line in the movie wants one or more things. Each of the Avengers (and various associated people) collectively and individually want to stop half the universe from being killed, for example.  And, in a typical story in Western heroic fiction, the protagonist is reacitve, rather than proactive.  The antagonist creates the basic conflict and many of the obstacles.  Without the antagonist, there is usually no story, because the protagonist is not challeneged.

You are actively choosing to interpret it with Thanos as the protagonist.  As you note, the resulting story does not make much sense.  Why, then, hold to that interpretation?  If you turn it around, and note the varius superheroes are the protagonists, then the story comes out much more reasonably. 




> Second, animals need to be culled because they don’t have the human capability of reason to find solutions to the problems facing them.




Um, humans often don't have that capabilty.  Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is a fine example - humans did to that island pretty much exactly what Thanos' people did to their homeworld - they consumed the resources until the island could no longer support them.  The devastated the ecosystem.  And they all died.  

Just because a people have the ability to reason, in general, does not automatically mean that they (either individually or collectively) recognize a problem exists, have the understanding to formulate a solution that works, or the will to make it happen.  Unless Thanos is unrealiable, there is proof that a culture can fail to beat this challenge.




> Rational beings understand you can’t snap your fingers and make everything happy ever after.




No rational being (to our knowledge) has had access to the power implied by the Infinity Stones.  It is perhaps better to note that one's ability to solve problems is limited by, among other things, one's ability to impact reality.  Thanos' ablity to impact reality... was very large.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2018)

Umm, the culling model doesn't work in this case because you never just cull once.  You have to cull repeatedly, over time, every time that the population needs to be controlled.  There's no sense that Thanos is going to wipe out half the universe every fifty years or so just to make sure that things stay in balance.


----------



## Umbran (May 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Umm, the culling model doesn't work in this case because you never just cull once.  You have to cull repeatedly, over time, every time that the population needs to be controlled.  There's no sense that Thanos is going to wipe out half the universe every fifty years or so just to make sure that things stay in balance.




Yep.  In fact, Thanos says explicitly that after doing this, he's intending to retire to some now-bucolic world - probably the one Gamora comes from.  And we see him there ate the end of it!

Given the broad audience that doesn't necessarily know about population growth rates, or what the "culling model" is, the movie *really* could have done with pointing out that a single culling won't work.  Even better to show Thanos rejecting that logical point. That would have actually made it clear that Thanos is "mad" rather than just an extremist.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Yep.  In fact, Thanos says explicitly that after doing this, he's intending to retire to some now-bucolic world - probably the one Gamora comes from.  And we see him there ate the end of it!
> 
> Given the broad audience that doesn't necessarily know about population growth rates, or what the "culling model" is, the movie *really* could have done with pointing out that a single culling won't work.  Even better to show Thanos rejecting that logical point. That would have actually made it clear that Thanos is "mad" rather than just an extremist.




I dunno.  "I'm going to wipe out half the population of the universe to save it" isn't exactly the most rational of ideas.  Do we really need to be explicitly told that Thanos isn't running on all eight cylinders?  Then again, apparently so since people have actually argued that this idea might actually have any merit.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  "I'm going to wipe out half the population of the universe to save it" isn't exactly the most rational of ideas.  Do we really need to be explicitly told that Thanos isn't running on all eight cylinders?  Then again, apparently so since people have actually argued that this idea might actually have any merit.



That's because the general idea of reducing a population in order to save them (or their environment) _is_ rational, as has already been pointed out in this thread. It's the over-generalization and scope that turns it into madness.

I recall reading about the 'advantageous' side effect of wars of reducing populations. There's definitely precedence. I think it's more a question of morality than rationality.
I.e. other methods of regulating population growth may be less questionable.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> That's because the general idea of reducing a population in order to save them (or their environment) _is_ rational, as has already been pointed out in this thread. It's the over-generalization and scope that turns it into madness.
> 
> I recall reading about the 'advantageous' side effect of wars of reducing populations. There's definitely precedence. I think it's more a question of morality than rationality.
> I.e. other methods of regulating population growth may be less questionable.




But, that's not how culling works.  You don't cull once and then walk away.  You cull periodically.  That's what hunting seasons in North America actually are.  There's a reason that we have those seasons and the limitations on the number of animals killed.

The notion that you can cull once and walk away is completely irrational.  And, frankly, wars have never really reduced populations.  At least, not in the longer term and even in the short term.  Good grief, we've killed more people in wars in the last hundred years than in the past ten thousand and yet we've managed to increase our population several times in the same period.

But, again, do we really need to spell it out in the movie?  "Hey folks, I'm amassing god-like powers.  I am now literally the closest thing to a god in the universe.  What am I going to do with these cosmic powers?  I'm going to wipe out half the universe, resulting in massive extinctions throughout the universe as worlds completely collapse in the aftermath and then I'm going to rest beside a lake".

Do we literally need someone in the movie to turn to the camera and say, "Gee, what a nutter"?


----------



## OB1 (May 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> I suppose that's one interpretation.  But, it is easily argued that every character with a spoken line in the movie wants one or more things. Each of the Avengers (and various associated people) collectively and individually want to stop half the universe from being killed, for example.  And, in a typical story in Western heroic fiction, the protagonist is reacitve, rather than proactive.  The antagonist creates the basic conflict and many of the obstacles.  Without the antagonist, there is usually no story, because the protagonist is not challeneged.
> 
> You are actively choosing to interpret it with Thanos as the protagonist.  As you note, the resulting story does not make much sense.  Why, then, hold to that interpretation?  If you turn it around, and note the varius superheroes are the protagonists, then the story comes out much more reasonably.




A typical story in Western heroic fiction does have the hero as proactive.  It's their quest for something they want that sets them into conflict with the antagonist.

Frodo want's to destroy the One Ring, bringing him into conflict with Sauron
Luke wants to join the rebellion, bringing him into conflict with the empire
Dorothy wants to go home, bringing her into conflict with the wicked witch
Thanos wants to get the infinity stones and murder half the universe bringing him into conflict with the Avengers
Darth Vader wants to turn his son to the Dark Side, bringing him into conflict with the Rebels

In each case, without the protagonist wanting something, there would be no story.  If Luke didn't want to join the rebellion, he'd be dead with his aunt and uncle.

Of course other characters in the story can have their own arcs, but the plot of the story comes from the Main Character, the protagonist.  Thanos is clearly that in AIW.

The writers really had no choice but to make Thanos the main character once they split the story in two.  The problem is they didn't change the character to make him rational, probably because they couldn't think of a way to do that and still get the snap at the end.  So they forced it, made Thanos emote _as if_ he were rational, and hoped audiences would just go along with it.  The weird result of which is now people arguing that Thanos was rational and that his plan was too!


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, that's not how culling works.  You don't cull once and then walk away.  You cull periodically.  That's what hunting seasons in North America actually are.  There's a reason that we have those seasons and the limitations on the number of animals killed.
> 
> The notion that you can cull once and walk away is completely irrational.  And, frankly, wars have never really reduced populations.  At least, not in the longer term and even in the short term.  Good grief, we've killed more people in wars in the last hundred years than in the past ten thousand and yet we've managed to increase our population several times in the same period.
> 
> ...




I have no problem with the presentation of Thanos.  I think the movie did well in this regard.

As far as the rationality of culling, I readily agree that Thanos's _implementation_ is very inefficient.  But is that all that is mad about the plan?  What if he had instead created a "Planetary Culling Corp", which scattered across the universe seeking planets on the edge of catastrophe due to unchecked growth, and had the Corp selectively cull just those planets?  Would Thanos be then no longer mad?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Blue (May 22, 2018)

Sorry, _finally_ got a chance to see it, so late comments.



OB1 said:


> * I thought Thanos was supposed to be smart.  Yet neither his motivations nor his actions showed INT 20.  Litch level this guy is not.  And because his motivation is so silly, he doesn't come close to as good a villain as Loki, Ultron, Killmonger or Hydra.



I had the exact opposite reaction - his motivation was extremely believable even if not one you espouse yourself.  Me and my wife were talking about that.  Much like Killmonger, he's got a valid point and he's a hero in his own story.



OB1 said:


> * It was a huge mistake not having Dr. Strange reveal the 1 way to win against Thanos to someone.  By keeping that in the mystery box, it undercuts the deaths of every single character in the film, because you don't know if that is part of the plan or not.  The minute Strange has the plan, the movie has to become a Heist Film to maintain narrative cohesion. Right now, I'm assuming that every single character killed in AIW will come back, and if some don't, that means that I won't really mourn them until the next film.  It's weird.




That really depends on what he saw.  If he didn't reveal it in his vision of the future that wins, then he couldn't.  It very likely would have changed people's actions or will change people's actions.



OB1 said:


> * And really, that leads me to this.  Narratively, the film should have started in the third act.  It's not interesting how Thanos get's the stones, it's interesting what the hero's have to sacrifice to eventually triumph over him.  Cause, if you are going to do a time travel story, it should be that from the beginning.  By starting in the third act and then seeing some of how Thanos gets the stones later in the film via time travel shenanigans, the structure of the film becomes much tighter and you can't be sure whether any death will be permanent or reversed via time travel.




It did this for the stones that weren't held by Earth's heroes - original one was off-screen, and two more captured off-screen, with one having an aftermath to show Gamora's capture which was important plot-wise as well as character-wise for Quill.  Defeating Dr. Strange and Vision off-screen would have felt cheesy.  As it was, they put a lot of effort into making you think they would stop it destroying Vision's stone and that plot (plus whatever Churi pulls out from what she did get done) would all have to be scrapped.


----------



## Blue (May 22, 2018)

billd91 said:


> May have to add another hero to the mix for part 2 - who here really thinks Loki is dead? I have my doubts.




Loki swore _undying_ loyalty.  My money is on that he had a plan and that word choice was his private laugh at the world, a little something so he could celebrate his own cleverness.  I'd guess that "the sun has not set on Asgard" line is also related to something he was trying to signal to his brother regarding it.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (May 22, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Technically, that could happen, yes, but it is not "equally possible".
> 
> The best way to see this is probably with a much smaller example.  Imagine a room with 10 people in it when Thanos snaps his fingers.  Five of these people are doctors, the rest are not.  What is the chance that you lose the five doctors, and none of the others in the room?
> 
> ...




So there is a chance that there is at least one place in the entire multiverse where an entire population of a geographic region is wiped out?  Finally!  I always wondered what happened to cause the Mourning in Cyre.


----------



## Blue (May 22, 2018)

Nutation said:


> It's a Part 1. At the end of any part 1, regardless of genre, the villain will have won or at least be in a really, really good strategic position.




Not quite.  It originally was "Part 1".  But that was scrapped; officially it's just Avengers: Infinity War.


----------



## Blue (May 22, 2018)

OB1 said:


> We have no information that Gamora’s planet was in any kind of risk of collapse.




You mean, we have no information except *first hand observation from someone who grew up in poverty on that world*, i.e Gamora.  It was discussed in the same scene he mentions how it is now.  She doesn't disagree with any of his assessments on how it was with the poor living conditions from too many people.  She was already telling him off about hating the chair and hating her life, she wouldbn't have kept quiet if she disagreed.

Sure, we don't know that his plan _worked_ except what he said, but we _do_ have confirmation it was in a lousy state beforehand.


----------



## OB1 (May 22, 2018)

tomBitonti said:


> What if he had instead created a "Planetary Culling Corp", which scattered across the universe seeking planets on the edge of catastrophe due to unchecked growth, and had the Corp selectively cull just those planets?  Would Thanos be then no longer mad?
> 
> Thx!
> TomB




Correct, he would no longer be mad, just evil. But you can have an interesting story centered on an  an evil character (Empire Strikes Back, Wolf of Wall Street, Goodfellows), because, while their objective is evil, they are rational in the way they achieve their goal and do so in the context of real and relatable human experience and emotion. 

It’s also fine to have a character who is mad as the antagonist of the film, like The Joker, or even an uncaring force of nature, like a Sharknado. But these make for terrible protagonists.


----------

