Movies AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR Thread v.10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magooglie said:
Except Steve said flat out "WE don't trade lives." He didn't say it only applying to Vision. He didn't say "We don't trade your life" or "You guys don't trade lives." Steve included himself in the statement. You had to alter the statement to try to make it consistent. The context is Vision can fly the plane into the ice to save others. He can jump on the grenade like little Steve did to save others. And he wants to, like Steve did and Steve does. But Steve said no. And Vision called him out for being a hypocrite. The interesting thing is it's repeated in the movie. Vision called him out twice. It's an interesting pair of moments because they're so apparent.
Click to expand...
You can repeat the statement all you want. Does not change my view that you are missing the context.

All 'trading lives'is not the same which is where you seem to be stuck. If your view is that it is then we can agree to disagree.

Again as a soldier being put to the test "send us out Joe for us to kill and we will release Bob back to you', it is entirely fair for the soldier to say we don't trade lives so no, we will not do that. Joe may even be up for it 'for the greater good'.

It is then fair to say I (the soldier) will take on a risky mission to try and free Bob and may likely die doing and also you (Joe) may die as well as a result.

There is no inconsistency between those views even though both the soldier and Joe may die. And Joe may call him out on it in an attempt to rationalize why he should be allowed to make that sacrifice but that does not mean the soldiers logic was wrong.
 
moreorless87 said:
Again I think that's quite deliberate to highlight the issue although I would say it isn't just pure hypocrisy, there are clear differences why Rogers says no. In his view the difference is between putting yourself at risk in response to a direct threat with no other source of action and asking someone to kill someone else they love in response to an indirect threat when other courses of action are available.
Click to expand...

The filmmakers didn't allow Steve to answer back. He got cut off the first time. And the second time they just went to another scene. So I think this is an issue they'll explore more in IW4. And it's one that can be very fruitful. The way they made Thanos not a "muhaha i'm evil!" villain was great. And in IW4 it'll be interesting if they can change the expectation of the hero sacrifice because it seems like people are expecting Steve to be the sacrifice guy again.
 
MikeMcMann said:
You can repeat the statement all you want. Does not change my view that you are missing the context.

All 'trading lives'is not the same which is where you seem to be stuck. If your view is that it is then we can agree to disagree.

Again as a soldier being put to the test "send us out Joe for us to kill and we will release Bob back to you', it is entirely fair for the soldier to say we don't trade lives so no, we will not do that. Joe may even be up for it 'for the greater good'.

It is then fair to say I (the soldier) will take on a risky mission to try and free Bob and may likely die doing and also you (Joe) may die as well as a result.

There is no inconsistency between those views even though both the soldier and Joe may die. And Joe may call him out on it in an attempt to rationalize why he should be allowed to make that sacrifice but that does not mean the soldiers logic was wrong.
Click to expand...

It's the statement from the movie. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist or change the actual words, then we're going to agree to disagree, because you're disregarding the movie. I don't like how they portrayed Peter #2 in the movie, but I don't pretend he did something else. Especially when trying to set up arguments.

As for your example, The situation is Joe can sacrifice his life to save a city or Joe and Bob can work together to save the city. Steve verbalizes the second choice but he's done the first choice. And Vision calls him out.
 
Magooglie said:
The filmmakers didn't allow Steve to answer back. He got cut off the first time. And the second time they just went to another scene. So I think this is an issue they'll explore more in IW4. And it's one that can be very fruitful. The way they made Thanos not a "muhaha i'm evil!" villain was great. And in IW4 it'll be interesting if they can change the expectation of the hero sacrifice because it seems like people are expecting Steve to be the sacrifice guy again.
Click to expand...

The situation as presented I think makes it clear though without telegraphing it to much. I'm not saying that Rogers position isn't questionable BUT I don't think its illogical or directly hypocritical. The film I think casts Rogers as the ultimate moralist and Thanos as the ultimate pragmatist and that's a debate as old as philosophy itself.

As you say I think it makes the sequel very interesting in exactly what happens morally, clearly the situation at the end of IW will change but how? do the heroes bend? does Thanos bend? maybe both?
 
Of all people, they couldn't kill Tony Stark? I'm so tired of that guy. RDJ wants out as it is, and it's not like the dead are gone forever.
 
moreorless87 said:
The situation as presented I think makes it clear though without telegraphing it to much. I'm not saying that Rogers position isn't questionable BUT I don't think its illogical or directly hypocritical. The film I think casts Rogers as the ultimate moralist and Thanos as the ultimate pragmatist and that's a debate as old as philosophy itself.

As you say I think it makes the sequel very interesting in exactly what happens morally, clearly the situation at the end of IW will change but how? do the heroes bend? does Thanos bend? maybe both?
Click to expand...

His verbal position is the "good side" position. It's just he's done the opposite in the past. But in this movie they showed that the sacrifice play doesn't work anymore. Peter #2 tried it with Gamora. Wanda blew up Vision. Trillions still died. So there's a trajectory here and I hope they don't subvert it in the next movie (if the heroes win). They can subvert it with a double Thanos win.
 
tumblr_o458ci_EL2_L1u3bqnjo5_500.gif


OMGstreetfight said:
Of all people, they couldn't kill Tony Stark? I'm so tired of that guy. RDJ wants out as it is, and it's not like the dead are gone forever.
Click to expand...
Good news is SHERLOCK 3 2020! Wooyeah!
 
Am I crazy or is RDJ adding a hint of a stereotypical nerd nasal accent to his voice? I've never noticed it in his other interviews. Is he trying to differentiate himself from Tony Stark by changing his voice? It's really bizzare.



vs




OMGstreetfight said:
Of all people, they couldn't kill Tony Stark? I'm so tired of that guy. RDJ wants out as it is, and it's not like the dead are gone forever.
Click to expand...

It's not a coincidence all the original Avengers survived the finger snap.
 
I think those are YT playback speed issues, but maybe you could be on to something.
 
Plutoburn said:
Am I crazy or is RDJ adding a hint of a stereotypical nerd nasal accent to his voice? I've never noticed it in his other interviews. Is he trying to differentiate himself from Tony Stark by changing his voice? It's really bizzare.



vs






It's not a coincidence all the original Avengers survived the finger snap.
Click to expand...


He definitely changed his voice in the first interview. He might be doing it on purpose to practice something or entertain himself because they do a lot of the interviews in one day. They just do them back to back to back.
 
Aegon Spengler said:
I’m sure Strange saw lots of situations where they tried to cut his head off and it didn’t work out. There was only one path to victory...
Click to expand...

Yeah, wht Strange saw was the only path to victory.
The criticism over some of the things in the movie are funny. Normally, movies just flat out ignore obvious plot holes, but this movie went to the trouble of answering the obvious and people are criticizing it for it

Vision and Hulk were taken out of the fight early in the movie.
Had that not happened, then everyone would of instead been debating on power levels and asking "then why didn't Vision just do...."
And with Strange, asking "why didn't he just cut his hand off", or whatever else, is like asking "why didn't DC just block that head kick from Jones?"
Perhaps if they had tried to cut off his arm then Thanos would stop fucking around and would just use the full power to destroy them.
 
The Clinch said:
Glad it was changed, oddly enough showed how much Star-Lord cared for Gamora.
Click to expand...

It would have made him Peter #3 with no Peter at the #2 slot if he swore on his dead mother and didn't do it.
 
Magooglie said:
It's the statement from the movie. If you want to pretend it doesn't exist or change the actual words, then we're going to agree to disagree, because you're disregarding the movie. I don't like how they portrayed Peter #2 in the movie, but I don't pretend he did something else. Especially when trying to set up arguments.

As for your example, The situation is Joe can sacrifice his life to save a city or Joe and Bob can work together to save the city. Steve verbalizes the second choice but he's done the first choice. And Vision calls him out.
Click to expand...
You are struggling t to understand that words =/= context and that is why you keep repeating 'but the words... the words'. And that is where we part as I don't disagree you got the words correct, you just miss the context.
 
Isn't Scarlet Johannsen's character just some regular chick? Like no superpowers or anything? How was she kicking the female alien's ass in the first fight they had? I thought those two Thanos underlings were supposed to be super bad asses, no?

The weird psychic priest alien dude was criminally underused, thought he was the most interesting character in the film after Thanos. The way they threw a car at him and he just slices it in half without moving was badass. Thanos was brilliantly done for the fact this was a comic book movie, first Marvel villain that I actually gave a shit about.

Also best joke in the film was the one about Kevin Bacon joining the Avengers. I'm not really big into comic book movies but I thought this one was really well done, definitely worth the hype.
 
MikeMcMann said:
You are struggling t to understand that words =/= context and that is why you keep repeating 'but the words... the words'. And that is where we part as I don't disagree you got the words correct, you just miss the context.
Click to expand...

There's context, and it's not about excusing past Steve.
 
robotsonic said:
Isn't Scarlet Johannsen's character just some regular chick? Like no superpowers or anything? How was she kicking the female alien's ass in the first fight they had? I thought those two Thanos underlings were supposed to be super bad asses, no?

The weird psychic priest alien dude was criminally underused, thought he was the most interesting character in the film after Thanos. The way they threw a car at him and he just slices it in half without moving was badass. Thanos was brilliantly done for the fact this was a comic book movie, first Marvel villain that I actually gave a shit about.

Also best joke in the film was the one about Kevin Bacon joining the Avengers. I'm not really big into comic book movies but I thought this one was really well done, definitely worth the hype.
Click to expand...
Black Widow in the comics was given a soviet version of the super soldier serum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,724
Messages
58,314,288
Members
175,997
Latest member
Fitboy485

Share this page

Back
Top