Movies AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR Thread v.10

[SmilinDesperado]

I think part of the problem is that Game of Thrones has generally used this style very effectively but its only been so because the deaths were both setup and payoff well plus of course fit into the brutal setting. That doesn't hold that killing off characters for good is the only way to build serious drama and in this case as I said before I think the deaths at the end aren't actually about the characters who die so much as those who do not. Its about putting a weight of loss and even guilt on the survivors(and though them the audience) which I would imagine is going to be addressed before we ultimately see things reversed in the sequel.

Indeed I think you could argue the most interesting thing with the sequel is not how do they end it but how do they start it? how much of a reaction do you show?

100% agree.
I didn't think the deaths were meant as a cheap way to get tears or shock. This is the story in the comic. Half of the people were going.
And we knew going into it that this is part 1 of a 2 part movie, so obviously, with a power like the gauntlet, things can be undone.

So yea, it isn't about who died or disappeared, it's about the people who are left, and how the hell do they fix it.
The last shot of the scene of the heroes, they are completely devastated . Cap should be on suicide watch. They lost the fight, half the people, and then the guy they need to stop just leaves. And Thanos is just chilling on his porch with a smile and pleasant music in the background.
The last shot is Thanos. It was a happy ending as far as he's concerned.

 

[minute bull]

So bad lol

I tried to find articles or people talking about this online but couldn't, either less people noticed or Marvel police are deleting them

When Game of Thrones fucked up CGI (I missed that one until pointed out) it was all over the place

I thought more people would be talking about how they had to work overtime in order to make it seem like Robert Downey Jr was eye to eye with any of the Chrises.

I hate the bleeding edge CGI, aside from the slow-mo intro. It just does the face reveals no favors. The two things I hate about CGI masks is when the head size doesn't fit the body and when the face doesn't react when the mask gets pulled away. It's like taking a punch but reacting in the opposite direction. War Machine cuts a better figure because it seems more like armor, or a suit on a man. Whereas Ironman isn't much bulkier than Tony Stark, which makes sense when it comes to nanites, but after the first two solo films Ironman had been pretty diminutive. Like RDJr.

 

[Fatt Hughes]

I would have preferred that Groot lived. Killing him 2 times within a few movies is cheap.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Soldiers are fine with laying down their lives for others. That's trading lives. Cap just says something he contradicts. Vision pointed it out twice during the movie.

Yes but you still miss the context of Cap's comment which was a big miss by you.

Again there is nothing inconsistent in a soldier or person saying 'we won't trade your life for his' in terms of a negotiated peace or to buy time AND YET being willing to die fighting to protect him.

Vision was desperate to not have others die trying to protect him and therefore was trying to stretch the rationalization in a way that was not apt.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

100% agree.
I didn't think the deaths were meant as a cheap way to get tears or shock. This is the story in the comic. Half of the people were going.
And we knew going into it that this is part 1 of a 2 part movie, so obviously, with a power like the gauntlet, things can be undone.

So yea, it isn't about who died or disappeared, it's about the people who are left, and how the hell do they fix it.
The last shot of the scene of the heroes, they are completely devastated . Cap should be on suicide watch. They lost the fight, half the people, and then the guy they need to stop just leaves. And Thanos is just chilling on his porch with a smile and pleasant music in the background.
The last shot is Thanos. It was a happy ending as far as he's concerned.

Pretty much, as much praise as the film is getting I think this aspect is being rather overlooked or indeed even mischaracterised as a source of criticism. In some ways the Russo's gave people exactly the film they wanted with all the big characters coming together in a kickass action film but along with that they were also I think clearly looking to deconstruct there motivations relative to Thanos who doesn't just win but looks like the hero.

Cap, Widow and Black Panther are all no compromise moralists who couldn't bring themselves to kill an innocent for the greater good, Scarlet Witch and Starlord are both focused on there romantic interests over anything else and also can't kill vision and lose focus on Titan as a result, Thor is obsessed with destiny/revenge and has to go for Thanos chest then deliver a last one liner rather than the head, etc

So yeah they all come out of this looking bad and the surviving characters potentially burdened with loss and guilt that they seem to have failed both physically and morally.

That is I think what makes the sequel so interesting as well, just like Starwars after Empire Strikes Back its not just about how the good guys win physically but how the moral conflict is resolved. Do the heroes have the will to act at all after this failiure? do there morals change? are Thanos's morals shown to be less correct than this film makes them seem?

If I had to guess I'd say the heroes will have to do some soul searching and maybe become a bit more self aware but will ultimately see the value in Cap's basic ideals. Meanwhile Thanos is probably going to not be able to leave Gamora dead and maybe is going to see that his "paradise" isn't actually that? if he's on Gamora's world for example maybe show us that the brutality of his solution has had a negative effect on the psyche of the locals turning them in the same direction? if they wanted to get really dark maybe show that earth after that degree of loss just starts to fall to bits socially.

 

[method115]

Anybody notice in the end, when someone was in the front of the screen and sad, Captain America? I forget ... cause I was too distracted by the background. This stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Some blurry characters in the background looking on and Banner in Hunkbuster .... it was shockingly bad effects. His head poorly sticking out of the robot suit ... if you missed it look again - what the fuck ... it looked soooo bad. An astonishing mistake I was surprised

I'm one of those people who is very easy to please with CGI and I hardly notice bad CGI even when everyone else is saying something looks bad I'm like "looks good to me". This scene though when it came on I was like WTF? It was as bad as the First Avenger movie with caps head on that skinny body before the serum. It actually might have been slightly worse especially Banner in the hulk suit. That was like they got the kid from the local university to whip it up on his new Mac book real quick.

 

[Clippy]

I'm one of those people who is very easy to please with CGI and I hardly notice bad CGI even when everyone else is saying something looks bad I'm like "looks good to me". This scene though when it came on I was like WTF? It was as bad as the First Avenger movie with caps head on that skinny body before the serum. It actually might have been slightly worse especially Banner in the hulk suit. That was like they got the kid from the local university to whip it up on his new Mac book real quick.

I had no qualms with pre steroids cap

But this Banner/Hulkbuster clash is the worst thing I have ever seen in ANY marvel movie (of the 19 MCU)

 

[SheetsMMAfan]

Why didn't they just kill Thanos when they were going for the gauntlet?

Loki tried to stab him in the throat, Gamora did stab him in the throat (kind of) and Thanos said Nebula got the drop on him and "nearly succeeded" in killing him..so he can be killed right?

Why didn't Iron Man/Spider-Man/Star Lord just stab him in the neck when they had the chance? I haven't seen this addressed yet.

Other than the obvious reason of "because then there would be no movie!"...is there any reason they were concentrating on the Gauntlet and not just killing Thanos?

Perhaps this was one of the 14 million possibilitys that Strange saw, and yet they had to go down the only path that lead to defeating Thanos. This just wasn't in the cards.

 

[minute bull]

Yes but you still miss the context of Cap's comment which was a big miss by you.

I assure you, he hasn't missed the basic layer. He grasps story complexity on multiple levels. There's levels to this, Jon.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

You could argue that if they had tried to chop/cut/burn his head off they might have succeeded. But then again they weren't sure whether they could do it since he is super tough. all that fighting and all they managed was to "cut" him slightly and get a drop of blood. also the attempt to kill him might shock him out of his "sleep" and he'd be able to heal himself and then resume fighting.

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...

 

[SaiWa]

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...

agreed.

Marvel crafted a wonderful story and they bulletproofed themselves by using Strange to cover all other angles. Nothing else works besides this one path...

 

[MMouse]

Pretty much, as much praise as the film is getting I think this aspect is being rather overlooked or indeed even mischaracterised as a source of criticism. In some ways the Russo's gave people exactly the film they wanted with all the big characters coming together in a kickass action film but along with that they were also I think clearly looking to deconstruct there motivations relative to Thanos who doesn't just win but looks like the hero.

Cap, Widow and Black Panther are all no compromise moralists who couldn't bring themselves to kill an innocent for the greater good, Scarlet Witch and Starlord are both focused on there romantic interests over anything else and also can't kill vision and lose focus on Titan as a result, Thor is obsessed with destiny/revenge and has to go for Thanos chest then deliver a last one liner rather than the head, etc

So yeah they all come out of this looking bad and the surviving characters potentially burdened with loss and guilt that they seem to have failed both physically and morally.

That is I think what makes the sequel so interesting as well, just like Starwars after Empire Strikes Back its not just about how the good guys win physically but how the moral conflict is resolved. Do the heroes have the will to act at all after this failiure? do there morals change? are Thanos's morals shown to be less correct than this film makes them seem?

If I had to guess I'd say the heroes will have to do some soul searching and maybe become a bit more self aware but will ultimately see the value in Cap's basic ideals. Meanwhile Thanos is probably going to not be able to leave Gamora dead and maybe is going to see that his "paradise" isn't actually that? if he's on Gamora's world for example maybe show us that the brutality of his solution has had a negative effect on the psyche of the locals turning them in the same direction? if they wanted to get really dark maybe show that earth after that degree of loss just starts to fall to bits socially.

This.


Based on what you said, it still mind blowns me how russos were able to pull this off.

Kudos to them. It will be interesting were the story takes place from here on out.

 

[heavyarms21]

 

[method115]

But this Banner/Hulkbuster clash is the worst thing I have ever seen in ANY marvel movie (of the 19 MCU)

The cap thing was hilariously bad. I remember first seeing it and laughing my ass off at how bad it was I couldn't get over it. It's part of the reason why I think it's the worst Marvel movie to date along with a lot other issues with that movie.

Banner\Hulkbuster is easily the worst I've ever seen.

 

[Clippy]

The cap thing was hilariously bad. I remember first seeing it and laughing my ass off at how bad it was I couldn't get over it. It's part of the reason why I think it's the worst Marvel movie to date along with a lot other issues with that movie.

Banner\Hulkbuster is easily the worst I've ever seen.

I may have to revisit the cap scenes, but I don't remember being put off by it or appalled like the infinity war blunder

 

[Clippy]

Some of the Black Panther stuff wasn't up to snuff either but nothing and I mean nothing made me so astonished as that fucking moment. Took me right out of the movie.

 

[method115]

I may have to revisit the cap scenes, but I don't remember being put off by it or appalled like the infinity war blunder

It was so bad. It's easily the worst CGI other than Hulkbuster\Banner. I can't think of any other time where it was anywhere close to that. I re-watched them all before infinity war and it still made me cringe.

Some of the Black Panther stuff wasn't up to snuff either but nothing and I mean nothing made me so astonished as that fucking moment. Took me right out of the movie.

I never noticed the issue with BP. Everything seemed fine to me but like I said before I have a hard time noticing bad CGI.

 

[Magooglie]

Yes but you still miss the context of Cap's comment which was a big miss by you.

Again there is nothing inconsistent in a soldier or person saying 'we won't trade your life for his' in terms of a negotiated peace or to buy time AND YET being willing to die fighting to protect him.

Vision was desperate to not have others die trying to protect him and therefore was trying to stretch the rationalization in a way that was not apt.

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.

 

[Magooglie]

Thanos is a cosmic being and very powerful without the stones.

To use a single stone you dont need a glove. They just attach to you and you use your thoughts

The way they present him he was a guy from his race of people. He needs a spaceship to go places. He has an army of underlings. He's strong, like a level up from asgardians, but he considers his great quality to be determination and commitment to his cause.

If you're talking about Vision, Vision is a machine that harnesses the stone that's in his head. The scepter was a device that harnessed the mind stone and let people access its power. Ronan's hammer and the giant celestial's staff were devices that could harness a stone.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

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.

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.