• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)
4 4

2,251 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

In this accurate analogy, you're right, I am kinda like Peter Parker and Robbie Robertson who try to tell JJJ that Spider-Man is a hero and not a menace to which JJJ responds with hate and laughter. And continuing the analogy, the Captain Marvel non-likers are kinda like JJJ who respond with laugh emojis and disbelief at the idea that Captain Marvel will be the future Captain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And like Peter Parker and Robbie Robertson, I'm right.

 

Jameson is laughing because Peter just asked him for an advance. Which is about as  likely as Brie Larson being the new head of the MCU. So you’re correct in that it’s an accurate analogy, you just misinterpreted it.  
 

:tonofbricks:

 

 

 

Edited by bentbryan
Posted
8 minutes ago, bentbryan said:

Jameson is laughing because Peter just asked him for an advance. Which is about as  likely as Brie Larson being the new head of the MCU. So you’re correct in that it’s an accurate analogy, you just misinterpreted it.  
 

:tonofbricks:

 

 

 

In that case, JJJ eventually gives Peter a raise and makes him a staff photographer in Spider-Man 3 after Peter stops taking Jameson's bs, so Peter gets the last laugh. And like Peter, I will get the last laugh emoji because I'm right about Captain Marvel.

Kevin Feige has even said this is going to happen, and the arrows are pointing towards that being the case, that Captain Marvel will be at the forefront of the entire MCU. She's slowly being included in all new Avengers merchandise and advertising. She has two Disney+ shows that will lead directly into her sequel, which has reportedly been described as a mini-Avengers film. And I trust the storytellers at Marvel Studios so that when Carol does take the lead, it will be organic to the story and be out of necessity to saving the universe.

Posted

Saw Endgame for the first time earlier this month. I thought it was overwrought, overlong, oversentimental and not very good overall. The dollars speak for themselves, I guess, but I would have preferred that they took the Infinity War and Endgame movies and cut them down to one movie with less characters, less exposition and less "grand moments". The filmmakers thought they were going for the brass ring of a Best Picture nomination ala Return of the King but fell far short, IMO. This installment actually took away some of the good will that earlier films imparted to some of the characters.

I suppose it mostly wrapped up what had gone before, but it was one too many trips to the well for me. I will be looking forward to new characters and stories in whatever phase is next.

I give it 5/10 because I grew up Marvel.

Posted
1 hour ago, mrwoogieman said:

Saw Endgame for the first time earlier this month. I thought it was overwrought, overlong, oversentimental and not very good overall. The dollars speak for themselves, I guess, but I would have preferred that they took the Infinity War and Endgame movies and cut them down to one movie with less characters, less exposition and less "grand moments". The filmmakers thought they were going for the brass ring of a Best Picture nomination ala Return of the King but fell far short, IMO. This installment actually took away some of the good will that earlier films imparted to some of the characters.

I suppose it mostly wrapped up what had gone before, but it was one too many trips to the well for me. I will be looking forward to new characters and stories in whatever phase is next.

I give it 5/10 because I grew up Marvel.

Interesting take.  I'll pick out one piece that I don't agree with...cutting the two movies down into a single film.  

Any Marvel fan knew roughly how this would play out: half of the cast would be snapped out of existence only to be brought back by the end of the story.  By leaving the initial snap as a cliffhanger at the end of the first movie, it gives the event more weight.  This is especially true considering Infinity War didn't get the traditional "Hollywood Ending" that most other action movies get.  It left people a little uneasy and I'd say it caused the general public to get even more invested in seeing the remaining heroes try to save the day by the end of Endgame.  

I'd say splitting the story into 2 movies helped to raise the stakes and make Endgame an even bigger payoff.  The events of The Snap would have felt hollow if it were crammed into the middle of a movie and then resolved by the end.  Spreading it out over a year was definitely a good call as far as I'm concerned.  

 

Posted
On 1/14/2021 at 8:42 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

In this accurate analogy, you're right, I am kinda like Peter Parker and Robbie Robertson who try to tell JJJ that Spider-Man is a hero and not a menace to which JJJ responds with hate and laughter. And continuing the analogy, the Captain Marvel non-likers are kinda like JJJ who respond with laugh emojis and disbelief at the idea that Captain Marvel will be the future Captain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And like Peter Parker and Robbie Robertson, I'm right.

 

I think I may be in the minority, but I actually like Larson's Captain Marvel & think I'd really enjoy seeing her lead the avengers. But isn't she more of a galaxy hero and not an earth hero?

Posted
On 1/15/2021 at 12:05 PM, Turtle said:

Interesting take.  I'll pick out one piece that I don't agree with...cutting the two movies down into a single film.  

Any Marvel fan knew roughly how this would play out: half of the cast would be snapped out of existence only to be brought back by the end of the story.  By leaving the initial snap as a cliffhanger at the end of the first movie, it gives the event more weight.  This is especially true considering Infinity War didn't get the traditional "Hollywood Ending" that most other action movies get.  It left people a little uneasy and I'd say it caused the general public to get even more invested in seeing the remaining heroes try to save the day by the end of Endgame.  

I'd say splitting the story into 2 movies helped to raise the stakes and make Endgame an even bigger payoff.  The events of The Snap would have felt hollow if it were crammed into the middle of a movie and then resolved by the end.  Spreading it out over a year was definitely a good call as far as I'm concerned.  

 

I agree. Instead, they should have just cut the runtime of Endgame in half. This way it would be a 1 1/2 hour movie with all of the best parts, instead of a 3 hour movie where half of it is boring.

Posted
On 1/15/2021 at 9:51 AM, mrwoogieman said:

Saw Endgame for the first time earlier this month. I thought it was overwrought, overlong, oversentimental and not very good overall. The dollars speak for themselves, I guess, but I would have preferred that they took the Infinity War and Endgame movies and cut them down to one movie with less characters, less exposition and less "grand moments". The filmmakers thought they were going for the brass ring of a Best Picture nomination ala Return of the King but fell far short, IMO. This installment actually took away some of the good will that earlier films imparted to some of the characters.

I suppose it mostly wrapped up what had gone before, but it was one too many trips to the well for me. I will be looking forward to new characters and stories in whatever phase is next.

I give it 5/10 because I grew up Marvel.

If you just saw Endgame this month, then I assume you weren't as invested in the MCU saga as much as a lot of people around the globe were. I think that fan "investment" was key to the immediate success of Endgame. That year of waiting and "mourning" after Infinity War and seeing Endgame those first few weekends of its release was important to the emotional impact of the movie. And the movie itself was a kind of self-tribute to the past 10 years of Marvel Studios for the fans as much as it was a part two to Infinity War and a grand finale for the whole Infinity Saga that had been slowly building up the past 10 years. Avengers Infinity War was a story unto itself, but Avengers Endgame was kind of meta, or self-referential. Those kind of movies don't necessarily win Best Picture and I don't think Kevin Feige was under any pretenses that it would, though I think there was some hope for a Best Actor nom for Robert Downy Jr. I do think Kevin Feige has taken some of the attacks on the MCU personally, like Martin Scorsese calling it "not real cinema." I think we might see Marvel Studios putting out films that challenge that idea and take that Black Panther challenge. Eternals, directed by Chloe Zhao whose previous films are multiple award winners, comes to mind as a movie that Feige might want to see up for consideration by the Academy later this year.

Posted
4 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

If you just saw Endgame this month, then I assume you weren't as invested in the MCU saga as much as a lot of people around the globe were. I think that fan "investment" was key to the immediate success of Endgame. That year of waiting and "mourning" after Infinity War and seeing Endgame those first few weekends of its release was important to the emotional impact of the movie. And the movie itself was a kind of self-tribute to the past 10 years of Marvel Studios for the fans as much as it was a part two to Infinity War and a grand finale for the whole Infinity Saga that had been slowly building up the past 10 years. Avengers Infinity War was a story unto itself, but Avengers Endgame was kind of meta, or self-referential. Those kind of movies don't necessarily win Best Picture and I don't think Kevin Feige was under any pretenses that it would, though I think there was some hope for a Best Actor nom for Robert Downy Jr. 

Fair enough, I definitely wasn't invested in the MCU like so many other fans. Not appointment viewing, missed half of the satellite movies, watched them out of order, etc. So when those swelling trumpets were sounding in Endgame, there were no goose bump moments for me. Just too much of everything at the end for me. 

(shrug)

Posted
23 hours ago, jharvey said:

I agree. Instead, they should have just cut the runtime of Endgame in half. This way it would be a 1 1/2 hour movie with all of the best parts, instead of a 3 hour movie where half of it is boring.

I watched Endgame maybe 3 weeks ago again, pausing the movie and taking quick breaks after each "Act".  As it worked out, each act was right around 1 hour.

Granted, the first act wasn't very superhero-y.  You spend a little time wrapping up the events from the days just after the snap, then you spend most of Act 1 in the 5 Years Later era.  It wasn't the most exciting bit of the movie, but it does a nice job of showing what the characters have been up to in the last 5 years and sets up the plot for the rest of the movie.  Pretty standard for act 1 in the traditional 3-act structure.  There is certainly some stuff to be cut from here, but I doubt you could cut a lot.  

Act 2 was the "Time Heist".  I wouldn't be a fan of seeing most of this stuff go.  All of the New York stuff was great.  The Rocket/Thor combo made Asgard fun and Thor got a great character moment with Frigga.  War Machine/Nebula on Morag was a little dry, but necessary to move the Thanos portion of the plot along.  Hawkeye and Black Widow get their sendoff moment on Vormir, and then Cap/Tony go back to the base in New Jersey, mostly for Tony to have his big moment with his father.  I'm not sure what I'd cut here.

Act 3 was basically everything post-heist and it really moved.  I'm not sure what you could cut that would improve the movie.

Conceivably, I could see Endgame possibly getting down to around 2.5 hours by cutting mostly stuff from the first act, but I think the movie would be worse for it.  I'm not a fan of long movies.  It's got to be really engaging to keep my interest much past the 2 hour mark.  That said, I've seen Endgame 6 or 7 times and I've never felt that it dragged despite being over 3 hours in length.  

If you're cutting 90 minutes of Endgame, which parts are you taking out?

Posted

There isn't really anything that you can cut out of Endgame without sacrificing the emotional and character-driven moments. It works because this has been more than a decade in the making. If you don't really care about the characters or the linear storytelling, then IDK how you planned on enjoying it.

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I watched Endgame maybe 3 weeks ago again, pausing the movie and taking quick breaks after each "Act".  As it worked out, each act was right around 1 hour.

Granted, the first act wasn't very superhero-y.  You spend a little time wrapping up the events from the days just after the snap, then you spend most of Act 1 in the 5 Years Later era.  It wasn't the most exciting bit of the movie, but it does a nice job of showing what the characters have been up to in the last 5 years and sets up the plot for the rest of the movie.  Pretty standard for act 1 in the traditional 3-act structure.  There is certainly some stuff to be cut from here, but I doubt you could cut a lot.  

Act 2 was the "Time Heist".  I wouldn't be a fan of seeing most of this stuff go.  All of the New York stuff was great.  The Rocket/Thor combo made Asgard fun and Thor got a great character moment with Frigga.  War Machine/Nebula on Morag was a little dry, but necessary to move the Thanos portion of the plot along.  Hawkeye and Black Widow get their sendoff moment on Vormir, and then Cap/Tony go back to the base in New Jersey, mostly for Tony to have his big moment with his father.  I'm not sure what I'd cut here.

Act 3 was basically everything post-heist and it really moved.  I'm not sure what you could cut that would improve the movie.

Conceivably, I could see Endgame possibly getting down to around 2.5 hours by cutting mostly stuff from the first act, but I think the movie would be worse for it.  I'm not a fan of long movies.  It's got to be really engaging to keep my interest much past the 2 hour mark.  That said, I've seen Endgame 6 or 7 times and I've never felt that it dragged despite being over 3 hours in length.  

If you're cutting 90 minutes of Endgame, which parts are you taking out?

To start with, I'd cut out the following:

  • Hawkeye completely, except to give him a couple minutes of screen time where he can be the one to jump off the cliff and die instead of Black Widow. Cut Ronin Hawkeye. Cut Hawkeye watching his family turn to dust, since we already saw everyone turn to dust in the prior movie.
  • All the back and forth trying to convince Tony Stark to help them and him refusing. 
  • Smart hulk in the cafe signing autographs.
  • Smart hulk trying to discover time travel and turning Ant Man into a child/old man/teenager.
  • Smart hulk handing out tacos.
  • Cut most of fat Thor out. Maybe just leave him as lean Thor, and remove most of the cheesy comedy.
  • Cut out most of the ending, the funeral, and old man Captain America.
Edited by jharvey
Posted
Just now, jharvey said:

To start with, I'd cut out the following:

  • Hawkeye completely, except to give him a couple minutes of screen time where he can be the one to jump off the cliff and die instead of Black Widow. Cut Ronin Hawkeye. Cut Hawkeye watching his family turn to dust, since we already saw everyone turn to dust in the prior movie.
  • All the back and forth trying to convince Tony Stark to help them and him refusing. 
  • Smart hulk in the cafe signing autographs
  • Smart hulk trying to discover time travel and turning Ant Man into a child/old man/teenager
  • Smart hulk handing out tacos.
  • Cut most of fat Thor out. Maybe just leave him as lean Thor, and remove most of the cheesy comedy.
  • Cut out most of the ending, the funeral, and old man Captain America

We saw it in Ant-Man and the Wasp, though, too. I think that was an important setup to Ronin, and IMO that 1-shot scene in Japan was ridiculously awesome. I'll give it to you that - when it comes to cosmic battles like Endgame - his character isn't all that useful or interesting.

When it comes to convincing Stark, I think it's important to show the audience that he isn't repeating his Ultron mistake in being overly 'proactive', and that he is a different person after all these years.

I agree RE: Professor Hulk and the kids. That was a somewhat useless scene.

I think that the trial and error scene is necessary, to show how unprepared and unpolished their understanding of the science and technology is, and goes to show how important Stark is for the plan to even work.

Fat Thor was a visual way of portraying his depression and PTSD. Some of the humor regarding his condition was cringe and unfunny, though.

It's a wrap-up to the Infinity Saga. You can't leave out the emotional endings to 2 of the franchise-defining characters. 2c

Posted
2 hours ago, Angel of Death said:

We saw it in Ant-Man and the Wasp, though, too. I think that was an important setup to Ronin, and IMO that 1-shot scene in Japan was ridiculously awesome. I'll give it to you that - when it comes to cosmic battles like Endgame - his character isn't all that useful or interesting.

When it comes to convincing Stark, I think it's important to show the audience that he isn't repeating his Ultron mistake in being overly 'proactive', and that he is a different person after all these years.

I agree RE: Professor Hulk and the kids. That was a somewhat useless scene.

I think that the trial and error scene is necessary, to show how unprepared and unpolished their understanding of the science and technology is, and goes to show how important Stark is for the plan to even work.

Fat Thor was a visual way of portraying his depression and PTSD. Some of the humor regarding his condition was cringe and unfunny, though.

It's a wrap-up to the Infinity Saga. You can't leave out the emotional endings to 2 of the franchise-defining characters. 2c

I agree with basically all of this.  Well said.

I won't disagree that the Hulk Diner scene isn't great, though it does serve as the re-introduction to the Hulk in his new form and gives a small explanation as to how that came about.  It also accentuates one of the other points, which is that Hulk citing that quantum mechanics isn't really his forte serves to highlight that while he might be brilliant, they will still need Tony's help to pull it all off.

If you take out the diner scene, you'd need to replace it with something to explain Hulk's new form.  In that way, it can't just be a straight cut.  Did anyone see the unfinished footage the Russo Brothers released on the initial Professor Hulk introduction scene?  It had Hulk saving a big group of people from a burning building.  It was a more exciting scene and showed that there was a change since the last time we saw the Hulk, but it didn't explain how the change came about.  The fact that they had an alternate scene tells me that the directors also felt they didn't have a strong way to convey this particular information and opted to just try to make a funny scene to get the job done.  

Posted

I loved Endgame. But if I had to cut something out, it would be fat Thor. I didn't really care for it.

Posted
2 hours ago, Gaard said:

I loved Endgame. But if I had to cut something out, it would be fat Thor. I didn't really care for it.

I'm not sure that would be possible as I'd read that Chris Hemsworth brought that idea and really fought for it. They apparently wanted Thor to revert to his muscular body and Hemsworth insisted.

Posted

I don't dislike Bree Larson but I can't get fully into the Carol Danvers Captain Marvel simply because I grew up reading Roger Stern's excellent Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel and what Grunewald and Macchio did to her after firing Stern really still irks me and I think it's an injustice to the character. I'm actually surprise it isn't more of a bigger deal among comic fans.

http://www.supermegamonkey.net/chronocomic/entries/avengers_286-287.shtml

Posted
On 1/18/2021 at 11:13 AM, Turtle said:

I agree with basically all of this.  Well said.

I won't disagree that the Hulk Diner scene isn't great, though it does serve as the re-introduction to the Hulk in his new form and gives a small explanation as to how that came about.  It also accentuates one of the other points, which is that Hulk citing that quantum mechanics isn't really his forte serves to highlight that while he might be brilliant, they will still need Tony's help to pull it all off.

If you take out the diner scene, you'd need to replace it with something to explain Hulk's new form.  In that way, it can't just be a straight cut.  Did anyone see the unfinished footage the Russo Brothers released on the initial Professor Hulk introduction scene?  It had Hulk saving a big group of people from a burning building.  It was a more exciting scene and showed that there was a change since the last time we saw the Hulk, but it didn't explain how the change came about.  The fact that they had an alternate scene tells me that the directors also felt they didn't have a strong way to convey this particular information and opted to just try to make a funny scene to get the job done.  

The Professor Hulk diner scene from Endgame, in the end, served more than just to convey information about Hulk's physical change. The setup for Endgame 5 years after the Snap is meant to show us how far our heroes have "fallen" from being Avengers. Tony Stark has a family and is retired and won't help anyone. Clint Barton is a bloodthirsty mob vigilante. Thor is a drunk overweight video game obsessed monarch of a seaside village. Steve Rogers counsels Snap survivors and tries to see the positive side, like whales in the Hudson River. And Bruce Banner, who's come to terms with Hulk, is a pacifist and enjoys selfies with fans in diners. Natasha is the only original Avenger who tries to keep it together as an Avenger with the ragtag scattered group of Rocket, Nebula, Rhodes, and mostly absent Carol Danvers.

This shows us how much our original Avengers have to climb to get back in the saddle to save the universe from Thanos again.

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, wisbyron said:

I don't dislike Bree Larson but I can't get fully into the Carol Danvers Captain Marvel simply because I grew up reading Roger Stern's excellent Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel and what Grunewald and Macchio did to her after firing Stern really still irks me and I think it's an injustice to the character. I'm actually surprise it isn't more of a bigger deal among comic fans.

http://www.supermegamonkey.net/chronocomic/entries/avengers_286-287.shtml

I respect that purported Monica Rambeau Captain Marvel fans want some kind of movie justice for a character they grew up with, but understand that the only reason Monica Rambeau was created was so Marvel Comics could use the Captain Marvel name in print and not lose the copyright to the name. The name is very important to Marvel Comics, obviously, as it contains the company's namesake. However, Monica Rambeau has no connection to Kree culture or technology or to the original Mar Vell whatsoever. The true heir to Mar Vell should have been Ms. Marvel Carol Danvers, but Chris Claremont had altered the character so much, stripped her powers and turned her into Binary, that it took years to get Ms. Danvers back into mainstream Marvel Comics again.

Marvel Comics corrected those past errors in 2012 by endowing Mar Vell's true heir, Carol Danvers, with the Captain Marvel title.

Edited by @therealsilvermane

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4