MovieChat Forums > gantz8596 > Replies
gantz8596's Replies
I think he responds sarcastically.
It's maybe a classic, but it's not one of the greatest time travel movies of all time.
The only missing sentence from your rant is
"I'm not a racist, but..."
He has to die, there is no way around it. If the MCU continues and there is another global threat to humanity, Tonny can't just sit idly on the sideline just because he's retired, it contradicts his character. So they have to kill him off.
I guess there are some possible explanations.
- Using even one infinity stone would probably still be too powerful, remember the ending of the Guardian of the Galaxy, they need to share the burden among all of the team. It doesn't matter for Tonny if he used one or all six.
- There are some candidates that can use the stones safely; Thor, Hulk, and Captain Marvel. I think Hulk should be the one most appropriate, if only for the reason that he gives before he uses it in the movie. But by this time Hulk has already been weakened for using it once, and don't forget that "The Professor" is not as strong as the original Hulk.
- And even then it doesn't matter for Tonny. None of the appropriate candidates are near him, while Thanos is right there in front of him. Rather than risking running away to get to Thor or Captain Marvel, he decided to use it on the spot. One or six doesn't matter, it would probably kill him anyway, might as well use all six to kill all of Thanos army at the same time.
Yeah, I also enjoy the movie, and although the Cap timeline did bother me, the ending does make me smile; that dance promise...
Not all time travel movies have plot holes, there are titles like "Primer" and "Looper" that in my opinion does it well.
1) Your impression is right, multiverse timelines are what Stark and Banner explained in the movie. They change it exclusively for Cap, either poor writing or pressure from the studio for a happy ending for Cap.
2) They need a sacrifice of a soul to get the soul stone, so I don't think you can use the stone's power to get her back. If Gamora appears in the next movie, then it's probably the "other" Gamora, from the second Thanos timeline. But then again, they did says that a Black Widow movie is in the future.
The main/real/original Nat died sacrificing her soul to get soul stone, so there is no resurrection from that (at least that what the movie says). It doesn't matter where she died, even if she was on another timeline, the main Nat died, and the one from that timeline is still on earth working for SHIELD.
[quote]So PresentCap goes back to the past (time is unspecified - did he go to the 70s where he returns the Tesseract or did he go back to the 40s?)[/quote]
He probably jumped twice, first to 70s to return the tesseract, and then to 40s to meet Peggy, the old car that passes through before the dance scene looks like a 40s car.
That's what happened in the comic, no? Besides, Bucky has been fighting for way too long, maybe he wants to retire too?
Of course, except for Rogers. He went to the past but actually manage to live to present time on the same timeline...
For Scott and Janet thing, it's actually not that bad. It's simply because they don't have any control over how they traverse the quantum realm, they could be living at the same time as the normal world, they could live an extremely slowed time, or even the time can actually flow through them and make them age backward or forward, like what happened to Scott on the experiment.
I think it's the studio decision, to give some kind of happy ending to Rogers.
Of course it's the multiverse kind of time travel. The moment they step foot on the past they already make a new timeline, this is the rule that is set by the writers and the one that Stark, Banner, and Nebula explains.
It can't be a single timeline because of what others have pointed out, and for an extra, present Nebula kills old Nebula. In a single timeline universe like Looper, it would have erased the present Nebula.
Hey, cool dude, I'm not saying that what you're pointing is wrong, most of it is true, but it just not a retcon.
The movie called Glass because Mr. Glass is the main hero. The movie revolved around him beating the secret society.
"have been, for centuries, looking for superheroes & villains… in order to try & convince them, that they’re not really superheroes & villains"
No, they've been killing superhuman for centuries. Trying to convince them that they're normal is the pet project of dr. Staple, she said so herself on the last meeting of the society.
I think this one is as dark as the previous movies. The concept of the series has always been how is it if superhuman really do exist in a realistic world.
I enjoy the movie, it's not as good as I hoped, but I still enjoy it. Ironically, the movie does have many shortcoming, none of which you point out in this thread.
I understand that it's a good movie, but surely not the best movies in ages.
- No, water is his weakness, it's been established since the first movie.
- The idea has always been to depict Mr. Glass as a genius mastermind. He's not just a bomber, he also needs to have knowledge about civil engineering to plan for the building fire, electrical and mechanical engineering for the train crash; all of those happened on the first film is proof that not only he's able to plan it, but also make it look like an accident. The "conspiracy theorist" part is still there in this movie.
- It's not affection, it's a sense of camaraderie between people who share the same fate. But yes, I also think the relationship is a bit forced, but no retcon there.
- It's not a retcon.
Yeah, if you expect something like Marvel's superhero movie, I guess you would be disappointed.