Endgame, more properly
Apr. 28th, 2019 10:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
potofsoupTo begin: I was impressed by Infinity War and went in with high hopes. Specifically, the two things that I loved about Infinity War was (a) how well it worked the theme of "saving your other half vs. saving the other half of the universe", and (b) all the great character interaction moments that are only possible in a large cross-story movie like this.
(tumblr has deleted the post, but here is a proto-version of what I wrote last year.)
As a result, I was disappointed on both of those counts.
Whereas the team-ups and team-remixes flowed really well in Infinity War, I felt like the character parts were to chopped up. Rhodey and Nebula don't really have good chemistry, and the Battle of New York four end up dividing up into solo missions anyway. Thor's characterization was completely bungled, and the Clint/Nat was cute -- until it very much wasn't. Even though I liked the Frigga-Thor convo and the Howard-Tony one, a lot of the other character interactions lacked emotional punch. Tony harangues Steve and... Steve doesn't get to have his say? Thor and Rocket had that great moment in IW, and this time Thor just runs away. Nat and Steve talk about how they're the only ones who can't move on ... and then where's the second half of the conversation? If the Avengers are Nat's only family, then how did she feel when everyone's back together again?
Which brings me to the disappointing messaging of the movie.
What is the movie saying about coping with loss? You don't. A lot of people are pissed about the whole "bring all the snapped people to the present instead of undoing the snap" thing. I can actually see it working thematically -- it's not just Tony who has had a new kid -- meaningful relationships have been built in the intervening five years. Life moves on, and you can argue that it's unfair to discount all of that. So sure, bring people back 5 years into the future, the people who got snapped may have to cope with losses of their own -- losing 5 years of their life, having loved ones who have died or who have moved on -- but guess who is around to help with that? The other half who survived (and maybe thrived) in the last five years. You can celebrate all of the suffering and all of the growth that comes from it -- that'd be a decent message, no? Especially framed against Thanos' desire to create a new universe where he strips knowledge of suffering from people. But if you want a movie to have these themes, you need to show that people are rebuilding 5 years later, not empty stadiums. (Pretty sure baseball was around when the world only had 3 billion people). You need to show the Avengers building new lives, not clinging to old ones (Nat), living in some depressive state with poor coping mechanisms (Thor, Clint, Steve), or semi-retired (Tony). Does a world of 3 billion suddenly not need Stark Tech? Sure, maybe a few of them are still clinging to the old life, but not the majority of them. That way, when the choice comes to do the time heist, it's not Tony vs. everyone else. How about Thor, wondering about all the new children born in New Asgard? Heck, why is Banner so okay with the idea of undoing everything? I watch these types of movies to feel hope in humanity. Instead, the first half of this movie was basically one giant "whelp, we failed, let's not try anything ever again." This movie basically forces what could have been a theme about the human-ness of loss and growth into a personal, seemingly-selfish decision that Tony makes to protect his family.
Because the other theme of this movie also sucks. Hey Marvel/Russos: family isn't just one man, one woman, and 1-3 children. Why is it the only type that you celebrate? Sure, you mention that Nat considers Avengers her family, and there's a cute Guardians reunion bit at the end, but for the rest of the 3 hours, it's all about this nuclear family business. Clint's retirement reward is to be with his wife and kids. (How are they coping with Auntie Nat's death?) Tony's retirement reward is his wife and kid. (which he gets at the beginning of the movie, because apparently instead of using Stark Tech to rebuild the world, he's retired to a cottage in the woods) Steve's retirement reward is to have wife and kids. (which he has to give up his current friends and his ideals to basically be a house husband for Peggy.) Nat doesn't get a retirement. You know what would have been a better rendering of that theme? That family are people who help another. All the people who showed up for the final fight? Family. If Clint did the soul stone sacrifice and Natasha decides to quit Avenging to help Laura raise Clint's kids? Family. If Steve passes on the shield and then goes on a roadtrip with Bucky? Family. If Pepper, Rhodey, Ant-Man, and Wanda start rebuilding a new Avengers complex? Family. Gamora, reaching out to help Nebula would hew very well with this theme, as is Thanos' counter-example: too concerned with "saving the world" to actually help others and build family. Why does it have to end with all these shots of all these nuclear families? It could have been so much better.
BLEGH
And: Oh God the Heteronormativity. From the very beginning, Steve's like "and Peggy, the love of my life," Tony is in a fucking rustic cottage with Pepper and Morgan, and Clint without his family becomes a bad Samurai Yakuza fight scene. WTF.
Okay, now, some character notes, in reverse order of rage-inducing:
Bruce: I don't see how his new synthesis form is at all Hulk-like? It's just like a slightly bigger Bruce. Where is Hulk's rage? Where is Hulk's joy when he's smashing? Where is Hulk's straight-talk?
Tony: Why didn't he build a suit to protect the world? Why did he just retire with Pepper? He doesn't really show me why he'd be willing to die for this world?
Clint: One off-hand mention of not being able to accept what he's done / become, and then Laura's magical wife touch makes it all better? I want the second half of that statement, dammit.
Thor: Apparently once you are fat you are also incapable of giving cogent presentations, making decisions that don't involve running away, maintaining hygiene, or wearing proper armor. Yes, let him have his depressive state where he feels like he's failed not only his people, but the entire universe. But let him leap at the chance to possibly undo all this. Have a scene where he shaves his beard and puts on his armor. He may not be sure whether he's worthy or not until the mjolnir scene, but at least have some desperation/grim determination? As I said before, Thor's characterization should not be one of incompetence and cowardice.
Steve:
From a logistics perspective, I'm mostly fine with the whole "time with Peggy" thing -- he'd obviously talked to Bucky about it, and there's a machine right there in the movie that does de-aging. So he can spend his time with Peggy and then de-age to spend time in the future. Maybe appearing as an old man is the only way to get Sam to take the shield, and then after he de-ages, he's like "haha no takebacks."*
But from a characterization perspective, I hate it so much. They do the whole "don't take all the stupid with you" exchange, but when it happened in 1942, Bucky was *going to war* and Steve had plans to go, too. But in this case, Steve was going to hide in Peggy's house for 45 years pretending that he's not Steve Rogers?!! What we love about Steve is that he's the little punk who won't quit. Marrying Peggy and not doing a thing about the HYDRA that he knows is growing in *his wife's life's work* is quitting. Showing up in the past and being like "hey Peggy, I'm from the future, I'm tired and depressed, I want to retire by marrying you" is a fucking disservice to Peggy. If I were Peggy I'd kick him to the curb and say "You're not the Steve that I know and love." And like -- Steve has children and grandchildren?!! (Cause Peggy sure does.) Has old!Steve been visiting Peggy in the retirement home when normal!Steve is doing his sadness errands? If the theme is about coping with loss, how about if, instead of taking the long way around, Steve reappears from the machine with lipstick on his cheek and he mentions that he took an extra detour to 1945?
Nat:
Nat should have lived. I want it to be Nat who is running the gauntlet in the final battle. I want Bruce to tell Nat that he tried to bring Clint back, really he did, but the stones resisted it. I want Nat to pick up the phone when Laura is calling. I want Nat to make the choice of Clint's family over the Avengers, because there's ____ in her ledger. Because Clint was her first family. I just want Nat, dammit.
Fuck you for letting Nat die in the chumpiest way ever.
----------
* omg what if Steve put all the stones back, stopped by for a dance with Peggy, and then hopped over to, like, a day ago to artificially age himself and grab an un-damaged shield just so that he can foist it on Sam and yell "no takebacks"?!!!
(tumblr has deleted the post, but here is a proto-version of what I wrote last year.)
As a result, I was disappointed on both of those counts.
Whereas the team-ups and team-remixes flowed really well in Infinity War, I felt like the character parts were to chopped up. Rhodey and Nebula don't really have good chemistry, and the Battle of New York four end up dividing up into solo missions anyway. Thor's characterization was completely bungled, and the Clint/Nat was cute -- until it very much wasn't. Even though I liked the Frigga-Thor convo and the Howard-Tony one, a lot of the other character interactions lacked emotional punch. Tony harangues Steve and... Steve doesn't get to have his say? Thor and Rocket had that great moment in IW, and this time Thor just runs away. Nat and Steve talk about how they're the only ones who can't move on ... and then where's the second half of the conversation? If the Avengers are Nat's only family, then how did she feel when everyone's back together again?
Which brings me to the disappointing messaging of the movie.
What is the movie saying about coping with loss? You don't. A lot of people are pissed about the whole "bring all the snapped people to the present instead of undoing the snap" thing. I can actually see it working thematically -- it's not just Tony who has had a new kid -- meaningful relationships have been built in the intervening five years. Life moves on, and you can argue that it's unfair to discount all of that. So sure, bring people back 5 years into the future, the people who got snapped may have to cope with losses of their own -- losing 5 years of their life, having loved ones who have died or who have moved on -- but guess who is around to help with that? The other half who survived (and maybe thrived) in the last five years. You can celebrate all of the suffering and all of the growth that comes from it -- that'd be a decent message, no? Especially framed against Thanos' desire to create a new universe where he strips knowledge of suffering from people. But if you want a movie to have these themes, you need to show that people are rebuilding 5 years later, not empty stadiums. (Pretty sure baseball was around when the world only had 3 billion people). You need to show the Avengers building new lives, not clinging to old ones (Nat), living in some depressive state with poor coping mechanisms (Thor, Clint, Steve), or semi-retired (Tony). Does a world of 3 billion suddenly not need Stark Tech? Sure, maybe a few of them are still clinging to the old life, but not the majority of them. That way, when the choice comes to do the time heist, it's not Tony vs. everyone else. How about Thor, wondering about all the new children born in New Asgard? Heck, why is Banner so okay with the idea of undoing everything? I watch these types of movies to feel hope in humanity. Instead, the first half of this movie was basically one giant "whelp, we failed, let's not try anything ever again." This movie basically forces what could have been a theme about the human-ness of loss and growth into a personal, seemingly-selfish decision that Tony makes to protect his family.
Because the other theme of this movie also sucks. Hey Marvel/Russos: family isn't just one man, one woman, and 1-3 children. Why is it the only type that you celebrate? Sure, you mention that Nat considers Avengers her family, and there's a cute Guardians reunion bit at the end, but for the rest of the 3 hours, it's all about this nuclear family business. Clint's retirement reward is to be with his wife and kids. (How are they coping with Auntie Nat's death?) Tony's retirement reward is his wife and kid. (which he gets at the beginning of the movie, because apparently instead of using Stark Tech to rebuild the world, he's retired to a cottage in the woods) Steve's retirement reward is to have wife and kids. (which he has to give up his current friends and his ideals to basically be a house husband for Peggy.) Nat doesn't get a retirement. You know what would have been a better rendering of that theme? That family are people who help another. All the people who showed up for the final fight? Family. If Clint did the soul stone sacrifice and Natasha decides to quit Avenging to help Laura raise Clint's kids? Family. If Steve passes on the shield and then goes on a roadtrip with Bucky? Family. If Pepper, Rhodey, Ant-Man, and Wanda start rebuilding a new Avengers complex? Family. Gamora, reaching out to help Nebula would hew very well with this theme, as is Thanos' counter-example: too concerned with "saving the world" to actually help others and build family. Why does it have to end with all these shots of all these nuclear families? It could have been so much better.
BLEGH
And: Oh God the Heteronormativity. From the very beginning, Steve's like "and Peggy, the love of my life," Tony is in a fucking rustic cottage with Pepper and Morgan, and Clint without his family becomes a bad Samurai Yakuza fight scene. WTF.
Okay, now, some character notes, in reverse order of rage-inducing:
Bruce: I don't see how his new synthesis form is at all Hulk-like? It's just like a slightly bigger Bruce. Where is Hulk's rage? Where is Hulk's joy when he's smashing? Where is Hulk's straight-talk?
Tony: Why didn't he build a suit to protect the world? Why did he just retire with Pepper? He doesn't really show me why he'd be willing to die for this world?
Clint: One off-hand mention of not being able to accept what he's done / become, and then Laura's magical wife touch makes it all better? I want the second half of that statement, dammit.
Thor: Apparently once you are fat you are also incapable of giving cogent presentations, making decisions that don't involve running away, maintaining hygiene, or wearing proper armor. Yes, let him have his depressive state where he feels like he's failed not only his people, but the entire universe. But let him leap at the chance to possibly undo all this. Have a scene where he shaves his beard and puts on his armor. He may not be sure whether he's worthy or not until the mjolnir scene, but at least have some desperation/grim determination? As I said before, Thor's characterization should not be one of incompetence and cowardice.
Steve:
From a logistics perspective, I'm mostly fine with the whole "time with Peggy" thing -- he'd obviously talked to Bucky about it, and there's a machine right there in the movie that does de-aging. So he can spend his time with Peggy and then de-age to spend time in the future. Maybe appearing as an old man is the only way to get Sam to take the shield, and then after he de-ages, he's like "haha no takebacks."*
But from a characterization perspective, I hate it so much. They do the whole "don't take all the stupid with you" exchange, but when it happened in 1942, Bucky was *going to war* and Steve had plans to go, too. But in this case, Steve was going to hide in Peggy's house for 45 years pretending that he's not Steve Rogers?!! What we love about Steve is that he's the little punk who won't quit. Marrying Peggy and not doing a thing about the HYDRA that he knows is growing in *his wife's life's work* is quitting. Showing up in the past and being like "hey Peggy, I'm from the future, I'm tired and depressed, I want to retire by marrying you" is a fucking disservice to Peggy. If I were Peggy I'd kick him to the curb and say "You're not the Steve that I know and love." And like -- Steve has children and grandchildren?!! (Cause Peggy sure does.) Has old!Steve been visiting Peggy in the retirement home when normal!Steve is doing his sadness errands? If the theme is about coping with loss, how about if, instead of taking the long way around, Steve reappears from the machine with lipstick on his cheek and he mentions that he took an extra detour to 1945?
Nat:
Nat should have lived. I want it to be Nat who is running the gauntlet in the final battle. I want Bruce to tell Nat that he tried to bring Clint back, really he did, but the stones resisted it. I want Nat to pick up the phone when Laura is calling. I want Nat to make the choice of Clint's family over the Avengers, because there's ____ in her ledger. Because Clint was her first family. I just want Nat, dammit.
Fuck you for letting Nat die in the chumpiest way ever.
----------
* omg what if Steve put all the stones back, stopped by for a dance with Peggy, and then hopped over to, like, a day ago to artificially age himself and grab an un-damaged shield just so that he can foist it on Sam and yell "no takebacks"?!!!
no subject
Date: 2019-04-30 01:29 pm (UTC)I'm genuinely happy for people who just enjoyed the movie, or loved it, or it gave them everything they wanted, but I'm also completely baffled how it could have?
I read a bit of an interview with the writers somewhere about how it had to be Nat who died and... why? How is that a satisfying end to her narrative? Or is it that they've never quite known what to do with her character (not helped by the fact that she's one of the only two OG Avengers who's never had a solo film - which really should have happened, like, years ago, and would have given more richness to her character and backstory) and so she's expendable, I guess. Try harder, M&M.
Also I absolutely hate Steve's ending, as you can probably guess! As a Peggy fan it's unsatisfying to me because it's TERRIBLY unfair to her. If we take at face value that he lived out a life with her, even if Steve gives her all the facts of how he's there and what it means with regard to her timeline, there's no way she can give properly informed consent as to whether she wants to make this choice. Either that or he's just like "I'm back" and takes away her choice altogether. It's. There are loads of ethical implications of this time travel gubbins that they really just don't explore at all. How is she meant to choose between Steve, who's right there, and what is for her a purely hypothetical future that to him is history? Like whatever kids she had in the prime timeline? It's unfair and if Steve Rogers were acting in character, he'd know this, and wouldn't do it.
ALSO DOES STEVE NOW GET TO SEE LITTLE NEICE SHARON GROWING UP AND KNOW THAT WHEN SHE'S LIKE THIRTY SHE'S GONNA KISS A YOUNGER VERSION OF HIMSELF RIGHT ON THE MOUTH because eww eww eww eww eww that's so icky and he should be uncomfortable having to remember that every time she comes to visit. And there's no FUCKING way he could tell Peggy that happened. And if he did. Oh. I just.
This movie is straight-up broken.
no subject
Date: 2019-05-01 04:42 am (UTC)Re: Steve, I guess technically the kids that she mentions in TWS are supposed to be the kids that she has with Steve, but THAT'S DUMB. The entire charade would only work if Peggy and Steve keep mum for the rest of their lives in exchange for a chance to dance and make babies. And I don't really see either of them being into that bargain? Both of them are totally "charge out and do stuff" people, and that's kind of what they respect about each other, too.