Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, TangledThorns said:

Finally saw it today. Good movie but wouldn't pay to see it again. Marvel needs to make their films more relatable to the real world. 

Haven't seen it but I agree with this statement.   I enjoy movies set in the real world.   I'm willingly to accept that science can create super humans for movies.   Space aliens, Gods and Magic is just a step too far.

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, TangledThorns said:

Finally saw it today. Good movie but wouldn't pay to see it again. Marvel needs to make their films more relatable to the real world. 

29 minutes ago, Roy Focker said:

Haven't seen it but I agree with this statement.   I enjoy movies set in the real world.   I'm willingly to accept that science can create super humans for movies.   Space aliens, Gods and Magic is just a step too far.

No offense, guys. It is what it is in the movies since those characters are based on their comicbook counterpart which are made of aliens, gods, and sorcerers to have them grounded in the real world. But if you guys really want something somehow set and relatable to the real world and still love Marvel characters and stuff, head over Netflix. You might enjoy this guy more telling everybody who he is. ;) 

 

Edited by no3Ljm
Posted
11 hours ago, kajnrig said:

I would hope so, after

  Hide contents

all the effort they took to set him up in GotG2. Apparently there are also plans to bring in the Kamala Khan version of... Ms. Marvel? On a side note, I was having a conversation with a friend, and he had to explain to me the Marvel and DC Marvels, and I still don't think I get it at all. There's comic book ridiculous, and there's the "Marvel" ridiculous. But yeah, apparently Kamala Khan is at least in the planning stages for an MCU appearance, but not until after the Thanos arc is all done and over with.

 

Spoiler

Not until at least GotG3. Source.

 

Posted
On 5/15/2018 at 5:02 AM, TangledThorns said:

Finally saw it today. Good movie but wouldn't pay to see it again. Marvel needs to make their films more relatable to the real world. 

DC tried that and it wasn't popular.

Posted (edited)

Just wanted to add one thing (half-jokingly though): 

Spoiler

 

Thor's a freakin' idiot. 

He's probably the Avenger (excluding the GOTG crew here) with the most knowledge about the Infinity Stones.

I know Thanos said, "You should have went for the head."  But if Thor was actually THINKING, the dumb lug should've chopped Thanos' arm clear off at the gauntlet.

 

I can already see HISHE writing up a scene like this.

Despite this gripe, I did enjoy the movie and all the solid character moments. 

I just don't think I can give it a final grade until I see how everything gets resolved in the sequel.

Edited by Mog
Posted
8 hours ago, Mog said:

Just wanted to add one thing (half-jokingly though): 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Thor's a freakin' idiot. 

He's probably the Avenger (excluding the GOTG crew here) with the most knowledge about the Infinity Stones.

I know Thanos said, "You should have went for the head."  But if Thor was actually THINKING, the dumb lug should've chopped Thanos' arm clear off at the gauntlet.

 

I can already see HISHE writing up a scene like this.

Despite this gripe, I did enjoy the movie and all the solid character moments. 

I just don't think I can give it a final grade until I see how everything gets resolved in the sequel.

 

I read another article that made the very good point that, if the Infinity Gauntlet confers omnipotence to the one who wields it, then Thanos could have just as easily solved his "problem" by doubling the amount of resources in the universe instead of killing half the population.

I could also see a HISHE for that scenario too. 

 

Posted
On 5/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, SuperSenpai said:

 

I read another article that made the very good point that, if the Infinity Gauntlet confers omnipotence to the one who wields it, then Thanos could have just as easily solved his "problem" by doubling the amount of resources in the universe instead of killing half the population.

I could also see a HISHE for that scenario too. 

 

That... is a fantastic point. His motivation in the original comic story for culling half of the population of the entirety of existence is explained with a very clear motivation. I get that they couldn't do this the same way with the MCU, but still... Thanos in the comics is just so very clever and analytical. I was hoping to have seen a little more of that in the movie incarnation, but it's OK.

Posted
On 5/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, SuperSenpai said:

I read another article that made the very good point that, if the Infinity Gauntlet confers omnipotence to the one who wields it, then Thanos could have just as easily solved his "problem" by doubling the amount of resources in the universe instead of killing half the population.

Actually doubling the resources makes the problem Thanos was trying to solve worse. 

While in the comics his reason for wiping half the life in the galaxy is clearer, this in the movie it wasn't until you you sit and think hard on it.

In the end, he has a very good point and did what needed to be done. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Focslain said:

Actually doubling the resources makes the problem Thanos was trying to solve worse. 

While in the comics his reason for wiping half the life in the galaxy is clearer, this in the movie it wasn't until you you sit and think hard on it.

In the end, he has a very good point and did what needed to be done. 

How does it make it worse?  He says the problem is that there are too many people and not enough resources.  Doesn't increasing the amount of resources solve that problem?  

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, SuperSenpai said:

How does it make it worse?  He says the problem is that there are too many people and not enough resources.  Doesn't increasing the amount of resources solve that problem?  

 

Nope. 

It's not so much about the amount of resources as the allocation of said resources. As for making it worse, by doubling the resources you only teach the lesson of waste, since if you need more it will magically appear later if you pray hard enough (ie contact thanos). By dropping the populace this works better in getting the populace into thinking about resource usage and life in general.

Course it can back-fire, but in those cases there less to use resources and therefor the back-fire would have minimal effect.

The flaw here is that he didn't send a message with the event, like warning those that survived that they have a chance to be better or else (Sodom and Gamora anyone?).

Posted

Focslain confirmed promoting genocide. :lol:

But also, doubling resources won't provide for a doubled population. Let's just take the US for instance. The US population has doubled since the 1950s, but its per capita petroleum consumption hasn't doubled to match; it in fact tripled (and even more than quadrupled during its peak in the mid-00s).**

The obvious answer is to just more than double the resources, but again that's, from a certain point of view, putting a Bandaid on an open wound. It doesn't "solve" the "problem," just the "symptom" that is energy consumption.

But I mean, that's not JUST Thanos's goal. He does have a certain Sodom and Gomorrah vibe to him, an Old Testament vindictive God complex. Culling half the universe's population isn't just to free up resources, it's to quell conflict, corruption, etc. His presence has the immediate benefit of bringing disparate groups together to try and stop him, but also in the aftermath of his success the survivors will have less reason to attack each other and more reason to work together to survive, less reason to "game" the system and more reason to contribute to it. There's no time to be corrupt if you're too busy just surviving. It's a major oversimplification, far from the "simple calculus" that he thinks it is, but that's his thinking.

 

**Based on quick googles population growth charts and petroleum consumption charts.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, kajnrig said:

Focslain confirmed promoting genocide. :lol:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But also, doubling resources won't provide for a doubled population. Let's just take the US for instance. The US population has doubled since the 1950s, but its per capita petroleum consumption hasn't doubled to match; it in fact tripled (and even more than quadrupled during its peak in the mid-00s).**

The obvious answer is to just more than double the resources, but again that's, from a certain point of view, putting a Bandaid on an open wound. It doesn't "solve" the "problem," just the "symptom" that is energy consumption.

But I mean, that's not JUST Thanos's goal. He does have a certain Sodom and Gomorrah vibe to him, an Old Testament vindictive God complex. Culling half the universe's population isn't just to free up resources, it's to quell conflict, corruption, etc. His presence has the immediate benefit of bringing disparate groups together to try and stop him, but also in the aftermath of his success the survivors will have less reason to attack each other and more reason to work together to survive, less reason to "game" the system and more reason to contribute to it. There's no time to be corrupt if you're too busy just surviving. It's a major oversimplification, far from the "simple calculus" that he thinks it is, but that's his thinking.

 

**Based on quick googles population growth charts and petroleum consumption charts.

 

I don't promote genocide, I'm ok for a culling though. Genocide is for the eventual elimination of a group, which is wrong.

Culling on the other hand can trim the fat and make for a strong whole, just that humans have gotten to resistant to natural means so....

But yes good work there @kajnrig

Edited by Focslain
Posted
1 hour ago, kajnrig said:

Focslain confirmed promoting genocide. :lol:

 

  Hide contents

But also, doubling resources won't provide for a doubled population. Let's just take the US for instance. The US population has doubled since the 1950s, but its per capita petroleum consumption hasn't doubled to match; it in fact tripled (and even more than quadrupled during its peak in the mid-00s).**

The obvious answer is to just more than double the resources, but again that's, from a certain point of view, putting a Bandaid on an open wound. It doesn't "solve" the "problem," just the "symptom" that is energy consumption.

But I mean, that's not JUST Thanos's goal. He does have a certain Sodom and Gomorrah vibe to him, an Old Testament vindictive God complex. Culling half the universe's population isn't just to free up resources, it's to quell conflict, corruption, etc. His presence has the immediate benefit of bringing disparate groups together to try and stop him, but also in the aftermath of his success the survivors will have less reason to attack each other and more reason to work together to survive, less reason to "game" the system and more reason to contribute to it. There's no time to be corrupt if you're too busy just surviving. It's a major oversimplification, far from the "simple calculus" that he thinks it is, but that's his thinking.

 

**Based on quick googles population growth charts and petroleum consumption charts.

 

 

As long as he is fair and doesn't discriminate... then it should be ok...   :D  Remember, Fair and Balanced.  Those are Thanos' words.

Posted

To be clear, I don't take Thanos's motivations (or the power the gauntlet confers) too seriously.  But just for the sake of debate --

if the gauntlet does in fact confer omnipotence to the wielder, than all of these justifications as to why he couldn't/didn't do this or that don't really hold water either.  Because if you're omnipotent, you can do anything!  This is why I have a lot of problems with time travel stories.  Time travel is basically a deus ex machina that can solve any story problem at any point, unless the writers are careful to introduce very specific limitations and are consistent about following whatever in-universe rules are established.  Omnipotence is a deus ex machina x1000 because you are not only not bound by time, but you are pretty much not bound by any other conceivable metaphysical constraint either.  

Say Thanos doubles the resources but the universal population grows and the problem remains.  He can snap his fingers and do something else to solve the problem.  Perhaps re-engineer everyone's biology so that their metabolisms are more efficient.  Pretty much any conceivable idea (and probably quite a few inconceivable ones) is fair game if you're omnipotent.

Posted
24 minutes ago, SuperSenpai said:

Say Thanos doubles the resources but the universal population grows and the problem remains.  He can snap his fingers and do something else to solve the problem.  Perhaps re-engineer everyone's biology so that their metabolisms are more efficient.  Pretty much any conceivable idea (and probably quite a few inconceivable ones) is fair game if you're omnipotent.

So my question is how one can learn from the previous problem if there's always someone to fix the new problem for them?

Posted

The problem with Thanos is that he gains the power to be omnipotent but remains trapped in his own body, limited to his own mind. If he were truly omnipotent, as others have pointed out, he would have known to do any number of things to "balance the world." That he doesn't do those things doesn't mean that those solutions weren't and aren't viable, it means that he's too limited in his vision to think outside his own box.

He doesn't actually want to save the world, to "balance" it. He wants to commit genocide, and uses "balance" as a flimsy pseudo-religious justification to do so.

Contrast him with literally all of the heroes, but especially Gamora, who tells him point-blank that he has no way of knowing for sure that genocide is the only solution. He's too caught up in his own BS, too intent on doing what he WANTS to do to realize what he CAN do.

Imagine if, say, Tony Stark got the stones and wanted to "balance" the universe. Do you think he'd be able to do so without killing trillions, possibly quadrillions, of people? I do.

Posted
7 hours ago, no3Ljm said:

So my question is how one can learn from the previous problem if there's always someone to fix the new problem for them?

Why does that matter?  Why do they need to learn anything?  If you're omnipotent it doesn't matter because you can fix it -- or prevent it from being a problem in the first place.

 

7 hours ago, kajnrig said:

The problem with Thanos is that he gains the power to be omnipotent but remains trapped in his own body, limited to his own mind. If he were truly omnipotent, as others have pointed out, he would have known to do any number of things to "balance the world." That he doesn't do those things doesn't mean that those solutions weren't and aren't viable, it means that he's too limited in his vision to think outside his own box.

He doesn't actually want to save the world, to "balance" it. He wants to commit genocide, and uses "balance" as a flimsy pseudo-religious justification to do so.

Contrast him with literally all of the heroes, but especially Gamora, who tells him point-blank that he has no way of knowing for sure that genocide is the only solution. He's too caught up in his own BS, too intent on doing what he WANTS to do to realize what he CAN do.

Imagine if, say, Tony Stark got the stones and wanted to "balance" the universe. Do you think he'd be able to do so without killing trillions, possibly quadrillions, of people? I do.

I actually agree with this, and think that it's the most logical "in-universe" explanation for why he does what he does. \

But I bring up the whole discussion about omnipotence because people are saying Thanos has to do X or Y because if he did A, B, or C, it "wouldn't work".  Which is ridiculous because if the character is omnipotent there is no such thing as "it wouldn't work".  He can do whatever he wants, and can account for whatever contingency arises.  By its definition, omnipotence means it *has* to work, because he has the means to carry it out.  So my answer is not that Thanos chooses to do X or Y because it wouldn't work, but because that's what the story needs him to do.  

Thanos chooses to kill half the universe rather than double the resources (or some other solution) not because the other solutions wouldn't work, but because that's what the story requires him to do in order to move the plot forward.  Omnipotence theoretically enables him to execute any solution, but the story requires him to execute one particular solution.    

Posted
20 minutes ago, SuperSenpai said:

So my answer is not that Thanos chooses to do X or Y because it wouldn't work, but because that's what the story needs him to do.  

Thanos chooses to kill half the universe rather than double the resources (or some other solution) not because the other solutions wouldn't work, but because that's what the story requires him to do in order to move the plot forward.

I wouldn't put it exactly that way, though I suppose it is true from a certain perspective. Usually when people talk about things happening because the story needs it to happen, they're talking more about contrived, inexplicable, or too convenient turns of plot. Thanos's hardheaded devotion to the Final Solution, his strength of will, etc. are all well established by the time he does what he does, so it's not inconceivable. You dig far enough, and you're right, he IS the way he is to serve the story, but that's a bit of a pointless point because the same could be said about EVERYTHING at that point.

(What WAS a bit absurd to me, though, was that they treated his sacrifice of Gamora in a sympathetic light, when it has been anything but. Maybe he DID love Gamora, but it was always a twisted kind of love. Certainly nothing to warrant a swell of slow orchestral music.)

Posted

Yeah, that really irked me. They’re trying to cast a horribly abusive relationship in a sympathetic light. 

Posted

I’ve seen several Hulkbuster toys with a full Hulk and not Banner inside.  Must have been a scrapped idea or cut scene.  Would have been cool.

Posted (edited)

“Hulk buster armor?” More like “Hulk bust your armor!”

As for Thanos & Gamora, remember that the scene is portrayed from his point of view in a one-sided relationship. Despite how cruel, abusive and generally evil Thanos has been, he still cares for her like a real daughter and even hoped to have her succeed him. I think that Gamora’s immediate killing of Fake Thanos May have been the moment that he accepted that she truly despised him, and wasn’t just acting out.

Ive seen (fortunately not lived) very similar feelings in RL abusive relationships, both parental & romantic. I’m in no way siding with the abusers, but Thanos IS the main character of IW; and this moment represents his solemn, mistaken choice of his misguided mission over the only thing he truly loves. Regardless of how f’d up that love may be.

Edited by Kelsain
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Justice League would have been better with an interesting villain. Steppenwolf had to be the weakest villain in DC film history since Superman 4's Nuclear Man. Marvel at least went out if it's way to make Thanos interesting, definitely got their money's worth out of Josh Brolin. 

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I personally hope they are willing to do a pay off at the end of avengers four, and kill Tony, Cap, and may be Thor and Hulk.

A nice way to tie off the first three phases of MCU.  They have more than enough materials to go on moving ahead, and it's time for Spiderman to grow up, there is no more need for daddy figure, and Cap need to take a permanent breather  (too many language problems).

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...