• 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for phisigmatau
#1 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

i know some of you guys enjoyed it. Theres something for everyone, but objectively speaking, on an objective basis, (that you would weigh any movie) is it any good? hypes done. it was pretty bad

Avatar image for jashro44
#2 Posted by jashro44 (53706 posts) - - Show Bio

What in your opinion makes it "objectively bad"?

Avatar image for diarrhearegatta
#3 Posted by DiarrheaRegatta (5773 posts) - - Show Bio

idk what Egg game is. Is that like a Sonic movie spinoff or something?

Online
Avatar image for wilkiins17
#4 Posted by Wilkiins17 (510 posts) - - Show Bio

no

Avatar image for Penguin-Dust
#5 Posted by PenguinDust (9346 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for balancedtruth
#6 Posted by BalancedTruth (1406 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes

I think most logical people know this

Online
Avatar image for phisigmatau
#7 Edited by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

@jashro44 said:

What in your opinion makes it "objectively bad"?

Other people have explained it better than me plus I'm lazy:

Bad pacing:

The flow of the movie was all over the place. Not even the time traveling aspect but just how people were appearing, changing, and disappearing without any context in the film. There was a lot of this. It is a stupid excuse to argue a lot of this happened for the sake of brevity.

PLOT HOLES - er Crater holes

Why was Carol Danvers not involved in the Avengers’ super important, “we only get one shot at this, we can’t fail” mission to undo the snap? Like it didn’t occur to anyone to bring the one person who could do the whole thing by themselves? Especially since they could went back in time to right before Thanos snapped his fingers the second time, while he was already weakened from the first snap?

The final battle made no sense. On Wakanda in Infinity War, 10 Avengers (including a very late Thor and a shieldless Cap), and the Wakandan army nearly defeated Thanos (who had five stones), 3 of the Black Order sans Maw, and his army. Somehow in Endgame, a very full strength 20 Avengers plus like 4 armies plus Thor there from the start plus Cap with a shield AND Mjolnir plus a late Captain Marvel plus a completed Infinity Gauntlet couldn’t immediately beat Thanos (with zero stones), the Black Order, and one army? It doesn’t make sense. At all.

After spending a year mourning the Avengers who were dusted in Infinity War, audiences were rewarded with a grand total of 10 minutes of screen time for the lot of them. For one thing: we’re not actually shown how people return from the dust (which would have bene the emotional payoff from Infinity War’s dusting). They don’t explain what people are like when they come back or what actually happened to them while they were gone. How were the dusted Avengers able to rally armies to fight so quickly? Like none of it makes sense other than it led to an otherwise entertaining fake Hobbit Battle of Five Armies sequence and a catch phrase. Again, a great opportunity missed to further develop the audience’s emotional investment to these characters

Skipping out on Banners arc AND Thor's Arc.

Why not use the stones to revive Tony Stark? It’s a simple question. They could. Captain Marvel (presumably is the only one strong enough to safely wield the gauntlet) could have used the gauntlet, snapped her fingers, and he would be alive.

How did Cap return the soul stone? There’s a lot of questions here like a.) what it was like seeing Red Skull again? b.) How do you put back the soul stone since the films never actually show where you get the stone? c.) Do you get the life back for the stone or is it a no refunds situation? How did he put the Aether back in Jane foster?

The Cap old man ending is literally impossible. Based on the very same rules on time travel as defined by Hulk and the Ancient One. When you go through time, whatever you do does not change your present, it simply creates an alternate track where your changes are reflected. So Cap going back to the past to marry Peggy Carter and die an old man would NEVER have happened in the reality that Falcon / Bucky were in. It would have happened in the alternate track Cap created in the past meaning the shield handoff and everything would never have happened.

The acting and cinematography was on point tho. Some good emotional scenes. But it was like having a really good player on your basketball team that can pass, rebound, defend but can't shoot for anything in one game. really frustrating.

oh and ps if the writer has to explain something then that just shows that the movie failed, since thats what the movie is for, STORY TELLING.

Avatar image for batmanplusjay
#8 Posted by BatmanPlusJay (4462 posts) - - Show Bio

I liked Egg Game. Egg game had a variety of different eggs that really made the movie stand out. 10/10

Avatar image for eternaldarkfury
#9 Posted by EternalDarkFury (2580 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course. It was a movie about eggs.

Avatar image for danieldaripper
#10 Posted by DanielDaRipper (5622 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau: I don't mean to intrude but I disagree with some of your points.

Why was Carol Danvers not involved in the Avengers’ super important, “we only get one shot at this, we can’t fail” mission to undo the snap? Like it didn’t occur to anyone to bring the one person who could do the whole thing by themselves? Especially since they could went back in time to right before Thanos snapped his fingers the second time, while he was already weakened from the first snap?

IIRC Carol herself said she was off somewhere else doing something when Nat was talking to her hologram. Hulk already explained how the MCU's time travel works so what you're proposing would be impossible.

Why not use the stones to revive Tony Stark? It’s a simple question. They could. Captain Marvel (presumably is the only one strong enough to safely wield the gauntlet) could have used the gauntlet, snapped her fingers, and he would be alive.

Possibly due to the risk factor? Hulk was specifically resistant to the stones powers so that's why he was the best candidate for that.

The Cap old man ending is literally impossible. Based on the very same rules on time travel as defined by Hulk and the Ancient One. When you go through time, whatever you do does not change your present, it simply creates an alternate track where your changes are reflected. So Cap going back to the past to marry Peggy Carter and die an old man would NEVER have happened in the reality that Falcon / Bucky were in. It would have happened in the alternate track Cap created in the past meaning the shield handoff and everything would never have happened.

My interpretation of that scene was that when current Steve went back in time he went back to after his counterpart was frozen in ice so the events of all the movies still happened with the Steve that was frozen in the ice while the current Steve went back and lived a normal life in his place.

Basically a time loop. Though thinking about it brings up a question. So if they snapped 2014 Thanos out of existence then how did any of the current events even happen and they basically went against their own rule.

Avatar image for uugieboogie
#11 Posted by uugieboogie (13397 posts) - - Show Bio

Not better than Infinity War but still a great movie. A lot of what OP is saying to explain it being “objectively bad” is either subjective or OP not paying attention to the movie.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#12 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau: I don't mean to intrude but I disagree with some of your points.

Why was Carol Danvers not involved in the Avengers’ super important, “we only get one shot at this, we can’t fail” mission to undo the snap? Like it didn’t occur to anyone to bring the one person who could do the whole thing by themselves? Especially since they could went back in time to right before Thanos snapped his fingers the second time, while he was already weakened from the first snap?

IIRC Carol herself said she was off somewhere else doing something when Nat was talking to her hologram. Hulk already explained how the MCU's time travel works so what you're proposing would be impossible.

Why not use the stones to revive Tony Stark? It’s a simple question. They could. Captain Marvel (presumably is the only one strong enough to safely wield the gauntlet) could have used the gauntlet, snapped her fingers, and he would be alive.

Possibly due to the risk factor? Hulk was specifically resistant to the stones powers so that's why he was the best candidate for that.

The Cap old man ending is literally impossible. Based on the very same rules on time travel as defined by Hulk and the Ancient One. When you go through time, whatever you do does not change your present, it simply creates an alternate track where your changes are reflected. So Cap going back to the past to marry Peggy Carter and die an old man would NEVER have happened in the reality that Falcon / Bucky were in. It would have happened in the alternate track Cap created in the past meaning the shield handoff and everything would never have happened.

My interpretation of that scene was that when current Steve went back in time he went back to after his counterpart was frozen in ice so the events of all the movies still happened with the Steve that was frozen in the ice while the current Steve went back and lived a normal life in his place.

Basically a time loop. Though thinking about it brings up a question. So if they snapped 2014 Thanos out of existence then how did any of the current events even happen and they basically went against their own rule.

PS the writer and the directors dont even agree on Cap's ending. Stop acting like the movie didnt have ridiculous plot holes. And no one can answer why they just didn't go back after Thanos when he had all the stones before snap number 2. Logically failure, "no nope it doesn't matter its Avengers it has to be untouchable you ahve to like it or you insult me".

Its a bad movie. Avengers 1: great! AOU? Average. IW? Excellent. Egg Shame? bad.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#13 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

Not better than Infinity War but still a great movie. A lot of what OP is saying to explain it being “objectively bad” is either subjective or OP not paying attention to the movie.

plot holes are legitimate reasons to critique a movie.
counter my points, go ahead bet you won't but you'd rather make generalizations about what I say lazily, then address then.
More garbage that Egg shame presented to us (again not my writing):
Young's Thanos is a cop-out cheesy villain? At the end of infinity war we saw that Thor had achieved his full power and he was strong enough to beat a full power infinity gauntlet version of Thanos with one throw of his axe if only he had gone for the head. why couldn't he just do that too young Thanos with no infinity gauntlet who has absolutely no power to stop him? especially now that Thor has both his weapons he would be so powerful, that an ungauntleted Thanos would be absolutely no match for him.

Also no one has noticed that the whole thing with Hawkeye and black widow trying to kill themselves doesn't work. If it did then why did Thanos have to stop gamora from killing herself with the knife going to bubbles gag so that he could kill her... Now the rule is different.

Avatar image for danieldaripper
#14 Posted by DanielDaRipper (5622 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau: I forgot to mention that I do agree with some of your points I was only countering the points I disagree with and yes I am aware of some of the plot holes I even brought one up in said post....

They didn't go back to before Thanos destroyed the infinity stones because of Hulk's said rule. If they had prevented Thanos from destroying the stones and using it for themselves then they would've never had any reason to go back in the first place because the stones would've never been destroyed if they had done that.

Avatar image for jgames
#15 Posted by Jgames (8210 posts) - - Show Bio

I will agree that yes the plot itself is full of covinient and plot holes, but manage to pull it together because of the characters and investment audience has. Sort of the same way HTTYD 3 did, except more effective.

Also did not mind what happen to Thor, mostly because him in GOTG vol.3 just sound awesome. Plus I personally really enjoy Thor Ragnorak and never care for the other two Thor movies, so seeing him no longer being king and adventuring in space is great.

When it comes to Hulk; yeah it is dissapointing to not see him get that Hulk rage moment again. It seem like his character arc came in between films, with him accepting the Hulk as a part of him. So his character arc was off-screen, which sucks. But he was used well in the movie as Bruce Banner, but sucks he was not used well as the Hulk.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#16 Edited by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieldaripper:

again that doesn't make sense, because they also say what you do in the past doesn't affect the future. The movie is full of illogical rules about time travel that the movie itself breaks.

Why couldn't they just use any of their now multiple ways of time control to go back to any point in the last couple days and just grab a random copy of Tony? And black widow? They got a new Gomorrah why can't they get a more recent copy of Tony or Black widow? it wouldn't make a difference if they grab them 5 seconds before they die or 3 days if that's more convenient. They would still be in the past to do all the things they did because gamora and Thanos and nebula who all came to the Future are still in the past... because according to the rules of the movie The only thing that would actually change the timeline is the infinity Stones being gone permanently...

Avatar image for johncena69swag
#17 Posted by JohnCena69swag (4026 posts) - - Show Bio

I didnt know we were supposed to wait. A lot of us on this site have been pretty openly unimpressed.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#18 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio
@jgames said:

I will agree that yes the plot itself is full of covinient and plot holes, but manage to pull it together because of the characters and investment audience has. .

What? so its ok for a movie to have enumerous unanswerable plot holes because it has alot of fan investment? How do you compute this logic? That's like saying the more often you go to chipotle the more right they have to lessen your portions or give you lower quality meat. Are you listening to yourself right now? seesh I pity that type of thinking, oh well. Do you.

I didnt know we were supposed to wait. A lot of us on this site have been pretty openly unimpressed.

It seeems most of the dissapointment has to do with low feats and not logical issues with plot holes, time travel, bad pacing and unbalanced moods

Avatar image for mike_fowler
#19 Posted by Mike_Fowler (5156 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieldaripper:

again that doesn't make sense, because they also say what you do in the past doesn't affect the future. The movie is full of illogical rules about time travel that the movie itself breaks.

Why couldn't they just use any of their now multiple ways of time control to go back to any point in the last couple days and just grab a random copy of Tony? And black widow? They got a new Gomorrah why can't they get a more recent copy of Tony or Black widow? it wouldn't make a difference if they grab them 5 seconds before they die or 3 days if that's more convenient. They would still be in the past to do all the things they did because gamora and Thanos and nebula who all came to the Future are still in the past... because according to the rules of the movie The only thing that would actually change the timeline is the infinity Stones being gone permanently...

A) That’s not the rules of the movie. The rules of the movie is that any time they’d go back, they’d be going to another reality/timeline. It’s already alternate from their own. What the Ancient One refers to when talking to banner is the time stone being gone would rob them if their (masters of the mystic arts) greatest weapon when dormammu (aka, forces of darkness) attempts to invade.

B) even if they could just “grab another Tony” or whatever, what makes you think those alternate versions would WANT to go with them?

C) no, that Gamora, Nebula, and Thanos are not in the past anymore, them coming to the main timeline means that in regards to whichever timeline they came from, said timeline no longer has Thanos and his army, Nehula, or Gamora in it

Avatar image for alextheboss
#20 Posted by AlexTheBoss (18467 posts) - - Show Bio

It wasn't bad, but it wasn't nearly as good as some people made it out to be. Overall it was a very entertaining movie, especially the climax.

Avatar image for boc
#21 Posted by BOC (1764 posts) - - Show Bio

^^ I agree.

Avatar image for reactor
#22 Posted by Reactor (4417 posts) - - Show Bio

I still think Infinity War was the superior movie (and I somewhat alienated many of my friends for that stance), but I've found that I'm slightly warming up to the film more than when I last saw it. I loved Endgame, but found it to be a bit too bloated, convoluted, and "jumpy", in spite of being far superior in hitting good feel moments than its predecessor.

That being said, I think Endgame's more entertaining as a spectacle than Infinity War was, and it being the second half of the conclusion to twenty-something films works to its advantage. The movie may not been as good as claimed, but it was still superb

Avatar image for killbilly
#23 Posted by KillBilly (2295 posts) - - Show Bio

Give it another month or two. People will start calming down then especially if it fails to beat Avatar.

Avatar image for uugieboogie
#24 Posted by uugieboogie (13397 posts) - - Show Bio

plot holes are legitimate reasons to critique a movie.

Except what you see as a "plot-hole" could be chalked up to you not fully remembering something from this movie or a past movie. Marvel's whole thing it connecting and interlocking their films. You mention battle with Thanos army in IW compared to EG and completely ignore the fact that Thanos army in EG was much more massive. In IW it was just Outriders and 2 members of the Black Order on the front line with Corvus on a stealth mission. And they didn't nearly defeat Thanos, they beat his army that he wasn't even leading. He completely steamrolled the Avengers once he came to Wakanda, nobody caused him any problems or even touched him besides the same person who did in EG and a surprise attack from Thor.

Young's Thanos is a cop-out cheesy villain? At the end of infinity war we saw that Thor had achieved his full power and he was strong enough to beat a full power infinity gauntlet version of Thanos with one throw of his axe if only he had gone for the head. why couldn't he just do that too young Thanos with no infinity gauntlet who has absolutely no power to stop him? especially now that Thor has both his weapons he would be so powerful, that an ungauntleted Thanos would be absolutely no match for him.

Thor in EG is clearly not the same Thor in IW or prior, he clearly was weaker. And the Russo's already explained Thor caught Thanos off-guard in IW. Here with a Thanos (who's actually fully armored) and much more ruthless. Thanos in IW already had stones and didn't feel threatened at all and already felt like he won. "With the power stone and space stone he's already the strongest being in the universe" and him tossing away his armor solidifies this. EG Thanos is in a completely different state of mind.

Also no one has noticed that the whole thing with Hawkeye and black widow trying to kill themselves doesn't work. If it did then why did Thanos have to stop gamora from killing herself with the knife going to bubbles gag so that he could kill her... Now the rule is different.

Skull said "the soul stone holds a special place among the infinity stone, it has a certain wisdom to it". Gamora didn't want the soul stone therefore her killing herself wouldn't/shouldn't draw it out. Not to mention she tried to stab herself and both movies heavily implied that the sacrifice had to be made off that cliff.

Avatar image for lan_fan
#25 Posted by Lan_Fan (15941 posts) - - Show Bio

From a movie maker perspective, usually it's regarded as very bad, but I still think it's very entertaining.

Avatar image for boc
#26 Posted by BOC (1764 posts) - - Show Bio

@uugieboogie:

Skull said "the soul stone holds a special place among the infinity stone, it has a certain wisdom to it". Gamora didn't want the soul stone therefore her killing herself wouldn't/shouldn't draw it out. Not to mention she tried to stab herself and both movies heavily implied that the sacrifice had to be made off that cliff.

To be fair, I think he has a point. I'm pretty sure the whole purpose of Thanos bringing Gamora was due to the fact that, in order to gain the stone, someone must sacrifice that which they love most. Otherwise, Thanos could have killed anyone. In the Black Widow and Hawkeye scene, no one sacrifices another. You could argue that the stone may just need a soul that is loved (sounds kinda weird), but if that were the case Thanos would have done the same.

Avatar image for sleepingslaves
#27 Posted by SleepingSlaves (1083 posts) - - Show Bio

Why would we admit something that's so obviously untrue?

Avatar image for marvelx13
#28 Posted by Marvelx13 (359 posts) - - Show Bio

Why so many people saying "objectively"? Is it supposed to make you sound more sophisticated or give your fan review more credibility?

"Wonder Woman was objectively a better movie than Aquaman"

Then I guess it should have objectively beaten it's box office and garnered more talk. Same with bandwagons saying Infinity War was objectively better than Endgame. Uhh the ratings and money say otherwise. Endgame > Infinity War

"Muh featz! no fat thor! IW better!"

Avatar image for uugieboogie
#29 Posted by uugieboogie (13397 posts) - - Show Bio

@boc said:

@uugieboogie:

Skull said "the soul stone holds a special place among the infinity stone, it has a certain wisdom to it". Gamora didn't want the soul stone therefore her killing herself wouldn't/shouldn't draw it out. Not to mention she tried to stab herself and both movies heavily implied that the sacrifice had to be made off that cliff.

To be fair, I think he has a point. I'm pretty sure the whole purpose of Thanos bringing Gamora was due to the fact that, in order to gain the stone, someone must sacrifice that which they love most. Otherwise, Thanos could have killed anyone. In the Black Widow and Hawkeye scene, no one sacrifices another. You could argue that the stone may just need a soul that is loved (sounds kinda weird), but if that were the case Thanos would have done the same.

No, they didn’t even know what was required to get the soul stone, Gamora only knew the location. Thanos brought Gamora with him in case she was lying about where the stone was located.

Red Skull never says “what you love most”. He says “you must lose that which you love”. Thanos just didn’t actually love anyone besides Gamora. Clint and Nat obviously has a brother/sister kind of love. She was the only Avenger who knew about his family, his kids refer to her as “aunt“ and he even named his third child after her.

Avatar image for richubs
#30 Posted by Richubs (5736 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau:

I disagree with multiple points of yours -

Why was Carol Danvers not involved in the Avengers’ super important, “we only get one shot at this, we can’t fail” mission to undo the snap? Like it didn’t occur to anyone to bring the one person who could do the whole thing by themselves? Especially since they could went back in time to right before Thanos snapped his fingers the second time, while he was already weakened from the first snap?

I think its because Carol herself said she wasn't available.

The final battle made no sense. On Wakanda in Infinity War, 10 Avengers (including a very late Thor and a shieldless Cap), and the Wakandan army nearly defeated Thanos (who had five stones), 3 of the Black Order sans Maw, and his army. Somehow in Endgame, a very full strength 20 Avengers plus like 4 armies plus Thor there from the start plus Cap with a shield AND Mjolnir plus a late Captain Marvel plus a completed Infinity Gauntlet couldn’t immediately beat Thanos (with zero stones), the Black Order, and one army? It doesn’t make sense. At all.

They were losing to the army when Thor came in and made it even.

In Endgame Thor was occupied with Thanos and couldn't clear the fodder. And they didn't beat Thanos in IW they caught him off guard and Thor hit him when he couldn't do his best. EG made it clear what would happen if Thanos was not holding back and aware of his surroundings. A better critisim would be Captain surviving a single punch from Thanos. The power levels were pretty messed up in parts.

After spending a year mourning the Avengers who were dusted in Infinity War, audiences were rewarded with a grand total of 10 minutes of screen time for the lot of them. For one thing: we’re not actually shown how people return from the dust (which would have bene the emotional payoff from Infinity War’s dusting). They don’t explain what people are like when they come back or what actually happened to them while they were gone. How were the dusted Avengers able to rally armies to fight so quickly? Like none of it makes sense other than it led to an otherwise entertaining fake Hobbit Battle of Five Armies sequence and a catch phrase. Again, a great opportunity missed to further develop the audience’s emotional investment to these characters

The dusted Avengers came together so quickly because of Doctor Strange who knew what needed to be done and how exactly it should've done.

We had 2 options, either we see Captain lose all hope against a massive army and then gain it when his friends return like what we got or we could've gotten what you're implying. I liked what we actually got and this one is purely subjective.

Not everything needs an explanation and this is something not even very important. I don't think seeing people form out of dust needed screen time. Then coming in using portals when they lost all hope was much better. And like I said Doctor Strange knew everything and figured everything out. Such things are left for the audience to figure out. And it makes sense given they all came in using the portals.

Skipping out on Banners arc AND Thor's Arc.

Thor's arc wasn't abandoned. He lost everything and really let himself go. He got better when he met his mother and realized he'd still worthy. Banner's could've been better but he was still decent in the movie. We could've gotten more Hulk tho.

Why not use the stones to revive Tony Stark? It’s a simple question. They could. Captain Marvel (presumably is the only one strong enough to safely wield the gauntlet) could have used the gauntlet, snapped her fingers, and he would be alive.

Why take the risk? How can you ask someone to attempt this? It'd be saying it to their face - "His life is more valuable to us than yours."

How did Cap return the soul stone? There’s a lot of questions here like a.) what it was like seeing Red Skull again? b.) How do you put back the soul stone since the films never actually show where you get the stone? c.) Do you get the life back for the stone or is it a no refunds situation? How did he put the Aether back in Jane foster?

Like I said, some things are left for us to wonder about. That's what makes it cooler. I find this one also subjective.

The Cap old man ending is literally impossible. Based on the very same rules on time travel as defined by Hulk and the Ancient One. When you go through time, whatever you do does not change your present, it simply creates an alternate track where your changes are reflected. So Cap going back to the past to marry Peggy Carter and die an old man would NEVER have happened in the reality that Falcon / Bucky were in. It would have happened in the alternate track Cap created in the past meaning the shield handoff and everything would never have happened.

This is accurate. However the emotional factor makes me forget that lol.

And I agree sometimes the pacing was really off.

Avatar image for sup3rn0va
#31 Posted by Sup3rn0va (28 posts) - - Show Bio

Still better than JL

Online
Avatar image for boc
#32 Posted by BOC (1764 posts) - - Show Bio

@uugieboogie: Corrections noted. However, it doesn't change the fact that no one sacraficed another. Black Widow killed herself. In Infinity War, it was seen as someone had to sacrafice that which they love, like you said. Endgame contradicts this as it seems that someone just needs to die. A 'soul for soul' type of thing if that makes sense.

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
#33 Posted by MarvelandDCfan24 (7667 posts) - - Show Bio

If your going to try to troll at least get the damn name of the movie right.... Egg game? Really? Fail

Avatar image for uugieboogie
#34 Edited by uugieboogie (13397 posts) - - Show Bio

@boc said:

@uugieboogie: Corrections noted. However, it doesn't change the fact that no one sacraficed another. Black Widow killed herself. In Infinity War, it was seen as someone had to sacrafice that which they love, like you said. Endgame contradicts this as it seems that someone just needs to die. A 'soul for soul' type of thing if that makes sense.

Where is it stated in the film one has to sacrifice the other? All is said is “the stone lies down there“, “a soul for a soul“, and ”you must lose that which you love”. How does Endgame contradict anything? Because Thanos stopped Gamora from killing herself and Nat killed her self?

1. She tried to stab herself and the film implied the drop down to the stone is required.

2. When she tried to kill herself she wasn’t doing it in order to get the stone, unlike Nat and Clint. Red skull mentioned the stone has a wisdom about it, that should also be noted.

Avatar image for boc
#35 Edited by BOC (1764 posts) - - Show Bio

@uugieboogie: This is where we disagree. I always thought the quote was "you must sacrafice that which you love." However, now that you mention it, your quote does sound familiar. If that is the case, I concede. I'll look at the scene some time tomorrow and get back to you.

Avatar image for uugieboogie
#36 Posted by uugieboogie (13397 posts) - - Show Bio

@boc said:

@uugieboogie: This is where we disagree. I always thought the quote was "you must sacrafice that which you love." However, now that you mention it, your quote does sound familiar. If that is the case, I concede. I'll look at the scene some time tomorrow and get back to you.

“Stone demands a sacrifice“, “soul for a soul”, “you must lose, that which you love“.

Loading Video...

0:51 he starts explaining

Avatar image for boc
#37 Posted by BOC (1764 posts) - - Show Bio

@uugieboogie: Hmmm. You are correct. My apologies for the misunderstanding. In that case, good point. I agree it wasn't contradicted.

Avatar image for mm7910
#38 Posted by mm7910 (296 posts) - - Show Bio

The hype made it better no doubt. But to say it’s bad I can’t agree with.

Most directors would have a tough time juggling that many characters and story arcs all at once, so hats off to the Russo’s because there are just so many great actors in this movie and all shined.

As for the story itself and the movie, the closings to the key characters make sense and I’m happy with it. So that part of the movie was well done. I think that is also besides objectives because all endings were true to the characters.

I don’t like the time travel explanations and I think they fumbled here. They can try to cover there tracks after by doing interviews and stuff but idk. Also they probably did a lot of the time travel stuff because they have to open things up for all the Disney shows. So some might’ve been out of directors hands.

All in all it’s a good film. They needed more battles in the middle instead of just rummaging around New York. People lost interest here.

Final score is 7/10 unbiased. And since I do love marvel my score for characters endings, not the entire film, 9/10.

Avatar image for darkdementor101
#39 Edited by DarkDementor101 (536 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau:

From an objective standpoint you would be correct in stating that it was not a good movie. However, that does not mean that the movie in itself was not enjoyable! Endgame was more or less a fan service run that I can confidently say delivered for most of what the fans wanted, and when your fan base is as big as the one that the MCU has right now, then things like this tend not to matter!

When I came out of the movie with my family, we were not talking about plot holes, pacing, or any of the other things that you have mentioned here, but we were rather engrossed in the spectacle that the movie was able to deliver! We were talking about: "Hail Hydra", Thanos vs the Trinity, the shot of Captain America facing Thanos's army (need to make this my wall paper), the portal characters' entrance, "Avengers Assemble", the entire final fight (every single detail could be put in this list), Cap wielding Mjolnir, Iron man and Rescue's back-to-back Unibeam combo, "Activate Instant-kill", and my personal favorite: "I am Iron man".

Now while although I agree it is bad as a movie, I disagree with the points that you have listed (excluding the final one). For me, the reason that I was not too impressed by Endgame, as a movie, was simply due to the time travel solution that they came up with, especially when you take into account that many people had already picked up contextual clues from the post-credit scene of 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' where they simply referenced the time vortex at the end. The time travel theme was seen coming from a mile away, and I think they could have at least made it a little less obvious if they had replaced this post-credit scene with something else, or just remove that part of the line altogether.

If you wish for me to get into the details as to why I do not agree with your other points then do feel free to tag me! Although, due to my current time constraints it might take some time before I post again, so a bit of a warning in advance!

Avatar image for galactic_1000
#40 Posted by Galactic_1000 (5851 posts) - - Show Bio

Nani?!

Avatar image for mekboy
#41 Posted by Mekboy (2754 posts) - - Show Bio

I wouldn't say it's shit, but comparing IW to it is like comparing a child who becomes a successful doctor who invents the cure for all cancer to another who ends up as a taxi driver.

Just in case people get confused, Endgame is the taxi driver.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#42 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

I have said the movie can be enjoyable. PPl just refuse to give it the honest critiquing of other movies.
I've said it has good moments. If someone says its a good movie, its a stretch, but i can see that.
But calling it great?!?! no way. Enjoyable, sure thats totally subjective.

@phisigmatau:

From an objective standpoint you would be correct in stating that it was not a good movie. However, that does not mean that the movie in itself was not enjoyable! Endgame was more or less a fan service run that I can confidently say delivered for most of what the fans wanted, and when your fan base is as big as the one that the MCU has right now, then things like this tend not to matter!

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#43 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

Still better than JL

Most movies are

Avatar image for mangonation
#44 Posted by MangoNation (89 posts) - - Show Bio

@jashro44 said:

What in your opinion makes it "objectively bad"?

Other people have explained it better than me plus I'm lazy:

Bad pacing:

The flow of the movie was all over the place. Not even the time traveling aspect but just how people were appearing, changing, and disappearing without any context in the film. There was a lot of this. It is a stupid excuse to argue a lot of this happened for the sake of brevity.

While I believe the pacing of the first act was off it didn't really detract much from the movie for me. But I also find that quantifying what is bad pacing is a bit hard to do and is more so a subjective viewpoint.

PLOT HOLES - er Crater holes

Why was Carol Danvers not involved in the Avengers’ super important, “we only get one shot at this, we can’t fail” mission to undo the snap? Like it didn’t occur to anyone to bring the one person who could do the whole thing by themselves? Especially since they could went back in time to right before Thanos snapped his fingers the second time, while he was already weakened from the first snap?

It was explained early in the movie when Black Widow talks to her that Captain Marvel was going to be unavailable/unable to be contacted for an unforseeable amount of time. Also, they were under the impression that they only had a single opportunity for the mission they were on, it's completely logical for them to not have based the hopes of half the universe on surprise attacking a full IG Thanos. Especially when they already knew that they beat a gemless version the first time because the gauntlet nearly killed him.

The final battle made no sense. On Wakanda in Infinity War, 10 Avengers (including a very late Thor and a shieldless Cap), and the Wakandan army nearly defeated Thanos (who had five stones), 3 of the Black Order sans Maw, and his army. Somehow in Endgame, a very full strength 20 Avengers plus like 4 armies plus Thor there from the start plus Cap with a shield AND Mjolnir plus a late Captain Marvel plus a completed Infinity Gauntlet couldn’t immediately beat Thanos (with zero stones), the Black Order, and one army? It doesn’t make sense. At all.

In Wakanda they were only dealing with the outriders and about half of the Black Order, in Endgame his army was much more massive, with more creatures than just outriders and aerial support from his massive battleship. Also 5 gem Thanos completely fodderized the Avengers and only got hurt by Thor via a surprise attack. So yes it does make sense that a non holding back base Thanos with his entire army could challenge the Avengers. Also there is nothing objective about this at all, it's your subjective opinion that the Avengers should've done better.

After spending a year mourning the Avengers who were dusted in Infinity War, audiences were rewarded with a grand total of 10 minutes of screen time for the lot of them. For one thing: we’re not actually shown how people return from the dust (which would have bene the emotional payoff from Infinity War’s dusting). They don’t explain what people are like when they come back or what actually happened to them while they were gone. How were the dusted Avengers able to rally armies to fight so quickly? Like none of it makes sense other than it led to an otherwise entertaining fake Hobbit Battle of Five Armies sequence and a catch phrase. Again, a great opportunity missed to further develop the audience’s emotional investment to these characters

The movie wasn't about the ones who died it was about the original 6, them getting little screentime did a service to the movie in my opinion. Why would we have needed to see people reforming from dust? It may be something you had wanted to see but again isn't an objective criticism at all. Everyone returning when all seemed lost was plenty of an emotional payoff for me and a multitude of other people. What's there to explain in regards to what people are like when they're back? Literally the same as right before they died and what's to be explained about what happened to them? They died kinda end of story. I agree with how quickly the armies rallied but almost everything else on this paragraph are subjective criticisms for what you personally wanted to aee.

Skipping out on Banners arc AND Thor's Arc.

Once again, this is something you simply dislike personally, not something that's objectively bad. Would I have wanted to see a montage of Thor spiraling into depression? No. I also was personally disappointed in the Professor Hulk stuff but at the same time it's only really bad if it's the end to Hulk's story. As we don't know what future movies may have in store, it could just be another aspect to the character similar to Thor which is why it may have felt dissatisfing. But sticking to the main point there's nothing objective about this.

Why not use the stones to revive Tony Stark? It’s a simple question. They could. Captain Marvel (presumably is the only one strong enough to safely wield the gauntlet) could have used the gauntlet, snapped her fingers, and he would be alive.

We don't know how she would've faired in trying to snap, but besides that it seemed very clearly expressed to me that they weren't trying to tamper with fate very much. By your logic, why couldn't Captain Marvel have snapped back any good character that's died in any of the movies since the beginning of MCU? The goal from the start was undoing Thanos' damage, anything more or less would literally make them as bad as him.

How did Cap return the soul stone? There’s a lot of questions here like a.) what it was like seeing Red Skull again? b.) How do you put back the soul stone since the films never actually show where you get the stone? c.) Do you get the life back for the stone or is it a no refunds situation? How did he put the Aether back in Jane foster?

The Cap old man ending is literally impossible. Based on the very same rules on time travel as defined by Hulk and the Ancient One. When you go through time, whatever you do does not change your present, it simply creates an alternate track where your changes are reflected. So Cap going back to the past to marry Peggy Carter and die an old man would NEVER have happened in the reality that Falcon / Bucky were in. It would have happened in the alternate track Cap created in the past meaning the shield handoff and everything would never have happened.

Yeah I give this a pass, these are legitimate plotholes it things that weren't explained very well and about me as well.

The acting and cinematography was on point tho. Some good emotional scenes. But it was like having a really good player on your basketball team that can pass, rebound, defend but can't shoot for anything in one game. really frustrating.

oh and ps if the writer has to explain something then that just shows that the movie failed, since thats what the movie is for, STORY TELLING.

Overall I'd say it's ok to admit a movie isn't perfect because Endgame definitely isn't but falling on the extreme opposite side of the spectrum is equally bad . Just because there are parts of the movie that your didn't specifically like doesn't mean your opinion is objective fact or how anyone else should feel.

Avatar image for indomitableregal
#45 Posted by IndomitableRegal (16530 posts) - - Show Bio

Nah. Great movie. Are there some plot holes? Sure, but I think the enjoyment factor is enough to overlook them for the most part.

Avatar image for phisigmatau
#46 Posted by phisigmatau (2067 posts) - - Show Bio

@mangonation:
honest response, dont agree with much of it but its legitimate.
i also said im skipping thor and hulks arcs so idk y u responded to that

Avatar image for mangonation
#47 Posted by MangoNation (89 posts) - - Show Bio

@phisigmatau: oh sorry didn't read clearly the Thor/Hulk stuff

Avatar image for edamame
#48 Posted by Edamame (28606 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for batman242
#49 Posted by Batman242 (12345 posts) - - Show Bio

Very entertaining film, but I have to ignore the whole '1 chance' plot point. No matter at what point you want to argue the 1 chance was, based on the capabilities of every hero, we can think of many scenarios in which they could've killed Thanos and win.

Lots of people tend to follow a hype train and ignore any shortcomings. Even with this said, Endgame isn't a bad film. It just has a few silly plot points in there. Thanos' plan doesn't make sense either.

Online
Avatar image for gokluma
#50 Posted by Gokluma (8991 posts) - - Show Bio

Now i'm hungry for eggs.