I just really hope Warlock shows up before the infinity storyline has concluded.
James Gunn already confirmed last summer that AW wouldn't be a part of Infinity War (part 1 or 2). Earliest he might show up is GOTG v3.
I just really hope Warlock shows up before the infinity storyline has concluded.
I can only hope its a misdirect.James Gunn already confirmed last summer that AW wouldn't be a part of Infinity War (part 1 or 2). Earliest he might show up is GOTG v3.
I have never been a huge Marvel comics fan but I know enough to be dangerous about Thanos and the Infinity stones/gauntlet. However I have questions about Thanos as seen in the movie.
Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?
Either way, if we take the MCU Thanos on his own terms, and he is this sorrowful villain who thinks he is serving the greater good, aren’t there a bunch of other less-horrific ways that he could have achieved his goal?
Like, once he had the fully-loaded IG, couldn’t he have just slashed fertility rates across the universe so that half the universe just died off naturally?
Or, if for some reason he couldn’t take that longer path and had to do it right now, couldn’t he use the Time Stone/Gen to prevent half of the universe’s current population from ever being born the first place?
And if that wouldn’t work, couldn’t he have, in the name of mercy, just “blinked” people out of existence instead of letting them spend the final 10 seconds of their lives in abject terror that they are disintegrating and have no idea why?
And, again, in the name of mercy, couldn’t he have made the survivors “forget” their loved ones who were eradicated, so the survivors didn’t live out the rest of their lives in grief and depression?
Finally, how many more people died due to the consequential effects of these disintegrations? Like, on Earth, how many more were killed or maimed in car accidents, plane crashes, etc.?
Thanos is super-intelligent, right? Even in the movie, that seems apparent. So I am having trouble buying this “tragic villain” thing who “only did what is necessary” when he could have met his goal in several more “humane” ways.
But maybe I am missing something (other than “those other ways you mentioned would not make for a very good movie”). Anyone care to set me straight?
Maybe I'm jumping in too fast to think it out clearly.... but my take away was that those options weren't brought forth cuz he's a psychopath still filled with hate.
Hitler wanted to eliminate entire races and went about it in the worst way... he actually thought he was doing good.
It's like that TLJ thing about shooting a ship though other ships in lightspeed... "Well why don't they do that all the time?!!?"
Well planes flown into a building did a lot of damage.... we don't fly 747's into buildings.
I think it's just psychos gonna psycho.
*Edit...
You know... I write this crap while I'm literally in the middle of editing at work... I don't have time to really think, and when I review after posting I only think "that sounds dumb... I need to think more before I post...."
But if I waited til I had time to actually articulate thoughts, I'd have to neco-post on this thread.
No. I'm glad they changed it. Not that it didn't work in the comics but it doesn't translate as well to the movies.I have never been a huge Marvel comics fan but I know enough to be dangerous about Thanos and the Infinity stones/gauntlet. However I have questions about Thanos as seen in the movie.
Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?
It's implied that, for centuries prior to seeking out the stones he had been conducting this same extinction planet by planet.Either way, if we take the MCU Thanos on his own terms, and he is this sorrowful villain who thinks he is serving the greater good, aren’t there a bunch of other less-horrific ways that he could have achieved his goal?
Maybe you should ask Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler or Kodos, the Executioner of Tarsus IV.Is there a less horrific way to carry out mass extinction for greater good?
I don't think he was able to acquire the prophylactic stone.Like, once he had the fully-loaded IG, couldn’t he have just slashed fertility rates across the universe so that half the universe just died off naturally
Or, if for some reason he couldn’t take that longer path and had to do it right now, couldn’t he use the Time Stone/Gen to prevent half of the universe’s current population from ever being born the first place?
He likely forgot to include those conditions because he was a little preoccupied with a Stormbreaker in his sternum.And if that wouldn’t work, couldn’t he have, in the name of mercy, just “blinked” people out of existence instead of letting them spend the final 10 seconds of their lives in abject terror that they are disintegrating and have no idea why?
And, again, in the name of mercy, couldn’t he have made the survivors “forget” their loved ones who were eradicated, so the survivors didn’t live out the rest of their lives in grief and depression?
they were a bonus.Finally, how many more people died due to the consequential effects of these disintegrations? Like, on Earth, how many more were killed or maimed in car accidents, plane crashes, etc.?
He's also insane.Thanos is super-intelligent, right? Even in the movie, that seems apparent. So I am having trouble buying this “tragic villain” thing who “only did what is necessary” when he could have met his goal in several more “humane” ways.
The movie doesn't argue that Thanos' argument is remotely tenable. It's not trying to pose an ethical paradox. Clearly Thanos is wrong and a psychopath. The film simply portrays him as someone with power and a plausibly twisted motive. As I said, it's like Pol Pot on a grander scale. It's been pointed out that the film contrasts his sacrifice of Gamora with the hesitation of Scarlet Witch to kill Vision or Peter to shoot Gamora when the fate of a universe would be at stake. Assuming there was no expedient alternative to mass extinction Thanos would argue that mercy and sentiment only confound a person's conviction to do what's right.But maybe I am missing something (other than “those other ways you mentioned would not make for a very good movie”). Anyone care to set me straight?
No. I'm glad they changed it. Not that it didn't work in the comics but it doesn't translate as well to the movies.
It's implied that, for centuries prior to seeking out the stones he had been conducting this same extinction planet by planet.
Maybe you should ask Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler or Kodos, the Executioner of Tarsus IV.
I don't think he was able to acquire the prophylactic stone.
He likely forgot to include those conditions because he was a little preoccupied with a Stormbreaker in his sternum.
they were a bonus.
He's also insane.
My dad could have disciplined me with child psychology when I was a kid. It just so happens I got smacked instead. Go figure.
The movie doesn't argue that Thanos' argument is remotely tenable. It's not trying to pose an ethical paradox. Clearly Thanos is wrong and a psychopath. The film simply portrays him as someone with power and a plausibly twisted motive. As I said, it's like Pol Pot on a grander scale.
It's been pointed out that the film contrasts his sacrifice of Gamora with the hesitation of Scarlet Witch to kill Vision or Peter to shoot Gamora when the fate of a universe would be at stake. Assuming there was no expedient alternative to mass extinction Thanos would argue that mercy and sentiment only confound a person's conviction to do what's right.
Eliminating half the existing population of the galaxy is expedient. Simply put, it's the shortest route between two points. I believe that seeing his planet suffer and die drove Thanos over the edge and that he no longer cares what others think. This is the way he's decided it's going to be and we're going to fix this as quickly as possible. If that means a whole lotta people gotta die? Well, that sucks, but they'll get over it, which was his point in bringing up the fact that Gamorra's homeworld, post-Thanos, was a paradise.
I saw it yesterday and almost everything I predicted came true. It was so incredibly predictable. You know no one is really dead because they'll just travel back in time and get the Infinity Stones before Thanos does since they know where they are etc. There was no gravity whatsoever to anyone's death because I know they'll just do the typical sci-fi nonsense and go back in time and fix it. When Black Panther and Bucky 'died' I actually laughed because I know they're getting their own trilogies.
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.Not sure why you altered my quote. I never said "less horrifying ways to commit mass extinction". "Extinction" isn't even his goal.
Apparently not. I'm sure there are parameters that conveniently haven't been described.Funny. But still, he can do literally anything with the IG, right?
It seems Stormbreaker hit his chest deep to the left pectoralis at an angle where it was able to lacerate the posterior cord of the left brachial plexus thus affecting the root of the radial nerve resulting in a palsy that confounded his ability to make the appropriate supination/pronation gesture to apply the Time gem. Since his median nerve was intact he could still snap his fingers.Clearly, Stormbreaker in the chest did not pose any real impediment to a plan that he had been working on for, as you noted, centuries. He could have just used the Time Gem again.
Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?That undercuts his whole motivation, or at least what he says his motivation is. He's not looking to take life for "fun". The movie takes pains to demonstrate that he doesn't want to do any of this, but feels he has to do it
I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.Well, that's just it. Is he? Seems like the movie tries to play it both ways.
Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good whether it be altruism or social nationalism. The point is they weren't simply trying to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.I didn't really see it as a ethical paradox, per se. It wasn't like "Gee, he has a good point about killing half the universe". It's more about his motivation - is he crazy? Is he a little more power-hungry than he cares to admit, even to himself? Is he not quite as altruistic as he seems? And unlike Pol Pot or Hitler, there are no nationalistic/ethnic/religious biases or ulterior motives. He wants it random across the entire universe.
Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.It just seems like the film wants to paint him as this tragic Shakespearean villain, worthy of perhaps a little sympathy. Haunted by tragedy that makes him single-minded (indeed, perhaps to the point of insanity) in attempting to avoid another such tragedy, failing to see that he's become the very catastrophe he claims he's trying to prevent. I'm not sure he earns that sympathy.
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.
Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?
I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.
Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good. I'm not sure they did so because they wanted to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.
Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.
That's odd. I didn't intend to alter your quote. Maybe I mixed up your quote with mine. If I did, I'm sorry. But if you're not calling it "mass extinction" then I am.
Why is it so hard to conceive that, in his state of mind, the added casualties are acceptable collateral damage?
I should more appropriately say he's a psychopath. Ever deal with psychopaths? I happen to have done so in my line of work. They're not completely random. Often they're motivated by an underlying twisted rationale.
Don't forget Kodos the Executioner from Tarsus IV. In all cases there was a rationale for mass killings in the interest of a greater good. I'm not sure they did so because they wanted to perpetuate evil. Everyone is the good person in their own mind.
Tragic, though it may be, the film doesn't mandate that you feel sympathy for his character.
Is there any comic book precedent for Thanos seeing himself as this altruist who’s willing to make the big, tough decisions to save half of the universe from itself? I always thought that in the comics, he was destroying half the life in the universe simply to appease the physical embodiment of Death. Has that changed?
Your entire argument is founded on the presumption that the gauntlet confers the ability to do absolutely anything at any time instantaneously. That is pure conjecture on your part.It's not hard. I just don't think "collateral damage" applies. That term describes casualties that are unavoidable "side-effects" of your methodology. Is anything "unavoidable" with a fully-loaded IG?
In the absence of codified gauntlet rules it seems to me that expediency is a plausible argument.But your comment about "state of mind" is well-taken. Is he capable of a less-horrifying approach, but just doesn't care? Or, in his mind, is this the only way to do it?
... never mind.I work with other lawyers all day, so maybe?
Your entire argument is founded on the presumption that the gauntlet confers the ability to do absolutely anything at any time instantaneously. That is pure conjecture on your part.
If that were the case why does he even need to snap his fingers? Already they mentioned he needs to make a fist to marshal it’s full power so there are parameters.
Bemoaning the added casualties from falling helicopters would seem as trivial as suing someone who sparined your ankle in the act of rescuing you from a burning vehicle. What kind of person practices that kind of logic?
All kidding aside, the only truth is obvious. Any movie, to a greater or lesser degree, is capable of being picked apart for logical inconsistencies. Your capacity to suspend disbelief is going to be proportional to your enjoyment of a film’s narrative and characters. This is why I wouldn’t complain of the fabric patterns in the costuming of The Seven Samurai not being true to the period, but I won’t hesitate to pick apart BvS or JL all day for wasting my time, money and hopes.
I enjoyed IW greatly. Evidently you didn’t enjoy it as much.