We need to talk about narrative inconsistencies in the MCU. SPOILERS EVERYWHERE.

[Visanideth]

Against Thanos a united front was better than the fractured shit they did in IW. "Cap magically appears" Huh? He was already on the battlefield in Wakanda and as we saw, dude can move. It feels like you guys are purposefully ignoring things or don't pay attention

Well first off, I don't agree with what you're saying about the movies undermining each other. The story of Homecoming was him learning to be comfortable in his own skin, to not rush to grow up. He did that, nothing in IW takes away from that lesson he learned in Homecoming.

It sounds like you want him to not fight against Thanos because he said he didn't want to be an Avenger. He was gonna fight against Thanos anyway, regardless. That's what a hero does. In the context of the movie it all made sense to me

Click to shrink...

No, I wanted Homecoming not to make a big about him being his own person, taking time to grow and not depending on Stark if the immediate sequel was all about his interdependance with Stark and him becoming an Avenger fighting a cosmic titan.

 

[Tace]

Heads up, he's talking about appearing in Edinburgh I believe.

Click to shrink...

Even then, we know after they get saved Wanda was with Cap's group and they came looking for her because she didn't check in.

It's literally said in the movie.

 

[Officer Big Mac]

We need to talk about needing to talk

 

[Kalentan]

okay so in thor 1: the thor 2 prequel we see the infinity gauntlet in asgard because they had just started making these movies and having a story line in which a bad darkseid ripoff who's horny for a skeleton collects the chaos emeralds seemed stupid as hell

then in Avengers 2: This Movie is Still Going? at the end thanos goes "fine i'll do it myself" and opens up a thing and pulls out his real gauntlet

then in thor 3/hulk 2: thor harder, goth gf galadriel sees the original gauntlet and goes "fake" to make fun of the plot hole

but then in infinity war thor goes to peter dinklage and they're like "ahh he killed all the space dwarves and made us make him the gauntlet, why didn't you protect us" and thor is like all "oh asgard got blown up by a balrog last week" but thanos clearly had the power glove years ago in the avengers 2 credits thing so asgard really was full of shit and not paying attention to the dwarves. but if peter dinklage only made the gauntlet for him a little while ago, how would Hella Cool know that the gauntlet in the vault was a fake. like maybe she'd know the stones were fake but what is fake about the gauntlet

Click to shrink...

The Post-credit scene in Avengers 2 with Thanos isn't canon. He never took out the gauntlet like that and said he'll do it himself.

Edit: Actually that answer is a bit more complicated.

 

[Deleted member 4034]

Let's be fair about the iron spider suit: did you want peter to die in space?

Click to shrink...

Do not pretend what was a essentially a fan service toy was a plot necessity that the movie couldn't happen without.

 

[Finaika]

You're definitely taking kids movies way too seriously

Click to shrink...

Some adults enjoy the MCU too.

 

[Deleted member 2145]

 

[Visanideth]

We need to talk about needing to talk

Click to shrink...

It's insufferable, isn't it?

 

[Geist 6one7]

Peggy's brother's son's daughter isn't Steve's niece. He also went on the run after Civil War so regularly meeting up with an active SHIELD agent probably isn't the wisest move.

The stones being held:

Soul Stone: Thanos and Hawkeye both sacrifices something for it so they are the Stone bearers for it and makes sense they can hold it.

Power Stone: clearly causes damage to anyone who touches it raw, Thanos included.

Reality Stone: Malekith seemed to be able to handle it due to his Dark Elf physiology but it clearly corrupts him. Jane is shown to be getting killed by it after she absorbs it.

Time Stone: The only parties seen handling it are TOA, Strange, Hulk, and Thanos all beings of immense power who should be able to handle it. Also Strange and TOA actually have it hover between their fingers.

Space Stone: Only shown to be handled directly by Thanos. Any other contact with it is still while it's in the Tesseract, potentially shielding others from it's full power.

Mind Stone: Only handled by Thanos and a robot (Ultron) it is unknown what would happen if touched by a human. Vision seems to be a special case as he is built around it and cannot exist without it.

It's still unclear what some of them would do if touched by human hands.

A lot of the other ones have been answered better by prior posters.

 

[xxracerxx]

One thing stuff like this has made me realize is that people don't realize that the MCU movies play mostly in real time.

Not always but generally.

Like Rhodey showing annoyance at the Accords in IW is 2 years after the fact. It wasn't a few months or days, but 2 years to actually live with it. Feelings change.

Spider-man didn't reject joining the Avengers and then a week later go to Space, it was almost a year after.

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

 

[Robobadlad]

The Spiderman one you mentioned irritated me a bit, but I'm surprised you didn't mention Thor. We spend all of Ragnarok agreeing that he's not the God of Hammers, he's the God of Thunder... Only for him to spend the entire film on a quest for a magical axe. You're not the God of Axes mate.

I get why they did it, but why hammer the point home so hard in Ragnarok if it's going to get undone in the next film?

 

[Officer Big Mac]

It's insufferable, isn't it?

Click to shrink...

I'd rather not talk about it

 

[Bor Gullet]

The Post-credit scene in Avengers 2 with Thanos isn't canon. He never took out the gauntlet like that and said he'll do it himself.

Click to shrink...

Lmao dude it's in the movie.

You can say it's just a retcon, though I don't see the issue with scene?

 

[PSqueak]

Do not pretend what was a essentially a fan service toy was a plot necessity that the movie couldn't happen without.

Click to shrink...

Of course, but what i mean is it doesn't invalidate Peter's character on Homecoming, because he still rejected the suit, but he was going to space, he was gonna need A SUIT for that so they just made it the iron spider one.

 

[APZonerunner]

Ehm. Iron Man 3. The Shane Black movie. Shane Black, RDJ's friend. You do know that that movie ends the way it does because it was a time where both RDJ and the MCU leadership were considering ending their partnership?

Now, the movie doesn't scream "I'll never be Iron Man again" because everything was up in the air, but notice how if Tony exited the MCU there, the last thing he'd say would have been "I am Iron Man". And his last words in Endgame? Coincidence? I think not.

Click to shrink...

What sort of deconfirms this is that in an interview this week the Russos have said that originally Tony had no final line - he just smiled and it did it - and that the "I am Iron Man" line was the last thing they shot, as a reshoot - and they even struggled to persuade RDJ to come back because "he thought he was done with the character".

I forget what interview this was in, but it's in one of the absolute slew of spoiler filled interviews that were uploaded yesterday and today.

 

[Tace]

No, I wanted Homecoming not to make a big about him being his own person, taking time to grow and not depending on Stark if the immediate sequel was all about his interdependance with Stark and him becoming an Avenger fighting a cosmic titan.

Click to shrink...

I guess you don't read a lot of Spider-Man comics. He's been in space plenty of times. He's been an Avenger for years. But because he's with Tony it's a problem? Even though you see Tony is the one who makes Pete an Avenger, it's not even something he asks for.

Not to be rude, but your nitpicks are stupid

 

[Kalentan]

Exactly.

Click to shrink...

And it's frustrating because I feel like people like the OP assume every movie happens within a week of each other when months and years pass.

Lmao dude it's in the movie.

You can say it's just a retcon.

Click to shrink...

I mean yeah it's a retcon. It's retconned out so it's not canon.

IW doesn't acknowledge it. Nor does any other movie.

Although the Russo brothers did say this:

"I think that it would be connected to Eitri. I think that clearly he is the one who forged the gauntlet and Thanos had the gauntlet at that point in time. It's been a while since any of the Asgardians have interacted with Eitri and his people."

Click to shrink...

 

[Visanideth]

The Spiderman one you mentioned irritated me a bit, but I'm surprised you didn't mention Thor. We spend all of Ragnarok agreeing that he's not the God of Hammers, he's the God of Thunder... Only for him to spend the entire film on a quest for a magical axe. You're not the God of Axes mate.

I get why they did it, but why hammer the point home so hard in Ragnarok if it's going to get undone in the next film?

Click to shrink...

As I said, everywhere.

 

[badcrumble]

The worst one of these is bringing HYDRA back in Winter Soldier and then immediately destroying the last vestiges of HYDRA in the opening scene of the next film (Age of Ultron).

The MCU could do with a bigger number of persistent villains/evil organizations, IMO.

 

[itwasTuesday]

Where's Betty at. Where's Betty at, HULK.

 

[Bor Gullet]

And it's frustrating because I feel like people like the OP assume every movie happens within a week of each other when months and years pass.



I mean yeah it's a retcon. It's retconned out so it's not canon.

IW doesn't acknowledge it. Nor does any other movie.

Click to shrink...

"I think that it would be connected to Eitri. I think that clearly he is the one who forged the gauntlet and Thanos had the gauntlet at that point in time. It's been a while since any of the Asgardians have interacted with Eitri and his people."
https://www.slashfilm.com/age-of-ultron-credits-scene/

Something not being mentioned isn't a canon issue or a retcon.

 

[Visanideth]

What sort of deconfirms this is that in an interview this week the Russos have said that originally Tony had no final line - he just smiled and it did it - and that the "I am Iron Man" line was the last thing they shot, as a reshoot - and they even struggled to persuade RDJ to come back because "he thought he was done with the character".

I forget what interview this was in, but it's in one of the absolute slew of spoiler filled interviews that were uploaded yesterday and today.

Click to shrink...

I don't think he really deconfirms it. What I heard is that he asked Black to have that as his final scene, because that's how he wanted to leave the character behind.

If he was being particular about doing reshoots after he ad libbed the line, well, that sounds like confirmation more than anything?

 

[kortvarsel]

I think you don't really get it. The problem isn't Infinity War, it's Homecoming ending the way it does when they fully knew IW was next.

The fact that the movie directly acknowledges how the ending to the previous movie meant nothing in the big scheme is damning, not absolving.

Click to shrink...

Things can change in stories. Just like in real life. That doesn't make it an inconsistency, or not thought out. The ending was an important step for Peter, and IW does not negate that at all.

 

[Kalentan]

"I think that it would be connected to Eitri. I think that clearly he is the one who forged the gauntlet and Thanos had the gauntlet at that point in time. It's been a while since any of the Asgardians have interacted with Eitri and his people."
https://www.slashfilm.com/age-of-ultron-credits-scene/

Click to shrink...

It's a bit confusing since this is what the writers of IW said:

At the end of Ultron, he said "Fine, I'll do it myself."

​

Stephen McFeely: Not our movie.

[laughter]

Christopher Markus: And we've all sat there and went, "What the hell is he talking about? Where was he when he did that?"

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 179]

Even then, we know after they get saved Wanda was with Cap's group and they came looking for her because she didn't check in.

It's literally said in the movie.

Click to shrink...

Right I know, I agree with you. Just avoiding conflict over pointing out the wrong scene.

 

[Visanideth]

And it's frustrating because I feel like people like the OP assume every movie happens within a week of each other when months and years pass.

Click to shrink...

This has absolutely nothing to do with that. You're making a point about the internal consistency of the plot - for the characters, years have passed, things changed.

I'm making a point about the meaning and messages, which are about the viewers. For them, Homecoming just happened. Else we wouldn't notice the juxtaposition.

 

[ZeroCDR]

It's true, the MCU is pretty good at continuity on a plot level (there are issues, but not nearly as many as you'd expect over 22 films), but not nearly as good at continuity of characterization or themes. Personally, my biggest gripe is how the Russos and Markus/McFeely handled Thor post-Ragnarok (he gets his eye back! He needs a weapon again for no reason! he turns his back on being king, which the ending of Ragnarok successfully sells as the culmination of his entire character up to that point!).

Click to shrink...

Huh? He needs Stormbreaker to be able to inflict actual damage on Thanos and it does just that. His progression in Ragnarok is unchanged, he learns to fight without needing a hammer to focus his power, but ends up losing half his people and gets blown into space. Weapons still matter.

In fact, his revelatory growth wasn't enough to stop Hela either. He weaponized Surtr to defeat her.

 

[Tace]

Right I know, I agree with you. Just avoiding conflict over pointing out the wrong scene.

Click to shrink...

You're all good. Thanks

 

[Visanideth]

Huh? He needs Stormbreaker to be able to inflict actual damage on Thanos and it does just that. His progression in Ragnarok is unchanged, he learns to fight without needing a hammer to focus his power, but ends up losing half his people and gets blown into space. Weapons still matter.

In fact, he wasn't enough to stop Hela either. He weaponized Surtr to defeat her.

Click to shrink...

I wonder why people can't really grasp the difference between something making sense within the narrative, and discussing the necessity of taking the narrative in a certain direction, expecially if doing so contradicts previous messaging.

It's not about plot holes. There's no plot holes. It's about writers and messaging. It's not about what the movies say, it's about what they mean*.





* they don't mean shit, do they?

 

[ClickyCal']

Of course he never does. But Iron Man 2 is about him stopping before Iron Man kills him, Iron Man 3 is about him stopping before his ego and PTSD kill him, Age of Ultron is about stop trying to save the world before he kills everyone, Civil War is about stopping before he kills his friends... It seems like the majority of Iron Man movies are about him not wanting to be Iron Man. In Endgame, what he does is stop fighting and become a family man.

In Age of Ultron he has a very specific line of dialogue when he's justifying what him and Banner did (I think it's when he and Cap were chopping wood, did I mention Ultron was one of the movie that really let the characters interact, for all its flaws?) where he says that the point of the Avengers initiative was going home and stopping having to do what they do. The guy has been wanting out ever since the second movie. He just can't manage to quit. And this conflict is resetted at every movie.

Click to shrink...

It's not reset...you aren't paying attention. That's the whole point of his character. He can't escape being ironman because that's who he is, and if he just retired completely, guilt would eat him. His whole story has has been driven by guilt. He made his bed by announcing he was ironman.

 

[Tace]

I wonder why people can't really grasp the difference between something making sense within the narrative, and discussing the necessity of taking the narrative in a certain direction, expecially if doing so contradicts previous messaging.

It's not about plot holes. There's no plot holes. It's about writers and messaging. It's not about what the movies say, it's about what they mean*.





* they don't mean shit, do they?

Click to shrink...

Probably because not all of us feel it's a contradiction. Imagine that. Different opinions

 

[Zero-ELEC]

The Post-credit scene in Avengers 2 with Thanos isn't canon. He never took out the gauntlet like that and said he'll do it himself.

Click to shrink...

I'm like 90% sure it's still canon and explained in the Thanos novel.

 

[Kernel]

I wonder why people can't really grasp the difference between something making sense within the narrative, and discussing the necessity of taking the narrative in a certain direction, expecially if doing so contradicts previous messaging.

It's not about plot holes. There's no plot holes. It's about writers and messaging. It's not about what the movies say, it's about what they mean

Click to shrink...

It's two different things.

Him not needing his hammer to control his powers isn't the same thing as he's going to need a really strong weapon against Thanos.

 

[xxracerxx]

Probably because not all of us feel it's a contradiction. Imagine that. Different opinions

Click to shrink...

Yup. IW does not contradict any of the meaning behind Homecoming or Ragnarok.

 

[Alavard]

The Post-credit scene in Avengers 2 with Thanos isn't canon. He never took out the gauntlet like that and said he'll do it himself.

Click to shrink...

They should have just said in retrospect it was a prototype that he built that wasn't good enough.

 

[ClickyCal']

What sort of deconfirms this is that in an interview this week the Russos have said that originally Tony had no final line - he just smiled and it did it - and that the "I am Iron Man" line was the last thing they shot, as a reshoot - and they even struggled to persuade RDJ to come back because "he thought he was done with the character".

I forget what interview this was in, but it's in one of the absolute slew of spoiler filled interviews that were uploaded yesterday and today.

Click to shrink...

Wrong. He said he didn't know about it at first because the line bringing things full circle was super emotional for him. He wasn't actually against coming in to do the line.

 

[TheMango55]

Yup. Exactly my biggest issue with the MCU. It's louded as this big storytelling experiment, but when you poke at it, it all falls apart pretty quickly because there is so little consistency on a character level. Infinity War already lost me when Spidey, who in Homecoming completed the arc realising he's okay with being just friendly neighbourhood spider-man, who doesn't need to be an Avenger, starts immediatly eyeing that Avengers-role again, and getting it the minute after.

Click to shrink...

Real life falls apart when you expect perfect consistency of a persons character between one point in time and another.

It's not out of character or bad writing for a person to succumb to a character flaw just because he has beaten that flaw once (Iron Man) or to change their mind on a big decision due to changing circumstances (Spider-Man).

 

[Edge]

The new Star Wars trilogy is still much more consistent in terms of themes and character development than the MCU.

Click to shrink...

You mean the one movie that builds up a lot of stuff and characters and stories and then the next movie that literally shits on everything, retconned the hell out of it and did his own thing?

With the third movie on the horizon where it already looks like that the returning director from the first movie will then retcon the shit out of the second movie?

Yeah, sure, good comparison, lmao.

 

[Kinthey]

The Post-credit scene in Avengers 2 with Thanos isn't canon. He never took out the gauntlet like that and said he'll do it himself.

Click to shrink...

That scene never made that much sense to begin with, did it? Like what exactly was he responding to? I guess perhaps the events in Guardians of the Galaxy, but then it's odd to put that on Avengers 2.

 

[ClickyCal']

Yup. Exactly my biggest issue with the MCU. It's louded as this big storytelling experiment, but when you poke at it, it all falls apart pretty quickly because there is so little consistency on a character level. Infinity War already lost me when Spidey, who in Homecoming completed the arc realising he's okay with being just friendly neighbourhood spider-man, who doesn't need to be an Avenger, starts immediatly eyeing that Avengers-role again, and getting it the minute after.

Don't get me wrong, I like the MCU for what it is, but I generally like the stand-alone(ish) stories way better because this issue isn't present. The potential of a big cross-over universe with a narrative line trough it all often doesn't amount to more than cameo's and cross-overs, while on a story level it's not developped all that well. The whole Civil War should have been a huge shake up for the MCU, resonating strongly in the next team-up film and generating drama, but Infinity War only handles it on a surface level, failing to force Cap and Iron Man to resolve their issue, and in Endgame they resolve it in a single scene, not really making it an issue at all really. We don't ever really explore what the shism means for Cap or Tony. We should've gotten a Cap-movie after Civil War exploring the fall-out, but we swiftly went to the Infinity War.
And the main line troughout all the movies are the Infinity Stones, which are mere McGuffins in stead of a real story thread.

And yes, it's baffling the MCU is praised for its storytelling, while the new Star Wars trilogy gets shit on for suposed inconsistancies, while TLJ is an absolutely logical follow-up on the storylines and character arcs set-up in TFA, without obvious inconsistancies at all (even Rey's lineage is adressed in TFA as unimportant, in the text, not even in subtext). You can point to Snoke or the Knights of Ren as stuff that got sidelined or seemingly not payed of (though I'll argue killing of Snoke was what the story and Kylo needed), but we still don't know what TROS will do (The Knights seem to make a return at least).
And the argument Star Wars is only two or three movies doesn't stand either, because the inconsistancies in the MCU are often also just between two or three movies.

Click to shrink...

But you're not even right about what you are saying. IW isn't immediately after homecoming, and it wad a conflicting choice he made there. Then in IW he obviously is going to go help when aliens are attacking nyc. Then they go to space, and tony says he is an avenger. There is nothing contradicting.

Oh yea...and I'd say there was a big thing that came out of civil war. They lost the war because of being split up. And that ends up leading to tony dying....and tons of other consequences.

 

[SunKing]

MCU Spider-Man's whole arc in Homecoming is undone at the very end when he accepts the Stark made suit imo. It's one of the biggest issues I have with this version of the character.

 

[xxracerxx]

MCU Spider-Man'a whole arc in homecoming is as undone at the very end when he accepted the Stark made suit imo. It's one of the biggest issues I have with this version of the character.

Click to shrink...

How did he accept it? By almost passing out and falling off the ship?

 

[Cabbagehead]

Nitpicky

 

[TheFuzz]

You're definitely taking kids movies way too seriously

Click to shrink...

People need to get banned or wanted for replies like this. It's a drive-by in its purest form.

 

[Osahi]

Real life falls apart when you expect perfect consistency of a persons character between one point in time and another.

It's not out of character or bad writing for a person to succumb to a character flaw just because he has beaten that flaw once (Iron Man) or to change their mind on a big decision due to changing circumstances (Spider-Man).

Click to shrink...

Sure is. But fiction is not real life. A good story is usually about change, and when this change seemingly doesn't matter from one story to the next, it frustrates.

Of course characters can be inconsistant or succumb to the same character flaw multiple times in multiple stories. I have heavily defended the charactirsation of Luke Skywalker in TLJ with this same argument. Time has passed. But in that story we're talking about 30 years, and it's motivated by backstory that is heavily featured in the arc of the character.
When there is no dramatical justification, I find that it leads to frustrating storytelling, especially when the timeframe is seemingly very short. We've just witnessed a character learning A, only to realise he hasn't learned from this in the next adventure that is seemingly a few months later at the most. It feels as if the wisdom we learned with him in the story, just gets put aside because the next story needs it. It's not set-up or motivated well, nor do we get a beat in the story that adresses it. And that's mostly because the MCU is so plot-focussed and kind of forces it's characters to serve the plot in stead of the other way around. I'm not saying Spidey shouldn't get his suit and be an Avenger in Infinity War, I'm saying it is brushed of so quickly it feels like it betrays the message Spidey learned in his previous adventure.

But you're not even right about what you are saying. IW isn't immediately after homecoming, and it wad a conflicting choice he made there. Then in IW he obviously is going to go help when aliens are attacking nyc. Then they go to space, and tony says he is an avenger. There is nothing contradicting.

Oh yea...and I'd say there was a big thing that came out of civil war. They lost the war because of being split up. And that ends up leading to tony dying....and tons of other consequences.

Click to shrink...

It's been a while since I've seen IW, but I remember it sticking out as a sore thumb as I had Homecoming fresh in mind. I go deeper into it in my reply above. It doesn't aknowledge what Peter has learned, and what his decision was. It's quickly brushed of. You're an Avenger now, and of we go. It's the plot dictating the character.

And of course there are plot-things coming from Civil War. What I'm saying is it completele squanders the dramatic potential of Civil War, because the personal conflict between Cap and Iron Man in the aftermath of it is never adressed on that personal level. Wouldn't it have been way more interesting if IW forced them to work together and made them fail, because they couldn't set aside their differences, in stead of just keeping them apart because they aren't on speaking terms? You know, having personal and internal conflict in stead of only external, plot-heavy conflict? IW keeps them apart, which from a dramatical viewpoint is the most boring thing you can do, and it doesn't matter if the consequences of them being apart are grave.

And then in Endgame, again they are not exploring the conflict between them. It's never a real obstacle. Things are resolved quickly, because the plot needs it. It's placing the conflict external again, in stead of putting it personal and internal.

 

[SunKing]

How did he accept it? By almost passing out and falling off the ship?

Click to shrink...

I'm talking about Homecoming, not Infinity War. At the very end when Tony leaves him the suit and Peter puts it on... He should have tossed it in the bin and made his own suit based off of it.

 

[xxracerxx]

I'm talking about Homecoming, not Infinity War. At the very end when Tony leaves him the suit and Peter puts it on... He should have tossed it in the bin and made his own suit based off of it.

Click to shrink...

And that is what it looks like Far From Home is going to do. Just tossing a basic resource like the Stark suit in the trash wouldn't really make sense when he doesn't have the resources to just make something on the same level.

 

[mutantmagnet]

It's not about the story making sense. The story makes sense. It's about the story meaning something. The MCU constantly undermines its own messages.

Click to shrink...

All those things you mentioned except Natasha and Banner are consistent in messaging. Your problem is that they used multiple time skips to get to the logical conclusions of various character arcs.

 

[F2BBm3ga]

First off, I blood hate threads called "We need to talk" but I hate this thread already and I think you will too, so it's ok.

Second, this is not about plotholes or those minor hiccups in the story that you call plotholes. If you think any of this is about plotholes, turn back. If you want to make this about plotholes, I'll fight you. With rusty spoons.

NO.

PLOTHOLES.


So what is this thread about?

It's about that bizzarre habit Feige and co. have of making one movie about this thing, this message, this character development, and then immediately ignoring or undoing it in the next movie.
It's everywhere in the MCU.

It goes from simple stuff - Hulk in Infinity War vs Hulk in Endgame. Hulk's character arc in Infinity War is about Hulk not wanting to be Banner's emergency button. This leads to two different narrative threads: one is the expectation of finally seeing Hulk come back, and get some sort of closure in his fight with Thanos. The other is seeing Banner accepting the challenge and proving he can be on the team and fight alongside everyone else even without the Hulk.

Fast forward to EG: we see Banner following the gang still using the Hulkbuster on their first fight with Thanos, so it's clear that his conflict with Hulk is unresolved! Hooray, we'll see that storyline go somewhere, right? Nope, Banner merges with Hulk offscreen during the timelap and becomes this very neutered professor Hulk thing that never fights, never gets angry, and never confronts Thanos.
But wait, maybe it's a coronation of the other character arc, him not needing Hulk? Nope, he needs Hulk all day, every day. He's 100% Hulk now. Go figure.



Then there's the really bad stuff. Spiderman Homecoming ends with Peter turning down the Iron Spider suit to prove he doesn't need Stark, he doesn't need to be an Avenger, he's his own person.
Months and months of people complaining about Iron Man being in the movie, about Spiderman not being allowed to design his own suits, of Tony Stark taking a too big spotlight into Peter Parker's story. Awesome.

Literally the next thing we see Spiderman do is interact with Tony Stark and wearing the Iron Spider suit. Look guys, I know you want him in the Avengers, and you need him there, but then DON'T MAKE AN ENTIRE MOVIE ABOUT HIM REALIZING HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN AVENGER.

Shall we touch on Tony Stark basically retiring at the end of every movie he's in? Iron Man 3 ends with him blowing all his suits. The very next movie, he has 3 new ones. And again, the blame isn't on Age of Ultron. They knew he'd be in it. They knew the point of Iron Man is making new, amazing suits. So why make an entire movie about him not needing to be a hero and not needing to use suits? Why make him remove the arc reactor?

Natasha... poor Natasha. Where do we start? Oh, let's start from Banner. They're a thing, yes. She's going to appear in 3 movies after Ultron, he appears in 3 (or 4? I'd need to recount). You see both of them in 2 of them. They NEVER interact again. No closure, no acknowledgement. Nothing. It's the umpteen "let's have this thing in this movie that is a big shock, and then let's forget about it because we don't want to actually have a narrative here".

Steve makes out with his niece, and then she disappears from the story. What was that all about? Why?

Click to shrink...

This seems like fun, lets see if I can take a shot at this since I watched all 22 movies over the course of 2 months

Hulk - Hulk and Banners issue both involved being accepted into society. Being able to function around everyone without having to worry about going nuts. Banner didnt want to cause damage and hurt innocent people and he felt he was a threat to that. Hulk felt like people feared him and hated him. (This is expressed in ragnarok) during infinity war hulk got beat by thanos, and was upset cause he didnt feel he had anything to offer since he wasn't "the strongest" (hulk prided himself in being the strongest) and banner lost to thanos himself. We get to end game and after killing thanos, Bruce literally said it at breakfast that he blamed himself and always felt the gamma was the problem but found a way to combine the gamma and the brains and now the 2 major issues that both Hulk and Banner had is now resolved. Hulk is accepted in society and Banner doesnt feel like a threat to society.

Ironman - tony never retired. He did the "clean slate protocol" to pave a new path. The third movie is a character study on Tony Stark himself. Why make remove the reactor? Why make him have to be a hero without the suit. Because thats what Tony believes. Hes the one guy on the Avengers team out of the big 3 with no physical enhancements. He believes if the suit makes you the hero then you are no hero. This ties right into the lesson he teaches Spiderman. When tony takes away spiderman's suit. But yea, ironman 3 was basically tony coming to terms with himself and his own personal character flaws.

Spiderman - this ones kinda obvious. He decided to stay more low to the ground, be a friendly neighborhood spiderman, but then he saw something that he could not ignore and something that seemed to required help from anyone. He couldnt just be like "pfft, i dont care" then when he saw how he could help, he ran into tony and then tony asked him to help with "the wizard" and then he got caught up and was headed to space and obviously tony realized the best way to save him was use the suit he made previously, so he sends the new suit to spiderman. Spiderman decides to keep helping tony because as he said, whats the point of being a neighborhood spiderman if there is no neighborhood. This one was kinda given.

Natasha - hulk after age of ultron was off planet. When he comes back in infinity war, he and scarlett acknowledge each other... but obviously, they had other shit to worry about than their little "thing" together but it is acknowledged when they see each other again. And its obvious there is still something there between them because when Hulk finds out she is dead, he is devastated the most. But it IS acknowledged in infinity war.

Steve - i mean, the dude turned into a fugitive after civil war (which is when he and peggys niece kiss) so obviously that would sour them being able to have a relationship, then infinity war happens and Cap is obviously focusing on Thanos. Did you really expect Cap to be like "you know what, fuck yall, im finna go holla at Peggy niece, yall deal with Thanos.
After Thanos, she coulda been the one that was snapped, maybe not, but does it matter, Cap obviously wasnt in a place for a relationship... then during end game he was able to be with Peggy, the one he actually loved. So yea, this worked

Does anyone have an explanation why Hawkeye can hold an infinity stone? Is he part god like Quill (and even Quill couldn't do it alone)?

Click to shrink...

So its either 2 things. You see barton with gloves on. Either those were gloves that were made to be able to hold a infinity stone

Or b. The soul stone can be held unlike the power stone

 

[ClickyCal']

It's been a while since I've seen IW, but I remember it sticking out as a sore thumb as I had Homecoming fresh in mind. I go deeper into it in my reply above. It doesn't aknowledge what Peter has learned, and what his decision was. It's quickly brushed of. You're an Avenger now, and of we go. It's the plot dictating the character.

And of course there are plot-things coming from Civil War. What I'm saying is it completele squanders the dramatic potential of Civil War, because the personal conflict between Cap and Iron Man in the aftermath of it is never adressed on that personal level. Wouldn't it have been way more interesting if IW forced them to work together and made them fail, because they couldn't set aside their differences, in stead of just keeping them apart because they aren't on speaking terms? You know, having personal and internal conflict in stead of only external, plot-heavy conflict? IW keeps them apart, which from a dramatical viewpoint is the most boring thing you can do, and it doesn't matter if the consequences of them being apart are grave.

And then in Endgame, again they are not exploring the conflict between them. It's never a real obstacle. Things are resolved quickly, because the plot needs it. It's placing the conflict external again, in stead of putting it personal and internal.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't acknowledge "what he learned" because it's 6 months later, and because IW didn't have time at all to focus on what peter has learned or his conflict.

And things don't actually resolve quick, because tony immediately goes off on steve and calls him a liar, and no trust. They don't actually completely come back together until 5 years later.