Avengers: Infinity War

[Lacuna Caster]

Well, no, obviously what I said isn't exactly what you've been talking about, because you think Thanos' plan is particularly realistic. You're just using one point of agreement to coopt my position, while dismissing much of my actual position as 'way overly nerdy'.

On whether Thanos' plan is 'understandable', you're misunderstanding the people you're arguing with. No one claimed that Thanos' plan of action was particularly obtuse. Overpopulation is problem -> Kill half the universe -> paradise. Everyone gets that. The reason commenters like Leewei are inserting "We don't know" steps is because to them, the plan as stated obviously doesn't work.

Yeah, the plan itself as stated is kind of nebulous and half-assed, and in cinematic terms, it's not like any of the other movies have particularly built up to the idea that overcrowding is a looming social crisis, either on earth or within the galaxy at large.

However, I don't find it especially difficult to fill in the blanks here. "Fertility Rates Thanos" actually works perfectly well if you imagine compulsory sterilisation, for example, particular if he stuck around to actually administer the planets he conquered as an ongoing concern.

[Lacuna Caster]

I must have missed this. If half the Asgardians were dead, though, why didn't the living ones recover Thor?

Okay, this at least makes some sense.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about this. That really puts a downer on the otherwise upbeat ending/message of Ragnarok, doesn't it? Funny rock-person and everyone else he loved is dead!

I also thought that Thor having to embark on an epic-weapon fetch-quest kinda contradicted the idea that Mjiollnir was crutch that he had to grow beyond. He's the God of Thunder, not the God of Axes, right?

[Douglas]

What I'm getting from all this talk about Thanos' love is that Thanos felt about Gamora the way Handsome Jack felt about Angel. In both cases it's a father figure who cares a great deal about his daughter, and wants the best for her, but abuses her horribly because he thinks that's what's best for her.

Thanos and Handsome Jack are both horrifically misguided and terrible parents, but their failure to understand how to properly care for someone does not negate their feelings.

[Psyren]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about this. That really puts a downer on the otherwise upbeat ending/message of Ragnarok, doesn't it? Funny rock-person and everyone else he loved is dead!

It's a common trope really.

[lord_khaine]

I also thought that Thor having to embark on an epic-weapon fetch-quest kinda contradicted the idea that Mjiollnir was crutch that he had to grow beyond. He's the God of Thunder, not the God of Axes, right?

Well.. he had to grow strong when his crutch were shattered. Become able to walk and run on his own. Stormbreaker is then the racing bike he invests in because he needs to do something in the next town (murder).

[-D-]

Well.. he had to grow strong when his crutch were shattered. Become able to walk and run on his own. Stormbreaker is then the racing bike he invests in because he needs to do something in the next town (murder).

So, the power was inside you the whole time. But it's better if you rely on a power of that mystical artifact?

Well to be fair, Civil War basically boils down to - Tony doesn't want to text Captain America...

[Aotrs Commander]

Only a complete idiot tries to do a job without the proper tools. Weapons are just tools, in the end, no matter how shiny they are. And, while a bad workman blames his tools, a good work man has good tools.

And, at the end of the day, you literally can't do some jobs without tools - holding this entire conversation, for starters.

I have always found find the whole thing of "your power/magic/kit/doohickey/weapon is just a crutch don't need because you are the Thing" trope to be faintly ridiculous, myself. It's the same deal as the Batman-is-better-because-no-superpowers thing, really. Bit too much of metphorical pride of "l can do it all by myself" over practicality, I find, speaking as an engineer, a CAD jockey, a gardener and a necromancer.

[Lacuna Caster]

I have always found find the whole thing of "your power/magic/kit/doohickey/weapon is just a crutch don't need because you are the Thing" trope to be faintly ridiculous, myself. It's the same deal as the Batman-is-better-because-no-superpowers thing, really.

Really? I thought a large part of Batman's schtick was precisely to demonstrate how far you can get with intelligent tool use.

I'm not saying I disagree that tools are super useful, but if not-relying-on-a-tool was a large part of Thor's growth in Ragnarok, going straight back to relying on a different tool rather undermines that lesson.

[Aotrs Commander]

Really? I thought a large part of Batman's schtick was precisely to demonstrate how far you can get with intelligent tool use.

It's the same principle, just lends at a different level with different goalposts. Batman is "better" (sic) becasuse he doesn't have the "crutch" of superpowers and does it all mundanely (with tools, as it happens).

I'm not saying I disagree that tools are super useful, but if not-relying-on-a-tool was a large part of Thor's growth in Ragnarok, going straight back to relying on a different tool rather undermines that lesson.

I'm saying that I find the whole "not-relying-on-a-tool" is a silly thing to be trying to make into a lesson in the first place, to me. I mean, it's basically saying "you, soldier, shouldn't rely on your gun to be fighting, It Is All You! You, gardener, you don't need your secateurs or weedkiller or wheelbarrow, It Is All You!" And I imagine most soldiers and gardeners would tell the metaphorical busy-body where to go in not very polite terms. I don't distinguish between levels of tools. A fork, a hosepipe, a CAD package, a rocket launcher, a sword, a spell, a magic hammer, a bat-shaped throwing doofer or a suit of powered armour - it's all the same to me, it's a tool used to do a job. Doing something in a less efficient, harder way to satisfy some personal need for reasons other than solely personal entertainment or histroical interest (none of which should ever be applying to combat) always strikes me as daft.

An example, to switch generas. Durnik, form the Belgariad (and Polgara, for that matter) refusing to use his magic to make stuff and only when he had to, like, make a fence in a hurry, always struck me as a bit silly, mostly because they treated it like it was cheating. Which I found preposterous. Or in Naruto, the staggering way that the Sharigarn having the ability to copy everyone's jutsu often gets accused of being cheating and not probably yhr single most amazing ability ever that should be freaking spammed¹ and yet Naruto's ability to shadow-clone learn is far more often let pass, despite it being game-breaking to the point near absurdity. (Which is acknowleged sometimes, to be fair.)



I also took Thor 3 as more of a version fo the old "make the hero do stuff without powers because badhappen," rather than some lesson about relying on the hammer. I'm not fond of THAT, either, for basically the same reason; plus it also is a well they ALWAYS go to. (See: Ironman 3.)



¹They had to bovine excrement you had to practise it to master it or just ignore the obvious, because otherwise (for good or ill), the first thing any Uchiha chould ever had had happen to them once they leave the acedemy is be paraded into front of everyone and given every frickin' jutsu in the Konoha arsenal; bugger clan pride, if they'd have done it right, and had the Uchiha teac those jutsu back on top, Konoha would have so strong it would be hilarious. But I'm drifting way off topic, though not for the first time this thread.

[lord_khaine]

I'm not saying I disagree that tools are super useful, but if not-relying-on-a-tool was a large part of Thor's growth in Ragnarok, going straight back to relying on a different tool rather undermines that lesson.

I think it was less a question of learning not to rely on it, and more learning that he had put to much of his identity into being the weilder of that hammer. The whole -only i can lift it- stick, and so on.

I guess partly the old bit about, if you really, really love your hammer, then every problem suddenly starts to look like a nail. Without it Thor had to learn to think a bit more, in the end managing to outsmart even Loki. It made him grow into the ruler his people needed.

Unfortunately, Thanos then arrives. And proves to be a nail. The biggest, baddest, nail in the galaxy. So turns out, Thor suddenly needs something to hammer with, like he had never hammered before.

Stormbreaker is that hammer. And its also an axe.

[-D-]

Only a complete idiot tries to do a job without the proper tools....

The point wasn't tool use. It was the mixed message sent. Remember when Person A, did B and learnt lesson C. Well now Person A does B, again!

It happens all the time in writing, and when used haphazardly, it leads to character decay.

[Aotrs Commander]

The point wasn't tool use. It was the mixed message sent. Remember when Person A, did B and learnt lesson C. Well now Person A does B, again!

It happens all the time in writing, and when used haphazardly, it leads to character decay.

I agree there is a certain level of failure in the writing, I just think it is rather because I think lesson C was a silly thing to learn and in reality probably wasn't a useful lesson, really. If that was indeed lesson C that Raknorok was actually trying to be, and not just a "push Thor down so he can rise up higher" thing, which I feel it more was.

[Lacuna Caster]

It's the same principle, just lends at a different level with different goalposts. Batman is "better" (sic) because he doesn't have the "crutch" of superpowers and does it all mundanely (with tools, as it happens).

Oh, if this is about people who'd argue that Batman would inevitably prevail against all other DC characters, well, no, obviously, and I'm not gonna fight that corner. There are certainly versions of, e.g, Superman that are uniformly better than Batman along every discernible axis, including intelligent tool use. (It completely misses the point, which is that Batman is a squint-and-you-can-almost-kinda-see-it-as-plausible development of what an individual real human could accomplish, and Superman isn't. But anyway.)

I'm saying that I find the whole "not-relying-on-a-tool" is a silly thing to be trying to make into a lesson in the first place, to me. I mean, it's basically saying "you, soldier, shouldn't rely on your gun to be fighting, It Is All You!

Don't the professional armed forces of most countries in fact teach unarmed and close-quarter combat techniques? Even if they're rarely used, there is a certain value in learning not to rely too heavily on any particular tool.

I'm afraid I know nothing of either Naruto or the Belgariad.

Unfortunately, Thanos then arrives. And proves to be a nail. The biggest, baddest, nail in the galaxy. So turns out, Thor suddenly needs something to hammer with, like he had never hammered before.

Stormbreaker is that hammer. And its also an axe.

...Maybe? I'm not sure I see a big difference between regular hammering and just being able to spam lightning at will, though.

[Aotrs Commander]

Oh, if this is about people who'd argue that Batman would inevitably prevail against all other DC characters, well, no, obviously, and I'm not gonna fight that corner. There are certainly versions of, e.g, Superman that are uniformly better than Batman along every discernible axis, including intelligent tool use. (It completely misses the point, which is that Batman is a squint-and-you-can-almost-kinda-see-it-as-plausible development of what an individual real human could accomplish, and Superman isn't. But anyway.)

I see it as a similar line of thinking to that, yeah. Not quite the same, but sort of from the same basic stem that... Urrgh. I can't really think of a way to describe it that's not unecessarily (and inaccurately) hyperbolic. Ah, screw it, let's try it anyway so, uh, Like... Every problem, can be solved by Being a Real Man (/Woman/Furry Creature From Alpha Centauri) and that you don't need anything but your metaphorical "I AM A MAN!" punch (*tips helmet to Linkara*) to solve everything? Sort of?

Am I making ANY sense at all here?

Don't the professional armed forces of most countries in fact teach unarmed and close-quarter combat techniques? Even if they're rarely used, there is a certain value in learning not to rely too heavily on any particular tool.

As a back-up, yes.

Now, yes, there is certainly and absolutely something to be said for not trying to use one tool for all jobs¹ and that you should use the right tool for the right job, but that's subtly not the same as saying one [thing] is a crutch that you are better off without. Which is what a lot of the "the power was inside you all along" tropes tend to do.

I'm afraid I know nothing of either Naruto or the Belgariad.

Ah, I'm sure somemoby in the audience will have some idea wjat I'm rabling about, I don't think I've quite managed to train everyone in the entire world not to listen to my endless, long-winded, digression-filled ramblings yet...!



¹Unless, maybe, it's a really GOOD tool.

[Braininthejar2]

People keep discussing whether Thanos' plan makes sense... but I think it doesn't need to, because that's not what he's after.

I think that for all his ranting, he really is insane and doesn't give a flip about the Universe. He just wants to kill half of everyone, because that's what he was denied on the most important day of his life. That's the one world he wishes he could've saved, but can't.

So... he's basically like a serial killer who goes after women resembling his ex.

[Ramza00]

People keep discussing whether Thanos' plan makes sense... but I think it doesn't need to, because that's not what he's after.

I think that for all his ranting, he really is insane and doesn't give a flip about the Universe. He just wants to kill half of everyone, because that's what he was denied on the most important day of his life. That's the one world he wishes he could've saved, but can't.

So... he's basically like a serial killer who goes after women resembling his ex.

I think much of what people are complaining about Thanos is there is too much "heroizing" / "romanticizing" with what is occuring to Thanos. Now many people will see the truth and that Thanos is nuts, but there is so much diversity in humans that some people will think ... that Thanos he had some good ideas.

It is much how Fight Club is a Satire of a certain style of thinking about gender roles, hyper-captialism, advertising, culture etc. The audience by the end of the movie is supposed to understand Tyler Durden "solution" is not a solution at all. Tyler Durden's thinking is just replacing one structure with a new structure with a new form of paint, you are still going to have the messed up gender roles you are still going to have men who feel their life is not fufilling and how they are dependent on other humans for that is the nature of humanity. Tyler Durden's thinking will lead to bad places, but some people are really into it for Tyler Durden is charismatic, he is physically the masculine ideal, and he is a form of vicarious living where people wish they were him. Tyler Durden is right that men and women need outlets for their feelings, but the outlets he offers are another form of toxicity.

So the makers of Fight Club wanted you to first identify with Tyler Durden when you first meet him in the movie, but by the end of the movie you are supposed to switch and realize he is a false charismatic messiah, he is an illusion that an individual or society can make and you are supposed to reject him by the end of the movie. Well some people who watch Fight Club do not get the message at the end of the movie and they are into this message.

Well I will argue that the people complaining about Thanos message are really complaining not about Thanos but the people who like Thanos and say his ideas have some merrits. There are two reasons why 1) They are mad either their comic movie does not make sense. or 2) They are mad that people think Thanos is a great villian even if his stuff does not make sense. I will argue reason #2 is the main reason, how can you be a good villian when your reasons do not even make sense. Furthermore what does this say about the people who think Thanos is a great villian and think he had some good points.

And this gets a form of uncomfortableness that people feel compeled to respond and voice their feelings about Thanos and try to change other peoples minds, or just vent their frustrations.

[Kato]

Hey, if you can get a pretty large (or vocal) group to agree with ozymandias' "kill millions to save billions" ideals, of course you will find people who are willing to kill a few trillion aliens. I mean, it's not like they would kill you or your loved ones (they're fictional after all). Heck, for any plan that has some sense to it you will find people who agree.

Whether or not (or maybe how much) crazy Thanos is, is another question. But I guess this is better than introducing Death into the MCU.

[-D-]

I think much of what people are complaining about Thanos is there is too much "heroizing" / "romanticizing" with what is occuring to Thanos. Now many people will see the truth and that Thanos is nuts, but there is so much diversity in humans that some people will think ... that Thanos he had some good ideas.

I think it's much simpler than that:
- For some people villain claiming killing half of universe is goal is enough of a justification, if it's well acted (texture)
- For some people above is not enough. They want to "understand" how character ticks (text/subtext)

Let's compare Comic!Thanos - wants to kill trillions to appease his lover/mother stand-in Lady Death, who is paradoxically the first entity to show him love. Movie!Thanos - wants to kill half, because he warned his own people of that, they didn't listen and all but him perished.

[Velaryon]

Don't the professional armed forces of most countries in fact teach unarmed and close-quarter combat techniques? Even if they're rarely used, there is a certain value in learning not to rely too heavily on any particular tool.

Sure, but they don't then send their armed forces into combat without weapons. There's a difference between "you need to be able to function without this weapon" and "you don't need this weapon at all."

[Malimar]

I think part of the consternation may be that Thanos, as the single big bad of the entire MCU thus far, should be the most compelling, more compelling than all the bad guys thus far. And then it turns out not only is he not more compelling than the others, he's actually kind of doofy in his motivations. If he were a regular-movie bad guy, he could be forgiven, but he's not, he's special, so he should feel special, and he doesn't.

(I think "in love with Death" is actually a pretty good motivation, much better than what we were given in the end. And I think they could have done it just fine -- without introducing Death as a character at all. Leave it ambiguous whether the lady Thanos is in love with even exists, or if he's effectively just some sort of extra-deranged death cultist. (The "But then where does Hela fit in this equation?" question remains, though.) That's probably not the most compelling story they could have told, but it would have been more compelling than the story they did tell.)

[deuterio12]

Don't the professional armed forces of most countries in fact teach unarmed and close-quarter combat techniques? Even if they're rarely used, there is a certain value in learning not to rely too heavily on any particular tool.

For a certain value of "teach". Ancient armies would train their soldiers for years in the most effective stabbing ways, and in particular warrior nobles would start their kids pretty young. Modern armies will spend a tiny fraction of that time teaching melee combat, and it's probably more as a way to blow up stress while exercising than expecting you can kung fu the enemy fortress. That goes doubly for unarmed combat, since even the best unarmed masters will agree that even a simple sharp knife grants a huge advantage up close. And hey knifes are cheap and light enough that you can still equip all soldiers with one without draining other resources much, plus blades have other utility uses.

But you see, guns have become the main personal weapon not only because they're really killy, but because they're really, really easy to use. You need years to train a proper melee dude, and decades to train a proper archer, but only a few weeks to turn a person with a gun into a killing machine.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well I will argue that the people complaining about Thanos message are really complaining not about Thanos but the people who like Thanos and say his ideas have some merrits. There are two reasons why 1) They are mad either their comic movie does not make sense. or 2) They are mad that people think Thanos is a great villian even if his stuff does not make sense. I will argue reason #2 is the main reason, how can you be a good villian when your reasons do not even make sense. Furthermore what does this say about the people who think Thanos is a great villian and think he had some good points.

And this gets a form of uncomfortableness that people feel compeled to respond and voice their feelings about Thanos and try to change other peoples minds, or just vent their frustrations.

I feel like you're overthinking this. It's a thread about the movie. Is everyone posting in order to alleviate some form of discomfort? Probably not right? We're just sharing opinions.

Thanos' plan is totally disappointing for the villain we've been waiting a decade for. He doesn't ruin the movie, but he's not worthy of the role he's in. Let me just quote Malimar:

I think part of the consternation may be that Thanos, as the single big bad of the entire MCU thus far, should be the most compelling, more compelling than all the bad guys thus far. And then it turns out not only is he not more compelling than the others, he's actually kind of doofy in his motivations. If he were a regular-movie bad guy, he could be forgiven, but he's not, he's special, so he should feel special, and he doesn't.

(I think "in love with Death" is actually a pretty good motivation, much better than what we were given in the end. And I think they could have done it just fine -- without introducing Death as a character at all. Leave it ambiguous whether the lady Thanos is in love with even exists, or if he's effectively just some sort of extra-deranged death cultist. (The "But then where does Hela fit in this equation?" question remains, though.) That's probably not the most compelling story they could have told, but it would have been more compelling than the story they did tell.)

[Leewei]

Well I will argue that the people complaining about Thanos message are really complaining not about Thanos but the people who like Thanos and say his ideas have some merrits. There are two reasons why 1) They are mad either their comic movie does not make sense. or 2) They are mad that people think Thanos is a great villian even if his stuff does not make sense.

This reasoning makes enormous, unsubstantiated assumptions - and unsurprisingly, is entirely wrong.

1) Nobody's mad. We just think that Thanos' goal doesn't make sense.

2) How much everyone loves or hates Thanos' motivation isn't material to the criticism.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's so weird how often criticism of a movie gets met with the squinty-eyed "What're you playing at???" confusion that leads to people guessing at your *true* motivations.

Uh... we're sharing opinions about the movie. And my opinion is that Thanos is a disappointing end-boss.

[Leewei]

It's so weird how often criticism of a movie gets met with the squinty-eyed "What're you playing at???" confusion that leads to people guessing at your *true* motivations.

Uh... we're sharing opinions about the movie. And my opinion is that Thanos is a disappointing end-boss.

100% agreed.

[Legato Endless]

It's so weird how often criticism of a movie gets met with the squinty-eyed "What're you playing at???" confusion that leads to people guessing at your *true* motivations.

Uh... we're sharing opinions about the movie. And my opinion is that Thanos is a disappointing end-boss.

Empathy is hard. It's a lot easier and tempting to arm chair a motive beneath the surface. Presuming good faith is a solid base principle for disagreeing with someone, especially in the ambiguous wilderness of the Internet.

[huttj509]

This reasoning makes enormous, unsubstantiated assumptions - and unsurprisingly, is entirely wrong.

1) Nobody's mad. We just think that Thanos' goal doesn't make sense.

2) How much everyone loves or hates Thanos' motivation isn't material to the criticism.

He wants to cut the universe population in half, alleviating resource pressure, thinking that people will see that that was the correct move after the fact.

He doesn't need to be right, but it seems to make sense enough. Too many mouths to feed, his planet refused the obvious solution (population control, with an initial cull to get breathing room), and he thinks it's the only way.

What doesn't make sense?

[Leewei]

He wants to cut the universe population in half, alleviating resource pressure, thinking that people will see that that was the correct move after the fact.

He doesn't need to be right, but it seems to make sense enough. Too many mouths to feed, his planet refused the obvious solution (population control, with an initial cull to get breathing room), and he thinks it's the only way.

What doesn't make sense?

I'd write up my thoughts again for you, but instead I'll request that you read my original post in this thread. No need to clutter things up by repeating myself.

[Starbuck_II]

Hey, if you can get a pretty large (or vocal) group to agree with ozymandias' "kill millions to save billions" ideals, of course you will find people who are willing to kill a few trillion aliens. I mean, it's not like they would kill you or your loved ones (they're fictional after all). Heck, for any plan that has some sense to it you will find people who agree.

Whether or not (or maybe how much) crazy Thanos is, is another question. But I guess this is better than introducing Death into the MCU.

Does Deadpool counts as MCU yet?

Spoiler

Show

Because I have a theory that: he saw Death not Vanessa when he died.
But since he changed history/time, we will never know I guess. Unless Death can remember both timelines?

[Psyren]

Does Deadpool counts as MCU yet?

Spoiler

Show

Because I have a theory that: he saw Death not Vanessa when he died.
But since he changed history/time, we will never know I guess. Unless Death can remember both timelines?

I'm sure the "Upside Down" sequences were meant as a continuity nod to that little bit of Marvel geek ephemera, but I doubt it has any more detailed meaning for Vanessa herself. Kinda like how Black Widow jokingly demurred on picking up Thor's hammer during AoU.