Superhero Cinematic Civil War - Part 56

[Spider-Fan]

This is the wheel-spinning I refer to. What was the point of his arc in Ragnarok then? Yknow, when he finally believes in himself and is confident in his ability to lead the Asgardians, which is why he finally accepted the mantle of King? Did all of that hard-earned self-belief only last the few moments before Thanos attacks?

And yes, he felt useless and guilty about what happened to his people.

Why does he then abandon them? To find out who he's meant to be? But he just did that in Ragnarok!

That's the kind of MCU flip-flopping that kinda drives me nuts.

People handle grief in all kinds of ways. We just spent an entire movie with Thor reacting to defeat by being really angry and pursuing a weapon to kill the being responsible. So Thor's arc in the 2nd part had to be different. You can't have Thor just John Wick-ing it for 2 movies. Also, as for why he abandons him, simple: PTSD/Depression. Giving up on life is a way people do react to tremendous loss/defeat. Which is what Thor did. I've been there before. So have many people who have experienced real depression. Thor's arc in Ragnarok had a completely different focus from dealing with depression. In Ragnarok, it was about Thor stepping into the mantle he was born into. That has nothing to do with whether or not the mantle of king was right for Thor as a person/character. Those are 2 different struggles.

 

[hafizbat]

People handle grief in all kinds of ways. We just spent an entire movie with Thor reacting to defeat by being really angry and pursuing a weapon to kill the being responsible. So Thor's arc in the 2nd part had to be different. You can't have Thor just John Wick-ing it for 2 movies. Also, as for why he abandons him, simple: PTSD/Depression. Giving up on life is a way people do react to tremendous loss/defeat. Which is what Thor did. I've been there before. So have many people who have experienced real depression. Thor's arc in Ragnarok had a completely different focus from dealing with depression. In Ragnarok, it was about Thor stepping into the mantle he was born into. That has nothing to do with whether or not the mantle of king was right for Thor as a person/character. Those are 2 different struggles.

Look, I get the stuff about his depression. That just doesn't excuse taking the character so clearly backwards in my opinion, especially after the events of Endgame. He got over his slump, and now he doesn't care about the people of Asgard anymore?

And I disagree with your reading of his arc in Ragnarok. He has been deciding that the mantle of king was not for him since the first Thor. The same "Being King is not for me" trope was repeated in TDW, and finally in Ragnarok he becomes king. Why? Because he finally learns that being King is not about all the gold and power but about serving the people. I mean this is made extremely clear through his dialogue with Valkyrie and other stuff. It's undeniable, and can't be waved off as oh he's not suited to be king. In fact Ragnarok was specifically about how the mantle of king means nothing, and that its the people who matter. Hela was literally a dark reflection about birthright and what that actually means.

Which also serves the point that the destruction of Asgard is ill-suited to be used as a reason for his depression. He consciously made that decision because of the important lesson he learned. By saying the destruction of Asgard was a mistake, you are literally undoing the fact that he learned that the people are more important than the place. You just can't say he grew and learned in Ragnarok when he made that tough decision and then turn around and say actually wait, that was a mistake and Thor should feel bad about it.

It's all just so contrived to me. I can't help but see that Marvel writes arcs in whatever way is most convenient for their plan rather than what is most logical or compelling for a character.

After 7 movies, we are left with Thor who is pretty much the same character, just goofier. Marvel just can't let go of the comfortable status quo and actually have him grow beyond what he's been since the beginning. I mean, they even undid the eyepatch for goodness sake.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Look, I get the stuff about his depression. That just doesn't excuse taking the character so clearly backwards in my opinion, especially after the events of Endgame. He got over his slump, and now he doesn't care about the people of Asgard anymore?

And I disagree with your reading of his arc in Ragnarok. He has been deciding that the mantle of king was not for him since the first Thor. The same "Being King is not for me" trope was repeated in TDW, and finally in Ragnarok he becomes king. Why? Because he finally learns that being King is not about all the gold and power but about serving the people. I mean this is made extremely clear through his dialogue with Valkyrie and other stuff. It's undeniable, and can't be waved off as oh he's not suited to be king. In fact Ragnarok was specifically about how the mantle of king means nothing, and that its the people who matter. Hela was literally a dark reflection about birthright and what that actually means.

Which also serves the point that the destruction of Asgard is ill-suited to be used as a reason for his depression. He consciously made that decision because of the important lesson he learned. By saying the destruction of Asgard was a mistake, you are literally undoing the fact that he learned that the people are more important than the place. You just can't say he grew and learned in Ragnarok when he made that tough decision and then turn around and say actually wait, that was a mistake and Thor should feel bad about it.

It's all just so contrived to me. I can't help but see that Marvel writes arcs in whatever way is most convenient for their plan rather than what is most logical or compelling for a character.

After 7 movies, we are left with Thor who is pretty much the same character, just goofier. Marvel just can't let go of the comfortable status quo and actually have him grow beyond what he's been since the beginning. I mean, they even undid the eyepatch for goodness sake.

Honestly, Thor seeing the throne is not his place is more unique within the realms of fiction than it is for the son to ascend to the throne is. That type of story has been done throughout history billions of times. The arc they have Thor was much less cliche. Further, again, Thor hit rock bottom after IW. Ragnarok was a brick in the wall. There is a difference.

 

[Zarex]

Neither. I care far more about Thor's overall journey and how Endgame undid it all.

And I do find it weird that Marvel is praised for being accepting of fat people when Fat Thor was a running joke throughout the movie.

Do you deny that his fatness was a running joke throughout the movie? It's less about which characters said what, and more about how Marvel portrayed his fatness as a running gag.

As I mentioned, there were only a few fat jokes over Endgame's bladder busting three hour run time. Thor was clearly struggling, but I didn't see it as a running gag.

I thought it was a brave choice - along with killing off, aging out and crippling four of the six original Avengers - to show Thor without his traditional muscled physique. And it helped put an end to the notion that the MCU doesn't have stakes.

 

[hafizbat]

Honestly, Thor seeing the throne is not his place is more unique within the realms of fiction than it is for the son to ascend to the throne is. That type of story has been done throughout history billions of times. The arc they have Thor was much less cliche. Further, again, Thor hit rock bottom after IW. Ragnarok was a brick in the wall. There is a difference.

What you call unique, I would call pointless. The reason why most works of fiction have the character ascend is because that's the payoff. The fruits of the labor of storytelling. Or even if you don't become King, at least something should happen.

Thor is just staying the same. After Endgame, he is pretty much in the same place as he was after Thor 2011. Or TDW. That is, he still has a lot of learning and self-discovery to do.

Because there are sequels and money to be made, lol.

 

[hafizbat]

As I mentioned, there were only a few fat jokes over Endgame's bladder busting three hour run time. Thor was clearly struggling, but I didn't see it as a running gag.

I thought it was a brave choice - along with killing off, aging out and crippling four of the six original Avengers - to show Thor without his traditional muscled physique. And it helped put an end to the notion that the MCU doesn't have stakes.

Let's just say I disagree with both points. Endgame did the exact opposite of ending the notion that the MCU doesn't have stakes.

 

[Bayne]

I would say the Thor storyline in Endgame was very good, stopped just short of great because of how jokey the middle part was about him (yes, primarily the War Machine joke, but also the repeated chickening out bit in Asgard went on too long and gave too little gravitas to what he was going through). I don't much care that it 'undid' Ragnarok's arc because I found Ragnarok far less well balanced in the first place. If Endgame was a bit too jokey in the middle, Ragnarok was The Tragedy of Thor: Vaudeville edition. Sure it was funny, but as a contribution to Thor's overall arc, I found it seriously underwhelming. I'm glad they finally went full-in on him snapping under the pressure and I loved the inspirational value of him finding a way to rise above it without magically erasing the scars it left on him. Maybe he should've gone back to being a King afterward, but then again, if his lesson in Ragnarok was that a good king's concern should be entirely for his people's well-being, then what better action could a good king take than to recognize that someone else is actually a better leader for his people than he ever has been and will clearly do a better job protecting and nurturing them?

I also really liked what they did with Hulk in Endgame. Again, the problem there isn't how Endgame used him, it's that they chose to cut the essential basis of his story out of Infinity War for no good reason. It comes across as the most essential moment of his arc was just skipped over entirely (because it was). That needed to be onscreen.

My only truly major issue with Endgame is Captain Marvel. She literally has no reason to be in the movie except for the obvious fact that everyone expected her to be in the movie. She isn't even a deus ex machina, as someone said, since she's neither the first nor the last hero to temporarily turn the tide/run down the clock and she didn't win the day in the end. When you consider the fact that her story 'tying into the Infinity Saga in a major way' was the excuse used for why her solo movie got pushed back years, it's incredibly sad and ironic that both her solo movie and her endgame role are so completely inconsequetial to the Infinity Saga that they could easily have been pulled out entirely with no serious problems. She should have either debuted much earlier so that she could take part in Infinity War and either get dusted or else have a clear story purpose in Endgame, or just not debuted until after Endgame so they wouldn't have to force a clearly pointless role into the movie for her.

 

[Zarex]

Let's just say I disagree with both points. Endgame did the exact opposite of ending the notion that the MCU doesn't have stakes.

Liking or not liking Tubby Thor is a matter of opinion. But the "NO STAKES!" argument is flat out wrong, and should go into the ash heap alongside no longer relevant MCU critiques "AWFUL VILLAINS!" and " FORGETTABLE MUSIC! "

 

[DA_Champion]

Liking or not liking Tubby Thor is a matter of opinion. But the "NO STAKES!" argument is flat out wrong, and should go into the ash heap alongside no longer relevant MCU critiques "AWFUL VILLAINS!" and " FORGETTABLE MUSIC! "

I would like if they actually explored the consequences of the snap. Right now it's been very surface level. In Far From Home, it seemed like everything was fine. Butt other than that, I felt stakes.

As for villains and music, it's still mostly poor.

 

[MadVillainy]

On the topic of Fat Thor:
I think you're being ingenious if you're acting like Fat Thor didn't have a lot of comedy relief around him. From the moment he's introduced post time skip up until he meets Frigga he's a source of comedy. I mean he walks around in his pajamas for most of the film's runtime. Not to say that there weren't some dramatic moments ("Don't say that name) or that Hemsworth didn't give a really good performance, but largely he's shown to be comedic. He's going through some stuff, but he's still a source of comedy through most of the films runtime.
An annoying thing is some fans defending it by saying "Well he has PTSD" or "He's depressed." Of course he is. The movie makes that obviously very clear. Having a reason for something doesn't always give something a pass. It's how they handled him that some fans have issues with.
On another note my tin foil hat theory is: I think Fat Thor also happened because the Russos don't know what to do with super strong, almost god like, heroes. Someone said this theory once Of the Russo ensemble films
-Hulk isn't in CW (rightfully so), he is missing for a majority of IW, and in EG he's weaker I assume and then he gets crippled
-Thor isn't in CW (again made perfect sense), he's off on his own mission for alot of IW (which I liked and made perfect sense), but then in EG after making him stronger than he's ever been at the end of IW they make him out of shape and slower so that he isn't even a match in Thanos even though at the end of IW shows that he can be
-CM was away for most of the EG action
-Vision was inexplicably away for most of the CW airport fight and then severly wounded for a large portion of IW.

It just seems like maybe they don't have any interest or know how to handle that.

On the topic of MCU stakes:
MCU still doesn't feel like it has any stakes really imo.
You're never really worried that any main character in any danger. Again that huge epic saga ending battle, only 1 of the named character permanently dies and it's a heroic sacrifice. ANd then when you take in account IW and EG.
-BW dies, another heroic sacrifice. But we'll see her again in her own prequel/inter-quel solo movie. Idk if they're going to continue a film series with her
-Gamora was killed. Or at least Gamora Prime was. We'll be seeing a Gamora again
-Then Vision died, but maybe he's coming back in some capacity in Wanda Vision? Because I think the whole show takes place in a 1950s reality that Wanda makes up or something. Vision

And then the whole final battle in EG you don't feel that anything is in dangers because it takes place in a field with nothing around.

And it's not just hero deaths. In Star Wars most of the heroes live, but I still felt some sense of danger. In LotR, only 1 member of the Fellowship permenately dies. I think a problem is that the MCU is an ongoing story. And to do that they don't want to shift the status quo a lot. You, or at least I, never feel that the status quo is going to be largely shifted in any movie. LIke I never feel: "Oh things are never going to be the same" or "This is really going to affect everything." Even after the huge events of "the snap" I haven't seen any evidence that the stories of these characters are going to be radically different, which they should be, after such a radical event.
And I'll gladly eat my words if they prove otherwise
I mean it's the same in Marvel/DC comics nowadays. Characters die, heroes turn bad, villains turn good, teams disband, there are minor civil wars, huge events; but stakes aren't often felt because the universe is ongoing.

The villains are getting better though, but still 22 films right? TO me only Loki, Abomination, Killmonger, Vulture, and Thanos were good. That's still a bad batting average.

And then for the scores? Meh, but I feel a lot of blockbuster scores leave a lot to be desired nowadays. Most of them have forgettable scores. In fact, other then Black Panther, I can't think of a film score in recent memory that I really liked since Tron Legacy

 

[Zarex]

I would like if they actually explored the consequences of the snap. Right now it's been very surface level. In Far From Home, it seemed like everything was fine. Butt other than that, I felt stakes.

I was concerned about how the MCU would handle the snap but I was glad it was a presence in FFH but didn't overwhelm the story . One article compared students in a world with multiple alien attacks trivializing the "blip" to kids in our world becoming inured to school shootings. I thought FFH handled it ok.

As for villains and music, it's still mostly poor.

Villains? Completely disagree. After Ultron the only villains I found underwhelming were Kaecilius and Ghost. Yon-Rogg, Zemo and Cross were pretty good. And Killmonger, Ego, Hela and Thanos were supoib. But all pale in comparison to TASERFACE!

And the music's been great. The wonderful world music of Black Panther? Immigrant Song in Rangarok? The transition into the Avengers theme during Cap's arrival in Infinity War? The wonderful Portals when Cap's backup arrives in Endgame, transitioning into "Dum, dudda, dudda, dudda, du"? I even liked the return of "Back in Black" in FFH (THAT'S TONY'S MUSIC!!! STOP BEING HIS SIDEKICK SPIDEY!!!!). A major prior complaint was that Feige and company wouldn't refer back to previously established music pieces, and that's certainly no longer the case.

 

[hafizbat]

On the topic of Fat Thor:
I think you're being ingenious if you're acting like Fat Thor didn't have a lot of comedy relief around him. From the moment he's introduced post time skip up until he meets Frigga he's a source of comedy. I mean he walks around in his pajamas for most of the film's runtime. Not to say that there weren't some dramatic moments ("Don't say that name) or that Hemsworth didn't give a really good performance, but largely he's shown to be comedic. He's going through some stuff, but he's still a source of comedy through most of the films runtime.
An annoying thing is some fans defending it by saying "Well he has PTSD" or "He's depressed." Of course he is. The movie makes that obviously very clear. Having a reason for something doesn't always give something a pass. It's how they handled him that some fans have issues with.
On another note my tin foil hat theory is: I think Fat Thor also happened because the Russos don't know what to do with super strong, almost god like, heroes. Someone said this theory once Of the Russo ensemble films
-Hulk isn't in CW (rightfully so), he is missing for a majority of IW, and in EG he's weaker I assume and then he gets crippled
-Thor isn't in CW (again made perfect sense), he's off on his own mission for alot of IW (which I liked and made perfect sense), but then in EG after making him stronger than he's ever been at the end of IW they make him out of shape and slower so that he isn't even a match in Thanos even though at the end of IW shows that he can be
-CM was away for most of the EG action
-Vision was inexplicably away for most of the CW airport fight and then severly wounded for a large portion of IW.

It just seems like maybe they don't have any interest or no how to handle that.

On the topic of MCU stakes:
MCU still doesn't feel like it has any stakes really imo.
You're never really worried that any main character in any danger. Again that huge epic saga ending battle, only 1 of the named character permanently dies and it's a heroic sacrifice. ANd then when you take in account IW and EG.
-BW dies, another heroic sacrifice. But we'll see her again in her own prequel/inter-quel solo movie. Idk if they're going to continue a film series with her
-Gamora was killed. Or at least Gamora Prime was. We'll be seeing a Gamora again
-Then Vision died, but maybe he's coming back in some capacity in Wanda Vision? Because I think the whole show takes place in a 1950s reality that Wanda makes up or something. Vision

And then the whole final battle in EG you don't feel that anything is in dangers because it takes place in a field with nothing around.

And it's not just hero deaths. In Star Wars most of the heroes live, but I still felt some sense of danger. In LotR, only 1 member of the Fellowship permenately dies. I think a problem is that the MCU is an ongoing story. And to do that they don't want to shift the status quo a lot. You, or at least I, never feel that the status quo is going to be largely shifted in any movie. LIke I never feel: "Oh things are never going to be the same" or "This is really going to affect everything." Even after the huge events of "the snap" I haven't seen any evidence that the stories of these characters are going to be radically different, which they should be, after such a radical event.
And I'll gladly eat my words if they prove otherwise
I mean it's the same in Marvel/DC comics nowadays. Characters die, heroes turn bad, villains turn good, teams disband, there are minor civil wars, huge events; but stakes aren't often felt because the universe is ongoing.

The villains are getting better though, but still 22 films right? TO me only Loki, Abomination, Killmonger, Vulture, and Thanos were good. That's still a bad batting average.

And then for the scores? Meh, but I feel a lot of blockbuster scores leave a lot to be desired nowadays. Most of them have forgettable scores. In fact, other then Black Panther, I can't think of a film score in recent memory that I really liked since Tron Legacy

Perfectly said. Don't forget Loki being back yet again as well. Or the Sokovia Accords being conveniently dropped without any explanation.

 

[hafizbat]

Liking or not liking Tubby Thor is a matter of opinion. But the "NO STAKES!" argument is flat out wrong, and should go into the ash heap alongside no longer relevant MCU critiques "AWFUL VILLAINS!" and " FORGETTABLE MUSIC! "

Lol this is ridiculous. You can't pick and choose which points are matters of opinion. Aside from cold facts like box office numbers or critic scores, everything is subjective.

If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should explain why you feel that way rather than dismissing other opinions as flat out wrong.

 

[Web-Head]

On the topic of Fat Thor:
I think you're being ingenious if you're acting like Fat Thor didn't have a lot of comedy relief around him. From the moment he's introduced post time skip up until he meets Frigga he's a source of comedy. I mean he walks around in his pajamas for most of the film's runtime. Not to say that there weren't some dramatic moments ("Don't say that name) or that Hemsworth didn't give a really good performance, but largely he's shown to be comedic. He's going through some stuff, but he's still a source of comedy through most of the films runtime.
An annoying thing is some fans defending it by saying "Well he has PTSD" or "He's depressed." Of course he is. The movie makes that obviously very clear. Having a reason for something doesn't always give something a pass. It's how they handled him that some fans have issues with.
On another note my tin foil hat theory is: I think Fat Thor also happened because the Russos don't know what to do with super strong, almost god like, heroes. Someone said this theory once Of the Russo ensemble films
-Hulk isn't in CW (rightfully so), he is missing for a majority of IW, and in EG he's weaker I assume and then he gets crippled
-Thor isn't in CW (again made perfect sense), he's off on his own mission for alot of IW (which I liked and made perfect sense), but then in EG after making him stronger than he's ever been at the end of IW they make him out of shape and slower so that he isn't even a match in Thanos even though at the end of IW shows that he can be
-CM was away for most of the EG action
-Vision was inexplicably away for most of the CW airport fight and then severly wounded for a large portion of IW.

It just seems like maybe they don't have any interest or no how to handle that.

On the topic of MCU stakes:
MCU still doesn't feel like it has any stakes really imo.
You're never really worried that any main character in any danger. Again that huge epic saga ending battle, only 1 of the named character permanently dies and it's a heroic sacrifice. ANd then when you take in account IW and EG.
-BW dies, another heroic sacrifice. But we'll see her again in her own prequel/inter-quel solo movie. Idk if they're going to continue a film series with her
-Gamora was killed. Or at least Gamora Prime was. We'll be seeing a Gamora again
-Then Vision died, but maybe he's coming back in some capacity in Wanda Vision? Because I think the whole show takes place in a 1950s reality that Wanda makes up or something. Vision

And then the whole final battle in EG you don't feel that anything is in dangers because it takes place in a field with nothing around.

And it's not just hero deaths. In Star Wars most of the heroes live, but I still felt some sense of danger. In LotR, only 1 member of the Fellowship permenately dies. I think a problem is that the MCU is an ongoing story. And to do that they don't want to shift the status quo a lot. You, or at least I, never feel that the status quo is going to be largely shifted in any movie. LIke I never feel: "Oh things are never going to be the same" or "This is really going to affect everything." Even after the huge events of "the snap" I haven't seen any evidence that the stories of these characters are going to be radically different, which they should be, after such a radical event.
And I'll gladly eat my words if they prove otherwise
I mean it's the same in Marvel/DC comics nowadays. Characters die, heroes turn bad, villains turn good, teams disband, there are minor civil wars, huge events; but stakes aren't often felt because the universe is ongoing.

The villains are getting better though, but still 22 films right? TO me only Loki, Abomination, Killmonger, Vulture, and Thanos were good. That's still a bad batting average.

And then for the scores? Meh, but I feel a lot of blockbuster scores leave a lot to be desired nowadays. Most of them have forgettable scores. In fact, other then Black Panther, I can't think of a film score in recent memory that I really liked since Tron Legacy

Great post, I agree with a lot of what you said aside from the villains. As for the bolded, you're probably right. They've been asked about making a DC film and the answer was "No, they're too powerful." Or something along those lines.

Edit: ‘Infinity War’ Directors Say DC Characters Are Too Unrelatable

 

[MadVillainy]

Great post, I agree with a lot of what you said aside from the villains. As for the bolded, you're probably right. They've been asked about making a DC film and the answer was "No, they're too powerful." Or something along those lines.

Edit: ‘Infinity War’ Directors Say DC Characters Are Too Unrelatable

The whole relatability thing has always been the biggest load of crock to me. It's just so patently false and flat out wrong
And to an extent so has the "too powerful" argument when it comes to action films. Literally all you have to do if a hero is too strong in an action movie is to make the villain stronger. Or maybe smarter

 

[Zarex]

On the topic of Fat Thor:
I think you're being ingenious if you're acting like Fat Thor didn't have a lot of comedy relief around him.

Thank you!

From the moment he's introduced post time skip up until he meets Frigga he's a source of comedy. I mean he walks around in his pajamas for most of the film's runtime. Not to say that there weren't some dramatic moments ("Don't say that name) or that Hemsworth didn't give a really good performance, but largely he's shown to be comedic. He's going through some stuff, but he's still a source of comedy through most of the films runtime.
An annoying thing is some fans defending it by saying "Well he has PTSD" or "He's depressed." Of course he is. The movie makes that obviously very clear. Having a reason for something doesn't always give something a pass. It's how they handled him that some fans have issues with.

There's definitely some comedy involved with sticking a fat suit on Mr. Hemsworth. But that wasn't the sum of his arc in Endgame. Thor having such a extreme reaction to his failure was a bold choice, and I find it annoying that the "NO STAKES!" crowd are up in arms when the creatives show that these events actually have an impact upon the participants.

On another note my tin foil hat theory is: I think Fat Thor also happened because the Russos don't know what to do with super strong, almost god like, heroes. Someone said this theory once Of the Russo ensemble films
-Hulk isn't in CW (rightfully so), he is missing for a majority of IW, and in EG he's weaker I assume and then he gets crippled
-Thor isn't in CW (again made perfect sense), he's off on his own mission for alot of IW (which I liked and made perfect sense), but then in EG after making him stronger than he's ever been at the end of IW they make him out of shape and slower so that he isn't even a match in Thanos even though at the end of IW shows that he can be
-CM was away for most of the EG action
-Vision was inexplicably away for most of the CW airport fight and then severly wounded for a large portion of IW.

It's the same reason why Superman was taken off the board early in many of the JL cartoons, and then in the JL movie. Xavier would be similarly indisposed throughout much of the X-Men film series and Quicksilver went home to study in DOFP. Depicting a superhero team on screen requires power level management, so that smart folks in the audience aren't screaming "ACTUALLY, [INSERT HERO NAME] COULD HAVE DEFEATED [INSERT VILLAIN NAME] BY THEMSELVES!!

On the topic of MCU stakes:
MCU still doesn't feel like it has any stakes really imo.
You're never really worried that any main character in any danger. Again that huge epic saga ending battle, only 1 of the named character permanently dies and it's a heroic sacrifice. ANd then when you take in account IW and EG.
-BW dies, another heroic sacrifice. But we'll see her again in her own prequel/inter-quel solo movie. Idk if they're going to continue a film series with her
-Gamora was killed. Or at least Gamora Prime was. We'll be seeing a Gamora again
-Then Vision died, but maybe he's coming back in some capacity in Wanda Vision? Because I think the whole show takes place in a 1950s reality that Wanda makes up or something. Vision

And then the whole final battle in EG you don't feel that anything is in dangers because it takes place in a field with nothing around.

And it's not just hero deaths. In Star Wars most of the heroes live, but I still felt some sense of danger. In LotR, only 1 member of the Fellowship permenately dies. I think a problem is that the MCU is an ongoing story. And to do that they don't want to shift the status quo a lot. You, or at least I, never feel that the status quo is going to be largely shifted in any movie. LIke I never feel: "Oh things are never going to be the same" or "This is really going to affect everything." Even after the huge events of "the snap" I haven't seen any evidence that the stories of these characters are going to be radically different, which they should be, after such a radical event.
And I'll gladly eat my words if they prove otherwise

If you don't feel "stakes" after seeing characters die, retire, and suffer from debilitating emotional and physical injuries, I'm afraid you are never going to find them.

I mean it's the same in Marvel/DC comics nowadays. Characters die, heroes turn bad, villains turn good, teams disband, there are minor civil wars, huge events; but stakes aren't often felt because the universe is ongoing.

It's the exact opposite of Marvel/DC comics. Tony Stark, Natasha Romanoff and Steve Rogers are immortal in the comics but are being replaced in the movies. If any of the three get resurrected or de-aged in the movies I will co-sign your "NO STAKES!" complaint.

 

[Zarex]

Lol this is ridiculous. You can't pick and choose which points are matters of opinion. Aside from cold facts like box office numbers or critic scores, everything is subjective.

If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should explain why you feel that way rather than dismissing other opinions as flat out wrong.

Because there were actual stakes! Folks died, were crippled, and one old guy handed over his shield. If you were hoping for half of all life to remain dusted a connected cinematic comic book universe may not be for you.

 

[The Batman]

In recent memory, the only time I actually felt that a superhero was in danger was when Batman was getting his ass kicked by Bane.

Sure, there are "Stakes" in superhero fims, but for the most part, they feel artificial as far as I'm concerned, whether its the MCU, DCEU, Fox, etc.

 

[Erzengel]

But it was Batman, in the middle of a Batman movie. I already knew he was going to get his ass handed to him because I read Knightfall.

With Logan, I had a feeling he was going to die. I knew Superman was going to die as soon as I saw Doomsday in the trailer.

With Infinity War and Endgame, I wasn't sure who was going to die. So when Thanos runs Tony through, I was like oh ****. And even though I read the Infinity Guantlet series, I honestly didn't think they would do the snap because of the type of scale it was.

 

[hafizbat]

The point is it's more about the presentation than the predictability vs unpredictability.

Everyone knew what's going to happen to Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. It was still fantastically executed.

No one knew Quicksilver was gonna die in Age of Ultron or Black Widow was gonna bite the dust in Endgame. Quite frankly, I don't think most cared.

 

[MadVillainy]

In recent memory, the only time I actually felt that a superhero was in danger was when Batman was getting his ass kicked by Bane.

Sure, there are "Stakes" in superhero fims, but for the most part, they feel artificial as far as I'm concerned, whether its the MCU, DCEU, Fox, etc.

I felt stakes in Logan.
But I get what you're saying.

But I think also it doesn't have to necessarily do with if someone is going to die. It's hard for me to explain, but it's just...tension. The way film is shot or the tone they set up.

Example: I've seen Back to the Future a bunch of times. One of my top 10 favorites. But I still feel that sense of danger and tension when, during the climax, Marty is speeding toward the wiring and Doc is struggling to connect the plug and outlet in time.

Or even in LotR, namely RotK, the Fellowship were basically godlike the way they ripped through enemies and (barring Boromir) I knew who would die and who wouldn't because of the source material. But still with the way the battles are shot, the way you see people dying, good guy or not, the acting, the sense of dread made the battle seem for lack of a better world "real." Despite it being CGI armies facing off.
With the MCU in particular (and I have to think of other recent films with huge battle scenes but I'm sure it's present in those too) there's no "weight" to most of the kills, there are so many jokes flying around, and the enemies don't come off that menacing that it's just hard to take seriously which to me makes it seem like there are no "stakes"

 

[Erzengel]

There are very few movies for me that I'm like "oh ****" type danger and tension. Personally, the scene at the end of Rogue One comes to mind, and most recently right before all the portals opened in Endgame.

 

[MadVillainy]

But it was Batman, in the middle of a Batman movie. I already knew he was going to get his ass handed to him because I read Knightfall.

With Logan, I had a feeling he was going to die. I knew Superman was going to die as soon as I saw Doomsday in the trailer.

With Infinity War and Endgame, I wasn't sure who was going to die. So when Thanos runs Tony through, I was like oh ****. And even though I read the Infinity Gauntlet series, I honestly didn't think they would do the snap because of the type of scale it was.

As hafizbat said, it's not about predicability. You can still feel tension in scenes or movies you already know how it plays out
But even then, really? You weren't sure who was going to die? The biggest surprise to me was that Cap didn't die with even saying he's done after EG.
It was obvious from the jump that Tony was going to bite it a) because it was known pre EG that his contract was up. And they already tried to do the "Tony peacefully retires" thing. b) They gave him a kid. Only thing that would've made him more obvious a target would be making him a cop close to retirement

There are very few movies for me that I'm like "oh ****" type danger and tension. Personally, the scene at the end of Rogue One comes to mind, and most recently right before all the portals opened in Endgame.

Do you mean blockbusters? Or movies in general.
If in movies in general I find that extremely hard to believe

 

[Erzengel]

Yeah I wasn't sure who was going to die. I overheard someone walking into the theater saying Thor died. I didn't think Black Widow was going to die because she had a movie announced a year before. I probably didn't think they would either kill Cap or IM but not both.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

No one knew Quicksilver was gonna die in Age of Ultron or Black Widow was gonna bite the dust in Endgame. Quite frankly, I don't think most cared.

If they didn't the movies would be getting poor reviews and facing declining box office. YOU didn't care. Saying "most" didn't care is a blatant falsehood.