It just introduced time travel which is a lazy cop out when you’ve written yourself in a creative hole because everyone has guessed all your good ideas.
I find this blanket criticism of time travel as a plot device to be ironically one of the laziest criticisms that gets repeated often.
Sometimes time travel is introduced into a story for lazy reasons: to undo the consequences of an otherwise irreversible story event or to work around the fact the plot doesn't offer any logical way to progress. That's a question of execution. But anyone who says that *all* time travel stories automatically have these problems is just wrong. End game doesn't have either of those problems.
First of all, the infinity stones were clearly established to have enough power to change reality, which is how they dusted everyone off in the first place. End game doesn't introduce time travel to undo the snap because it was irreversible, it introduces time travel as part of a plot to force the Avengers to recollect the stones instead of just taking them back from Thanos. In that respect, the time travel adds a conflict point, it doesn't erase one. The *lazy* thing to do would be to just have the Avengers fight Thanos again and take the stones back, leaving open the possibility for Thanos to come back in a few years and do it all over again.
Second, time travel wasn't introduced because there was no way to progress from Infinity War, because as mentioned at the end of Infinity War there was a way for the plot to progress: take the stones back from Thanos. It was End game itself that deliberately eliminated that option at the start of End game, so you can't say time travel was only introduced as a lazy way to work around a pre-existing plot problem.
Time travel is no more lazy a scifi device than warp drive and hyperspace are just lazy ways to get around the speed of light. I don't see many people brave enough to accuse H.G. Wells of using time travel as a lazy tool to get out of a creative hole. Scifi is nothing but "lazy tools" used to make an otherwise impossible leap in fiction - that's where the fiction comes from in science fiction - and while time travel is an easy way out for writers at times, it is also an easy way out for critics as well.
Movies are subjective, for one, its good for other bad, list of best movies ever...are also subjective.....
Well, to a certain degree they are. You can absolutely say that a camera angle objectively doesn't suit a certain scene, or that some special effect looks cheap or downright bad. You can absolutely say that a script riddled with plotholes solved by a macguffin introduced halfway through the third act is objectively bad.
Art isn't really as subjective as one might think. It is mostly, sure. But a painting can absolutely be objectively horrible and you can in that sense absolutely be objectively wrong for thinking that it's good.
Thinking something is good doesn't equal liking something, though.
Everyone's definition of art is different, but I was standing in a museum once when I saw something painted on the wall that has become my definition of art ever since, or rather my concept of art less so my definition of art. The quote was "there is no art without craftsmanship, and no craft without artistry."
Having said that, I don't think you can judge any movie or story work in general by its pieces alone. A script riddled with plotholes solved by a late Macguffin is likely to be problematic because that sounds like these things happened by accident, and that level of accident and lack of care strongly implies the whole thing is unlikely to work. But without seeing the whole, you can't know if those things aren't there for a specific artistic reason. Sometimes good artists break the conventional rules in ways the rule writers didn't anticipate.
You could argue that a script riddled with plotholes solved by a late discovery is Murder on the Orient Express. The plot is full of holes until Poirot realizes the theory he (and presumably the audience) is operating under is entirely wrong.
Incidentally, I get your meaning but technically I don't believe any plot with holes throughout can be saved by a late MacGuffin, because any such object that is both introduced late and whose details are critical to the mechanics of the plot is actually a MacGuffin. MacGuffins are important without internal justification and have to drive the plot in some way which they can't do at the end (although, having said that, it would be an interesting creative challenge to write a story that does just that).
@UmbertoDelRio I totally agree bud, id whole heartedly agree neither avatar or end game are best movie of all time or even close. They’re simply hugely marketed consumer products as you put it 😉. I just don’t get why being top grossing movie or top 3, or whatever ranking matters to all these people who aren’t profiting one bit from its financial success.
Amazing movie but the fact it had to be re released to beat it is disappointing. Avatar 2 is in the makings and will most likely beat endgame and re claim it’s throne.
Well, Avatar was also re-released which earned sth around 33.2 million $, so...
More critical to Avatar's large numbers I think was the fact that it was heavily marketed as a must-see 3D movie. 3D tickets cost a lot more, which means Avatar received more revenue per viewing than most other movies on average.
To say that this thread took a "different" turn would be an understatement, look,I'm a big marvel fan,you can call me a fanboy if that satisfies your childish sense of humor, but I have grown up watching marvel shows and movies ,playing marvel games and reading marvel comics,and when I found out that endgame had beaten avatar I was excited and I created this thread with the thought in mind that those who shared my excitement towards the fact that a movie that featured characters that I love and grew up with would share my enthusiasm. That to say the least want the case as a lot of people were being negative and judgmental of a thing that was already judged by it's critical reception and most prominently it's commercial reception. So to end this topic,if you're as happy as I am about this record being set then you're more than welcome here,otherwise please don't just comment for the sake of commenting. Thank you.
To say that this thread took a "different" turn would be an understatement, look,I'm a big marvel fan,you can call me a fanboy if that satisfies your childish sense of humor, but I have grown up watching marvel shows and movies ,playing marvel games and reading marvel comics,and when I found out that endgame had beaten avatar I was excited and I created this thread with the thought in mind that those who shared my excitement towards the fact that a movie that featured characters that I love and grew up with would share my enthusiasm. That to say the least want the case as a lot of people were being negative and judgmental of a thing that was already judged by it's critical reception and most prominently it's commercial reception. So to end this topic,if you're as happy as I am about this record being set then you're more than welcome here,otherwise please don't just comment for the sake of commenting. Thank you.
A man went to his friend's house to watch a football game. The Bears were playing the Vikings and were getting slaughtered. His friend, who was a big Bears fan was sitting there dejected but his friend's father, who was also a huge Bears fan, seemed to be extremely happy. He was jumping up and down and cheering whenever the Vikings scored on the Bears. The man leaned over to his friend and asked him what was up. He said his father's eyesight had gone bad recently and he couldn't see the game very well, and thought the Bears were winning instead of the Vikings. "Why don't you tell him he's cheering for the wrong team?" the man asked.
"Why would I do that: he's watching a better game than I am."
Comments
Sometimes time travel is introduced into a story for lazy reasons: to undo the consequences of an otherwise irreversible story event or to work around the fact the plot doesn't offer any logical way to progress. That's a question of execution. But anyone who says that *all* time travel stories automatically have these problems is just wrong. End game doesn't have either of those problems.
First of all, the infinity stones were clearly established to have enough power to change reality, which is how they dusted everyone off in the first place. End game doesn't introduce time travel to undo the snap because it was irreversible, it introduces time travel as part of a plot to force the Avengers to recollect the stones instead of just taking them back from Thanos. In that respect, the time travel adds a conflict point, it doesn't erase one. The *lazy* thing to do would be to just have the Avengers fight Thanos again and take the stones back, leaving open the possibility for Thanos to come back in a few years and do it all over again.
Second, time travel wasn't introduced because there was no way to progress from Infinity War, because as mentioned at the end of Infinity War there was a way for the plot to progress: take the stones back from Thanos. It was End game itself that deliberately eliminated that option at the start of End game, so you can't say time travel was only introduced as a lazy way to work around a pre-existing plot problem.
Time travel is no more lazy a scifi device than warp drive and hyperspace are just lazy ways to get around the speed of light. I don't see many people brave enough to accuse H.G. Wells of using time travel as a lazy tool to get out of a creative hole. Scifi is nothing but "lazy tools" used to make an otherwise impossible leap in fiction - that's where the fiction comes from in science fiction - and while time travel is an easy way out for writers at times, it is also an easy way out for critics as well.
Having said that, I don't think you can judge any movie or story work in general by its pieces alone. A script riddled with plotholes solved by a late Macguffin is likely to be problematic because that sounds like these things happened by accident, and that level of accident and lack of care strongly implies the whole thing is unlikely to work. But without seeing the whole, you can't know if those things aren't there for a specific artistic reason. Sometimes good artists break the conventional rules in ways the rule writers didn't anticipate.
You could argue that a script riddled with plotholes solved by a late discovery is Murder on the Orient Express. The plot is full of holes until Poirot realizes the theory he (and presumably the audience) is operating under is entirely wrong.
Incidentally, I get your meaning but technically I don't believe any plot with holes throughout can be saved by a late MacGuffin, because any such object that is both introduced late and whose details are critical to the mechanics of the plot is actually a MacGuffin. MacGuffins are important without internal justification and have to drive the plot in some way which they can't do at the end (although, having said that, it would be an interesting creative challenge to write a story that does just that).
Thank you.
"Why would I do that: he's watching a better game than I am."