Yes, there has always been “serious” (your term, not mine) movies and fluff. Great deduction. There’s always been gun deaths too, but the existence of gun deaths in the 50s doesn’t disprove the existence of a gun problem now.

You can explain any bad character action in any bad story with “people aren’t rational”. In the same way it’s not a strict binary between “they have to either write Quill badly or Thanos badly, those are the only two options!”, it’s not a strict binary that a character be either so rational to the point of being a…

When Twitter was incensed about people calling Arya a Mary Sue, I tried to find the origin of it but all I could find was Jack Posobiec trolling after the fact.

How can a second franchise reboot and multiple remakes of existing properties that prey on nostagia be considered be considered an end to itself?

Star Wars *was* the beginning of the end of cinema so this is ironic. If anything this is the end point of what Lucas started.

How does Superman being around for 100 years disprove any claim he made in the article? Did you read it?

It’s a strict binary? Either they do something lazy with Quill or they do something lazy with Thanos? Those are the only two options this movie could have lead to?

There’s a ton of mis-steps, having Tony be reluctant to travel back in time because he’s the only Avenger that’s moved on and has the most to lose only to reveal nothing they do in the past affects the present, setting up that Thanos needed the power of a star to make an infinity gauntlet only to have Tony make his…

It’s not the pissed part that’s lazy. It’s the freeing the big bad that’s almost beaten that needs explanation.

You do need “backstory” (more accurately, established character traits) when the person is holding the idiot ball. Otherwise it’s just some guy doing something that feels stupid in a contrived way because the script needed him to do it (hey, that’s exactly what happened!)

But when you do it without establishing character it feels like he doomed the world because it was a lazy, narrative shortcut (which it was).

When that losing his temper involves freeing the guy who’s been destroying the universe when he is almost defeated? A little more than “this is out of nowhere”.

Marvel has a huge problem with having their characters believe something before a fight and then having that belief change after the fight, even though there was nothing in the fight to explain the change. That would be another problem I’d highlight with Infinity War that Dr Strange becomes victim to. Now, let’s just…

But everyone acts similarly petty and childish (certainly Thor matches him on the ship) and no one else does a very clearly bad thing which dooms the universe.

Yes, it’s clear that he loved Gamora. But how that leads to him performing a clearly bad action that dooms the universe is not set up. Is it in character for him to do something like this? I have no idea based on Infinity War alone.

I don’t know. Watching the first hour of this movie, it shows the kind of movie it would be if it took the Last Jedi route, and man that movie looks good.

The first hour is so good. Having 3 hours, it feels like they didn’t even bother with making a Marvel movie (and all the obligations that entails) and made something more truthful and funny and interesting. It then takes short cuts in the second hour that undercuts some of the best stuff in the first hour, but is…

I would say the movies are similarly flawed, except Infinity War is all middle and Endgame, while needing to service not just half of another movie, but 20 others, still manages to tell a beginning, middle and end.

The lunch thing is based on the actual setup for lunch at B99 (which Dan Goor goes into here; https://headgum.com/doughboys/poquito-mas-with-dan-goor ) and it’s even crazier than what was shown here, which contributes to the slightness.

Ooh, an actor *may* be up for a role but we’re not sure which one.