AVENGERS ASSEMBLE!!!...The Avengers Infinity War Part 2 Thread

They were being racist because he wasn't from Earth. *rimshot*

Actually, he technically already was. Quick timeline...

• Rick Jones was a member of the Avengers.
• Wants to make it on his own and even tosses his Avengers I.D. away so he wasn't tempted to use it. (You know, like getting preferential treatment at airport security. Something they showed Steve Rogers doing on one occasion.)

• Finds Negabands and merges with Captian Marvel.

• Jones' membership then included Marvel.

Membership also meant he had to be on call. Something Marvel never wanted to do. It very much was the same type of relationship Green Arrow had with the JLA for several years. "I'm busy helping the little people, leave a message and I might get back to you."

He died in Marvel Comic's first graphic novel. And Marvel swore they would never, ever, ever bring him back, pinkie swear...

...and years later did anyway.

Plenty:
Spiderman 1 and 2
Superman Returns
Batman Mask of the Phantasm
Superman vs The Elite
Hancock
Fantastic 4
Green Lantern

To name but a few. Hopefully I dont need to point this out but I will anyway, keep in mind that you asked for Superhero movies, not necessarily good movies. Theres some proper stinkers in there.

My own personal definition of a Superhero Movie, which will obviously and rightfully differ from others, is a Movie based on a person/being with either extraordinary powers or abilities or drive, that protects the innocent at all costs, even if it cost them the ultimate price, and never ever kills as they are aware of the consequences of crossing that line. Maybe that just makes me old fashioned. We're living in a time just after the "Anti-Hero" became famous and so the lines are very blurred. I grew up with a Superman who believed "Theres always a better way" and a Spiderman who showed that even he internally struggled with not crossing the line but never gave in. They were stories to inspire, not to feed someone need for unnecessary violence.

Grant Morrison got it right when he stated that our "Superheroes" are now our modern Mythology. So the question becomes, would you rather read about a hero who shows you that mercy is tough but ultimately the right thing to do, or the merciless who kill "otherwordly cannon fodder" and Henchmen and then crack jokes about it like they havent just crossed a line?

I know what my choice would be.

I totally see what your saying, and I agree with you. It's a bit more of a classic perspective but I get it. The thing is with this classic "there's another way" story is just that I've seen it way too many times. In books, in comics, in TV shows, in movies, etc.. I guess I'm just looking for something a bit different than the classic superhero behavior I grew up on.

But just one question: Don't you think some people deserve to die? I agree, that there's ways to avoid a villain death, but many times, death is the only way to defeat them (Jean Grey from X3 for example). And even if there is another way, what if someone did something so vile and horrific, that even death would be a pleasantry to them?

Didn't say he didn't

Trying to remember some examples of that, can't find any, care to give a few?

^^^ Way before Kickass, there was a movie called, Hero at Large.

It was great at showing what would happen if an every-day type guy decided to put on the tights.

I'll be honest, I was thinking along those lines pretty recently too. It was thanks to the New 52 and its terrible "edgey" approach to 100% of its characters. They turned Superman into this silent mopey brute who seemed to enjoy violence rather than find alternatives. And then DC came out with Rebirth.

I could go into a whole books-worth of everything they did right with so many characters but to stick to the point with Superman here, Brian Bendis was announced as the guy taking over both Superman titles even though Jurgens, Tomasi and Gleason were knocking it out of the park, and theres SO many examples I could give during their run on both comics but I think the most relevant here is Action Comics 999.

Fittingly its a title called "What would Superman do?" Jurgens wanted to wrap up his run so its split into 2 separate stories, the first being Lois properly introducing her Son to her Father Sam Lane and trying to find a middle ground where they can agree enough to just talk. Eventually this is helped by Clark, but the more prominent and more important story is Supermans. He's drifting in Space looking for an asteroid for a reason you are unaware of. He cuts it open and the internal monologue tells you theres a rare Metal substance inside. Long story short, he takes the material to his Fortress, fashions it into the strongest Cell on the planet, and frees Hank Henshaw from the Phantom Zone. During this Superman is recounting Henshaws history, including the people he's killed and the millions wiped out in Coast City, yet when you look at the words, its about understanding and pity:

Superman: "I thought the only way to protect the innocent from this madman...
...was to exile henshaw to the phantom zone.
But...what happens to a sick, tormented soul in that crushing void?
Doesnt that only serve to antagonize the demons that afflict him?
Jor-El saw the zone as a just prison of banishment.
Eventually, as Mr Oz, he continued that practice of imprisonment.
But I dont believe in practicing cruelty.
I have no wish to torment henshaw for his crimes.
Not when the best way to prevent him from killing again...
is to help him find his way back to the man he was."

THERE'S a superhero. That alone shows you exactly who Superman truly is. He made a mistake by locking him up in, basically, hell, and wants to undo it and still try to help his enemy. He knows henshaws killed countless people, but he's also intelligent enough to understand both that his judgment can be flawed and that cruelty begets cruelty. Its the definition of mercy.

When henshaw is freed and tried to attack him, the first thing he says to henshaw is "I want to talk henshaw, I want to help". internally hes trying to figure out how to stop the fight from even starting. "Stop this, give me a chance, listen to me". He throws henshaw against a wall and says "WHY? Why go back to the zone and rot.... when I can give you a better life?". Henshaw questions this and Superman explains, once again, exactly who he is:

Superman: "You killed millions.
No prison sentence can make up for that.
No cell will hold you.
All I can do is make sure you never kill again.
My only option, or so I thought...
...was the Phantom Zone.
But before you lost everything and everyone you cared about...
...you were a good, decent man.
If your ship had returned Safely there never would have been a Cyborg Superman.
But that isnt how history played out, and I still have to secure you, Humanely."

(Superman leads henshaw into the Metal cell)

Henshaw: you actually think this can hold me?

"I think you'll want to stay.
This Kryptonian crystal can take your most precious memories and make them come alive.
These tangible holographic visions will let you relive the happiest moments of your life"

Henshaw: to what end?

Superman: "You cant go free...
...but that doesnt mean I cant give you something better than the phantom zone"

Henshaw: Why not kill me and be done with it?

Superman: "We both know that isnt an option.
You'll pay for what you did with confinement...
...and maybe even get rehabilitated in the process.

Henshaw: Nothing can do that! Theres no way I'll ever be....
be...
whole...

Supermans internal monologue:
Just as the crystal helped me visit my past, it takes henshaw back.
It delves deep into his mind, finding events most important to him...
...and makes them real.
(Picture of human henshaw with his wife and best friend)
Those he cares most about are back...
...with him in their midst, laughing and sharing each others company.
Its the closest thing to a life of true happiness he'll ever know...
...until I can come up with something better.
Now he can spend his days with friends and family.
Isnt that what all of us want?
Sometimes it just takes a little extra effort to make it happen.

Mercy. In its truest form. Its a risk obviously, but he'd rather take a risk and believe that henshaw can recapture his humanity, than leave him in hell. Its a stellar comicbook and one hell of a way for Jurgens to finish off his perfect run on Action Comics. I'd highly recommend reading it, if not his whole run on AC during Rebirth.


As for the whole "death penalty" question, thats an endless debate. Theres too many factors to it to answer that properly. Historically a lot of real life killing sprees were enacted by kids, teenagers, so then the debate becomes should kids be killed or should they get the help they need? Whats the age limit of the difference? Who decides that? Who should decide that? What if an adult has the mindset of a child? Sticking to "Heroes" though, no. They should never be judge jury and executioner. If they become that, then who's laws are they abiding by? Ours or their own?

In Real Life Timeline, Captain Marvel was not part of the MCU until now, so Fury could not have called for her.

It's not reaching at all. Half the galaxy being killed is a damn big specific emergency. And it's not shoehorning her in if the character played a role in the original comic story.

Explain what was really bad about it?

Did you really just start your reply to a post and a thread discussing fictional films with "In real life"?

Ive been wrong on the forums, many times, others have too, and we can freely discuss and admit that because theres nothing wrong with being wrong. You learn from it which is always good. Dont grasp at straws, it just makes a mockery of any point you ever had. Im discussing how Marvel is now telling everyone that Fury apparently had Cap Marvel on speed dial and how ridiculous of an idea that is considering every World-Ending event that has come before. Also, dont dilute discussions with speculation, theres nothing in the movie nor in the post credits scene that tells you Fury knows its half the world thats gone. All he saw was 4 people turn to dust and suddenly that warrants Marvels help?

Nope, not buying it at all sorry.

This is a really good post and I'm glad you backed it up with so much awesome evidence

But back on the topic: What if the person in question is unable to be rehabilitated? Take Joker for example. Do you think he can get back to who he was before his transformation?

Imagine I'm Star Lord. And my arch-nemesis Thanos kills the love of my life, Gamora. What do I do? Would I go and talk to him, and try to say "I'm going to help you heal, even if you killed the love of my life". No. I would decide to kill Thanos without a second thought.

Revenge is just a more realistic option than mercy is. And as morally correct as mercy may be, it only benefits one person. Now death is a second rate option when compared to something like torture. Now that is where I could give "mercy" to someone's life. That's the thing about classic superheroes: they're too fictional. Imagine the reaction of the fans if Star-lord didn't attempt to kill Thanos. What would that say about his character? What would that say about his love? He would be merciful, but at what cost? Revenge is just returning the favor. And sure, I guess Superman can be excused from this (considering he's an alien), but revenge is natural. Mercy isn't. It doesn't matter how morally righteous you are, cause at the end of the day, your feelings will always win. Your feelings decide if you're merciful or revengeful.

Now you're probs thinking: Well then what separated the hero from the villain if a revengeful act is committed by the hero? Especially if the villain itself is a villain due to his/her thirst for revenge. (Which is often the case)

This is where I agree with you: If there is a villain out there, that was deeply hurt by something, or someone, that made them become someone who is relentlessly pursuing revenge, then they can be healed. They can be rehabilitated. But if a villain's act become's more than revenge, and starts hurting innocents, then that line is crossed. Revenge and Bloodlust are two very different things.

I might've gone a bit too off topic . Sorry, but I enjoy having a good conversation about ethics.

Yes, because that is where we live. Fury didn't call Captain Marvel in Avengers 1 because Captain Marvel as a character didn't exist in the MCU when Avengers 1 was made.

This is kind frustrating trying to explain to you. I feel like Col. Sanders:


Especially because you replied to another post basically saying we have time on lock.

All of this is true.

I'm not grasping at straws. Captain Marvel didn't exist. Fury could not have called her for every world-ending event. Captain Marvel was important to the original Infinity War story, which I assume Avengers: Infinity War is based on. So now they introduce her and create a movie that takes place 30 years ago. That is literally why Captain Marvel did not show up, nor was mentioned in Avengers 1.

Nobody knows why and for how long Fury had Captain Marvel on speed dial. You don't know what, if any, reason she wasn't fighting for Earth.

And it's never crossed your mind that maybe, just maybe, all those irritating little questions that are bothering you will be addressed in the Captain Marvel film? After all, flashback/retcon stories do tend to do that, and given that Captain Marvel's film is set in the past, there's a good likelihood of questions being answered.

I think this is where we differ on opinion about revenge and mercy. Revenge to me isnt a natural or realistic option, its just the easiest. You hurt me, ill hurt you. Its so easy for anyone to succumb to that, any of us. But thats why we learn and grow, so we can try to be better. Its why theres that old saying that "the problem with an eye for an eye is everyone ends up blind". The surgence of the "Anti-Hero" only fed this too. Suddenly Red Hood and Deadpool and Spawn were good guys, even though they were brutally killing people. But anti-heroes arent Superheroes, which is why they're lumped into a new subcategory. Doing the right thing is always going to be 1000 times harder than doing the wrong thing, but it has greater benefits.

As to it only benefitting 1 person, ive always seen it as the exact opposite. Revenge and killing someone is about what you want, singularly. In your example StarLord wasnt trying to kill Thanos because it'll save the galaxy, he hurt him, so he wanted to hurt him back. On the other side, mercy benefits many, as it shows people a better way. Ive always been a great believer in "lead by example", so you can show people that indulging base emotions and getting revenge is right, or you can show them that you wont lower yourself to their level, rise above it. Im not a pacifist or anything, i believe in fighting for whats right, but everyone has a choice.

I suppose a great example of this that i always remember is Superman discussing humanity with WW and Flash (not trying to go on and on about Superman here, hes just had some of the best subtle yet mindblowing speeches in comics)

From JLA #4, Supes WW and Flash are basically discussing things like this, why they dont just take over, why they dont kill, why they dont just fix the world the way they want to-

Superman: i can only tell you what i believe Diana. Humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny, we cant carry them there.

Flash: But thats what shes saying, whats the point? Why should they need us at all?

Superman: To catch them if they fall.

Thats why Superman Is not just a hero, but was always considered as the JLs/JLAs moral compass. He knows they have the power to just fix everything, but that would be THEIR version of a fix, not necessarily humanities. The Superman from Injustice went the route you mentioned, and he's certainly not a hero anymore.

Im afraid you are, grasping at anything to hold onto a point that doesnt exist. Trying to argue that another film will have to be made to explain this films glaring flaws in logic? Im not sure how many times ive gotta say im not buying it before you see that im not buying it lol.

Real world politics and agreements and contracts have absolutely, positively, nothing to do with a films plot and writing. End of. I think your issue is you're looking at this backwards or something. Im not saying Marvel should have used its Movie Money to invent a time machine, go back, and insert Cap Marvel into the other films. Im saying it was a ridiculously badly thought out end credits sequence because its telling you Fury called a guy with a bow instead of one of Marvels strongest heroes when (insert any Avengers Movie) happened.

Its basically like Batman having Jimmy Olsens Superman signal watch, Darkseid boom tubing to Earth, and he decides to call in The Creeper instead for (insert any kind of rational reason here).

if you're getting frustrated with logic then just dont reply. Relativity is what it is, it hasnt changed, so if the Cap Marvel movie is based 30yrs ago then that one little scene makes not calling her any other time the world was going to end nonsensical.

Oh good, more speculation mixed with a pepper of condescension. Firstly theres no questions irritating me, it was a terrible scene, done and dusted. Secondly you have as little information about the film as i or anyone else does, so the ol "Schrodingers Cat" scenario applies here.

What you are failing to understand, is Marvel has, from the very beginning of it's MCU, intentionally written things so that some minor 'plot holes' from one movie get resolved in another, so if you only watch one movie there will be things left 'unresolved'

Wait until the damn jacking movie has been released and see why Danvers had never been mentioned before, and where she has been and what she has been doing. You are the one demanding answers right NAO!!! Instead of waiting like everyone else!!

Maybe Blatman called in Creeper instead of Soupcan, because Soupcan was on the other side of the Galaxy and Olsen's tin whistle's range doesn't reach that far

No, I actually stopped myself before I inserted any sort of actual speculation on my part. I was going to include a passage about my interpretations of the post-credits scene but stopped before I finished.

Why? Because we have very little solid information. I have my own ideas, and given how some flashback/retcon movies and/or TV episodes play out I wouldn't be surprised if some of my ideas end up being right while others are totally off the mark. So I'm gonna take the patient path and see what the story they tell in Captain Marvel is going to be like before I jump to any conclusions about whether or not there are plot holes in a post-credits scene from a previous film.

Im afraid its a yes actually. You went on to discuss how "flashback/retcon movies" go, which you have no idea of. We dont know its in that format. The first real connection between Cap Marvel and IF might be in Avengers 4 for all we know. Thus; speculation.

Are you all seriously happy with the idea of having a film mess up in the writing department and then have to wait for a completely different movie to come along and clean it up? Honestly? This isnt an unanswered plot-thread to be picked up by the next movie, its a very basic gap in logic. I dont think I could stand to watch any movie relying on something as flimsy as that tbh. As stated before, theres a good few ways they could have teased Marvel without butchering the logic of the previous films, but they didnt. Its not the first time either, Tony blows up his suits and suddenly he didnt, Loki controlling Selvig and then suddenly he isnt, the **** scientist from Cap 1 (cant remember his name) being in captivity yet at the same time not. I enjoy a good film, whether its Marvel or DC, whether its Superhero or not, but trying to repeat the same terrible argument for your precious bulletproof Marvel Studios will get you's nowhere.

Im willing to listen and to be proven wrong, but im done seeing the same nonsensical "to enjoy film A you'll need film B" rubbish and repeating myself. Its over, find an actual reason why she couldnt have been called, or else currently it doesnt make sense, no matter whats coming out in months/years.