The biggest let down with Endgame was not Fat Thor. (Spoilers)

[Donald]

Presented without comment. Everything is explained here, ...

The Ancient One said the stones create what we perceive as the flow of time. Thanos destroyed the stones. So time should stop? Go wibbly wobbly?

Are we sure Gamora jumped to the main timeline? That should create another timeline as well.

[WebLurker]

The Ancient One said the stones create what we perceive as the flow of time. Thanos destroyed the stones. So time should stop? Go wibbly wobbly?

Don't remember that.

Are we sure Gamora jumped to the main timeline? That should create another timeline as well.

Yes, she did; she was on Thanos's ship when it left it's splinter timeline and entered our's. That would mean the splinter timeline still exists out there, since that timeline's version of Thanos and his crew were killed and never went back and alt Gamorra is still around here somewhere. However, unlike the timelines where the Infinity Stones were taken, not pruning it off won't lead to a bad future for that timeline, so there's no "needed" reason to "fix" things.

[Donald]

Don't remember that.

1:18 mark experience, not perceive.

However, unlike the timelines where the Infinity Stones were taken, not pruning it off won't lead to a bad future for that timeline, so there's no "needed" reason to "fix" things.

The AO "bad timeline" were from her perspective (and general common sense), giving the Time Stone away makes that future vulnerable to Dormammu. Gamora not being in that timeline can cause bad outcomes, not stopping Ronan is bad for the Nova corp and anyone else Ronan decides to target. Popping the stones they used to unsnap everyone back in history doesn't mean there are no alternate realities or that they are all "good timelines".

[WebLurker]

1:18 mark experience, not perceive.

Of course, messing with the stones just "splits the flow of time"...

The AO "bad timeline" were from her perspective (and general common sense), giving the Time Stone away makes that future vulnerable to Dormammu. Gamora not being in that timeline can cause bad outcomes, not stopping Ronan is bad for the Nova corp and anyone else Ronan decides to target. Popping the stones they used to unsnap everyone back in history doesn't mean there are no alternate realities or that they are all "good timelines".

Fair enough.

[AnakinFlair]

My biggest issue with time travel is if it undermines a lot of things -- Back to the Future is relatively fine since it was new at the time, whereas Star Trek is super careful not to do so precisely because it has years and years of canon behind

I'm sorry, and maybe this has been addressed in the thread so far, but what are you saying about Star Trek and time travel? Because that whole franchise is LITTERED with time travel plots. The Kelvin-verse is a result of time travel. They just did a season of time travel on Star Trek: Discovery, and there were multiple convoluted time travel stories in the other Star Trek shows. Star Trek's 4 and 8 both had time travel as central to the plot, and even Star Trek 7 had time travel elements with the Nexus. And all of them, to me anyways, were messier than Endgame's use of time travel.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm sorry, and maybe this has been addressed in the thread so far, but what are you saying about Star Trek and time travel? Because that whole franchise is LITTERED with time travel plots. The Kelvin-verse is a result of time travel. They just did a season of time travel on Star Trek: Discovery, and there were multiple convoluted time travel stories in the other Star Trek shows. Star Trek's 4 and 8 both had time travel as central to the plot, and even Star Trek 7 had time travel elements with the Nexus. And all of them, to me anyways, were messier than Endgame's use of time travel.

Yeah I don't get this at all. First off Back to the Future is quite literally a story about time travel. It flat out doesn't work if you can't make that an element of the plot. It would be an entirely different film.

Star Trek's most famous episode is a time travel episode and, as you pointed out, they played in that realm many times

[luprki]

Back to the Future and Star Trek’s time travel was fairly simple, straightforward and cohesive. Endgame time travel is all over the place and is full of messy contradictions. The message from Endgame is changing the past doesn’t change the present, until it’s convenient.

[Jokerz79]

Back to the Future and Star Trek’s time travel was fairly simple, straightforward and cohesive. Endgame time travel is all over the place and is full of messy contradictions. The message from Endgame is changing the past doesn’t change the present, until it’s convenient.

The present was never changed.

[WebLurker]

Back to the Future and Star Trek’s time travel was fairly simple, straightforward and cohesive.

Are you frakking kidding me?! It was not.

Endgame time travel is all over the place and is full of messy contradictions.

Sounds lie you need to see the movie again; the sci-fi science was spoon-fed to us and explained in layperson's terms more then once ("you mean Back to the Future is bull****?").

The message from Endgame is changing the past doesn’t change the present, until it’s convenient.

One frakking plot hole at the very end which is more dramatic license then anything else; that's pretty darn good for a time travel story and easily one of the cleanest I've seen. Are you just trying to troll us here or something?

[Powerboy]

Back to the Future and Star Trek’s time travel was fairly simple, straightforward and cohesive. Endgame time travel is all over the place and is full of messy contradictions. The message from Endgame is changing the past doesn’t change the present, until it’s convenient.

Back to the Future time travel may be the most consistent I've seen.

Star Trek time travel has been all over the place with the rules of how time travel works changed to fit the needs of the episode.

In some episodes, it rewrites the base reality. In others, it creates an alternate reality. In some, that alternate reality can then be erased as if it never existed. In others, it's permanent. In others like "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the solution simply makes no sense. It's a cluster.

Endgame was vastly more consistent and even the things you are calling contradictions were explained right in the story. You just won't accept the explanations.

[Powerboy]

One frakking plot hole at the very end which is more dramatic license then anything else; that's pretty darn good for a time travel story and easily one of the cleanest I've seen. Are you just trying to troll us here or something?

The ending may be a plot hole but we don't have enough information. It's far more likely it didn't change history *as far as almost anybody knew*. It did change history but maybe a few people knew about it and kept it secret.

I'm not a fan of using time travel to resolve something that previously was not a time travel story but I still think it explained it's own rules and stuck to them. There are a couple of questionable points. But, compared to Star Trek? As you said, not even close.

To paraphrase something Roger Ebert once said about the first Tomb Raider movie: I'm told there are a couple of contradictions. Wow. A movie about a team of heroes going back to multiple time periods and interacting with their past selves while trying to retrieve six gems of infinite power and avoid a universe shattering madman has a couple of slipups on how time travel works for the sake of the greater drama? I am shocked. But I was watching this for the drama and fun, not for a scientific treatise on how time travel works.

Maybe they could simply have swiped the gems from an alternate reality and attracted the attention of the Thanos of that reality instead of timer travel. But the story tellers wanted them to interact with the history of the movies.

[WebLurker]

Back to the Future time travel may be the most consistent I've seen.

Except for how in Part II, Marty and Doc are protected from the changes when Old Biff steals the car to give his younger self the record book (in fact, the future stays the same despite Biff having already changed the past with stuff not taking effect until they return to their present) and Doc taking Marty to change his son's future despite spending the rest of the movie making it clear that the timeline should be kept sacrosanct. Still, pretty good overall/

Star Trek time travel has been all over the place with the rules of how time travel works changed to fit the needs of the episode.

In some episodes, it rewrites the base reality. In others, it creates an alternate reality. In some, that alternate reality can then be erased as if it never existed. In others, it's permanent. In others like "Tomorrow is Yesterday", the solution simply makes no sense. It's a cluster.

Yeah, I think some can be handwaved (different technologies and/or anomalies acting differently, the differences between a predestination paradox trip and one that wasn't "supposed" to happen, etc,), but there is no unifying theory (although the author of a non-canon novel did try to create one that collected everything into one consistent model and actually pulled it off).

Endgame was vastly more consistent and even the things you are calling contradictions were explained right in the story. You just won't accept the explanations.

I'll second that.

The ending may be a plot hole but we don't have enough information. It's far more likely it didn't change history *as far as almost anybody knew*. It did change history but maybe a few people knew about it and kept it secret.

Well, according to what we know, Cap would've been living in a splinter timeline, so it's more a question of how he got back to the main timeline without using the portal, but, like I said, I think it was because it worked better for impact.

I'm not a fan of using time travel to resolve something that previously was not a time travel story but I still think it explained it's own rules and stuck to them. There are a couple of questionable points. But, compared to Star Trek? As you said, not even close.

To paraphrase something Roger Ebert once said about the first Tomb Raider movie: I'm told there are a couple of contradictions. Wow. A movie about a team of heroes going back to multiple time periods and interacting with their past selves while trying to retrieve six gems of infinite power and avoid a universe shattering madman has a couple of slipups on how time travel works for the sake of the greater drama? I am shocked. But I was watching this for the drama and fun, not for a scientific treatise on how time travel works.

Yeah, good storytelling should make internal sense, but there is a time to fudge details if it works better.

Maybe they could simply have swiped the gems from an alternate reality and attracted the attention of the Thanos of that reality instead of timer travel. But the story tellers wanted them to interact with the history of the movies.

That was exactly what happened though.

[luprki]

Well, according to what we know, Cap would've been living in a splinter timeline, so it's more a question of how he got back to the main timeline without using the portal, but, like I said, I think it was because it worked better for impact.

No, it was a convenience and contradiction to the messy time traveling rules in this movie

[Powerboy]

No, it was a convenience and contradiction to the messy time traveling rules in this movie

The rules themselves were very solid but there were a couple of questionable points as to whether they stuck to the rules. You will create an alternate timeline by going back and swiping an infinity gem. But once you return that gem to the exact instant it was taken- so that it effectively was never removed- that other reality will correct itself and never have happened.

The problem is whether there were some things that defied that premise.

[WebLurker]

No, it was a convenience and contradiction to the messy time traveling rules in this movie

Proof by assertion is not a valid argument and that's all you have to lean on. I've refuted your position by citing "facts" from the movie itself. The fact that you've been able to offer an effective counterargument using the same criteria indicates you are either unable to offer one with credible backing or you don't care and are just repeating your own opinion despite the weight of evidence against it. Until you can offer something based on "fact" to disprove me, all I can say is that you are wrong in your assessment and I do not understand your obsession with proving that the movie was messy.