If you can't change the past, just create an alternate time line, then there is still a time line where half the universe is dead.
.
If you can't change the past, just create an alternate time line, then there is still a time line where half the universe is dead.
.
Sounds perfect.
Yes, the Infinity Wars timeline still exist with half of the universe is still dead. Endgame didn’t solve anything, it just gave us a different timeline, a total cop out.
No. While the Decimation time timeline continued to exist, they resurrected everyone killed in the Snap in the present of that timeline. All the different timelines were erased by returning the Stones. Seriously, all this was explained in the movie itself pretty bluntly.
When they "went back" in time, they create a parallel timeline and stayed there until they retuned to the present of their own timeline to reassemble the Infinity Gauntlet using alternate reality Infinity Stones. The movie did explain this.
Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
(All-New Wolverine #4)
Actually, my pet peeve is people who use the word "trope" especially over and over. By definition, everything in a story is a trope.
I'm sure we can nickpick the continuity of how time travel works just as we can in Star Trek. I also get it if the story just didn't work for you but it mostly worked for me quite nicely *as a story* and I say that as someone who thought some of the time travel results were questionable.
Power with Girl is better.
No, rewatch the scene when the Ancient One and Hulk discuss the problem; returning the stones "prunes" the branches; Hulk specifically explains that after the Ancient One argues that giving him her Stone will screw up her future.
That is literally the exact opposite of what everyone in the movie says.
Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
(All-New Wolverine #4)
Just to support this statement, an analogy helped me out early on to understand what the word "Trope" meant. Consider a story as any material -- liquid, gas, solid, whatever. Whether it be a desk or ketchup or oxygen, the one thing they all have in common is that they're comprised and bound by molecules. Different compositions of molecules, but molecules nonetheless. The story is the material, but tropes are the molecular bonds. And tropes evolve based on what the writer knows over their vast knowledge and experience; after all, every writer writes (and must write) what they know.
Even if you're trying to avoid a trope, it's still in acknowledgement of the trope's existence, too. Trying to avoid a cliche still means using a trope in some way -- an aversion, subversion, avoidance, etc. Avoiding a trope typically means seeing warning signs. You know you're trying to create ketchup and not marinara sauce; you know what it takes to create one and not the other, and hopefully you know how to prevent your ketchup from turning into any other sauce.
So tropes are the building blocks of stories. No story, no matter how original, is without tropes. Stories themselves came from poems and anecdotes and history, but the first tropes were often repeated by oral storytellers seeking to create new stories out of the ones they had heard when those stories were passed down.
Also, this is an an almost meta example of trope aversion, but still requiring the knowledge of said-trope. The writers explicitly said that time travel in the movie wouldn't work like it does in Star Trek, so they sought to avoid the time travel tropes found there (and as they point out, not unique to Star Trek either). But the fact that the writers had the characters use Star Trek, BTTF, and others as references put on full display the awareness of that trope. In order for the writers to avoid those tropes, they had to know about them in the first place.I'm sure we can nickpick the continuity of how time travel works just as we can in Star Trek. I also get it if the story just didn't work for you but it mostly worked for me quite nicely *as a story* and I say that as someone who thought some of the time travel results were questionable.
Last edited by Cyke; 07-08-2019 at 11:34 AM.
IDK, I kinda liked the struggle of things actually working out for Tony and Banner but understanding that if they have a chance to save billions they can, even if it means changing things that could potentially ruin what they have now. In Tony's case, he paid the ultimate price and his daughter will grow up without a father.
Check out my blog for Comic Reviews and other things. https://markepicblogofrandomness.blogspot.com/
I also started The AEW Crew, the All Elite Wrestling Fan Club! https://www.facebook.com/groups/637508120044168/
Exactly. The movie had characters explaining how time travel "really works" in detail specifically to clarify that they were actually changing the past, not creating an alternate timeline.
I think the first time I ever read the idea of time travel as an alternate timeline was in David Gerrold's the Man who F'd I mean Folded Himself. It was a great idea to make time travel a little more palatable to our linear minded brains. But it's only one take on time travel. The Avengers took a point of view that there is one reality or at least only one that is accessible and it can be rewritten.
Power with Girl is better.