Talk:Avengers: Endgame

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lcerone.

Long-term addressing of the cast structure

This film's pre-release marketing, including the poster billing, was all carefully designed to keep from spoiling the film. Larson, Gurira, and Wong were basically cameos in the film, which was mostly about the gen-one Avengers having one last big adventure before most of them die or retire, and this fact is already reflected in most of the post-release secondary sources (excluding the "spoiler-free" ones, which for this purpose are just as unreliable as primary marketing materials).

It seems really un-wiki-like to be structuring the cast section to match the deliberately misleading pre-release marketing given this context.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I second this. The billing on the poster is not indicative of overall screen presence. B91302 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be restructured. 12.16.29.18 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is "un-wiki-like", as there is a very specific wiki reason for doing it. However, that reason can be overridden with talk page consensus and I agree that there is room for improvement here. While I would argue for keeping Danvers since she is still prominently used in the film even if her screen time is not great, I agree that Gurira and Wong only have cameo appearances in the film and could be moved out of the main cast list if others agree. I think it is important that we get actual consensus before doing this, as we don't want to set a precedent for just ignoring this guideline willy-nilly (that would just be asking for trouble). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to keeping Larson in the bullet points too, but we need to base it on reliable secondary sources, which I imagine probably give just as much emphasis to Pratt and Holland (whose presence in the film was deliberately underplayed in the marketing, even though it doesn't appear to have technically been a "secret" since the sources we cite predate the film's release by years). Honestly, my top priority is still trimming the character bios and fixing them to match the characters' actual roles in this film; if we could agree that the character descriptions need work, and perhaps agree that not all bulleted cast members need their own character descriptions. Wong and Favreau, and to a slightly lesser extent Gurira, really shouldn't get their own bullet points though.

On a related note, how about we give a separate paragraph for the Tony funeral cameos (of which technically Favreau is also one)? I don't have a source at the moment, but typing "who were all the ch" into my Chrome URL bar led to the suggestion who were all the characters at tony stark funeral, so I imagine reliable sources should not be hard to come by. Currently Michelle Pfeiffer's two-second non-speaking cameo is given as Marquand, Pratt, Mackie, Hiddleston or Holland, even though it's hardly more prominent than the Howard the Duck cameo. (Please note that I'm not saying we should include Howard, a CGI character with no on-screen or even on-set actor, and no dialogue, in the article. It's just here for comparison purposes.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Larson should be moved to cameo but other than that the cast section is fine the way it is. Most of these people never even spoke (especially Samuel L. Jackson). Trillfendi (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: You seem to contradict yourself on this point -- most of these people never even spoke, but it's fine the way it is, giving equal weight to those who don't speak as those who speak more than those who are on the bill but died in Infinity War and so their names were deliberately left off the poster? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you realize I was referring to the people in the cameo subsection... not main characters. Trillfendi (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but a lot of the people in the cameo subsection are actually more prominent in terms of screen time, dialogue, "noteworthiness", and probably also salary, than several of the "main characters" on the poster billing. You say "especially Jackson", but actually there's a spectrum: Jackson is a very famous and powerful actor, who was probably paid more for his two-second cameo than several of the minor speaking roles, unless he appeared in the film gratis as a personal favour, and while we'll likely never know details like that, he is about twice as prominent on-screen as Pfeiffer and Douglas, while several of the other "cameos" were actually speaking roles that were apparently only left off the poster because the characters died in the previous film (in that several actors whose roles in the film were even less prominent actors were named on the poster because their characters were not confirmed dead in the previous film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Billing is not something that is intended to mislead but are carefully negotiated between actors and studios. That said, Wikipedia is not beholden to these negotiations but it is the most neutral way of structuring these lists to avoid discussions like this one that are based solely on POV.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm sure any actor would love to have their name on the poster for one of the highest-grossing films in history despite their actual role in the film being barely a cameo (Gurira, Wong, Favreau, and to a lesser extent Larson), while the studio definitely was misleading in the pre-release marketing for a very clear and understandable reading. I'm not criticizing either Disney/Marvel or any of the actors for any of this; I'm just saying we should be basing this content on reliable secondary sources rather than pre-release marketing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Also, please retract the above based solely on POV personal attack. You and Adam suddenly showing up here almost two weeks after this section was opened frankly looks a lot like you deliberately ignored the discussion so the section would be archived and then you could just revert any attempt to implement it, but I refrained from pointing that out until you made that remark, and I'd be happy to continue doing so if you make even the slightest effort to return the favour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell someone to remove a "personal attack" and then attack them back. I didn't know this section was here because every time I come to Wikipedia there has been literally hundreds of edits to this page and talk page, so I have not been able to keep up with it all and in general have been ignoring it. I'm sure Triiiple's been in a similar boat. I only saw this because I saw you make the change in the article, and now I am here to discuss. I agree with the three actors that you moved out of the cast list, I don't think anyone else should be moved, and at this point I would be happy if the discussion ended now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This was not intended to be personal against anyone in this discussion but based solely on history. These articles were at one time rife with edit wars with editors fighting over who they felt should be listed where. My apologies.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, with most of the other films in this franchise (the "history" you refer to) there was not such a large gulf between (a) reliable secondary sources written by people who had seen the film and (b) a combination of primary marketing materials that were deliberately keeping the details of the film secret and "secondary" sources that were completely reliant on said primary marketing materials. Captain America: The First Avenger's poster billing, for example, was a fairly good representation of the actual main cast of the film, and so after the film came out we didn't get an abundance of reliable secondary sources writing in a manner that was very inconsistent with the poster billing, and so if anyone was arguing that their favourite actor (Jackson, Choi, Armitage or Haddock) having a cameo in the film justified their getting a bullet point without a reliable secondary source it could be reasonably assumed to be based on personal opinion: this is definitely not the case here (at least it's not my personal opinion, but the opinions of the majority of professional critics who have seen the film). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect terms - no time travel

The Avengers travelled to a paralel universe, NOT into the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:CCD5:DC4F:F3AA:72E2 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was under the impression it was time travel, given the number of references to the term "time travel". - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

They travel through a "parallel universe" to travel through time. I use the inverted commas because Lang makes it clear he is explaining quantum entanglement in layman's terms. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how they do it, this is obviously just time travel. I think the plot summary explains it as shown in the film pretty clearly. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the obvious way forward for post-Endgame films is to explore time travel-related complications: Loki escaping with the Power Stone, Nebula killing her old self, Thanos dying in the future, etc. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't matter as far as our plot section goes - but the point was that by travelling back in time, they can't alter their present (that just becomes their past), but any changes they make do create alternate realities - however returning the stones back nullifies that (hence why Rogers goes back to do so). The movie yada yadas about how that actually happens, but that's the intent). -Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Time travel is completely accurate HAL333 20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC) They travel to an alternate dimension to go to the past but the alternate dimension s just like a gateway they dont stay there.

Time travel is an accurate term. However, when they make changes to the past, unless they did’t change anything, they create alternative universes, as the Ancient One explained to Banner. Corachow (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

[1] Director Joe Russo says If Cap were to go back into the past and live there, he would create a branched reality. This was explained by Hulk and the Ancient One in the film, and I have updated the plot to reflect it. It's a basic premise of the film. starship.paint (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add Kraglin back into cast list

Sean Gunn is credited as "on-set Rocket/Kraglin". He needs to be listed as such in the article as well. He wouldn't still be credited as Kraglin had he not appeared in the final cut of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B91302 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I second this. Sean Gunn should be credited.

 Done Added Sean Gunn as Kraglin to the cast list. GrendelNightmares (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

        Why isn't Kraglin back on the cast list???

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

I would like to add that Avengers is the first movie to ever go over a billion dollars in it's first weekend SlimeRancher2002 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this one.Kay girl 97 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It'll be added, but thdd hard part is finding the best citation. This week's Charting With Dan mentioned it, but it also mentioned about 8,000,000 other things that we probably should include, so accurately summarizing its contents would be quite a task (much more effort than should be put into answering an edit request), while cherry-picking this factoid from it (which if I recall correctly was only alluded to indirectly) would also be suboptimal. There's also the fact that "weekend" in this case includes the previous Wednesday in several large markets including China, so simply stating in Wikipedia's voice that it "earned more than one billion dollars in a single weekend" would be inappropriate. @SlimeRancher2002: Can you state exactly the text you would like to add to the article, and provide a source that explicitly supports that text? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Gangster8192 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Russia in the Box office

Ok so we’ve essentially entered an edit war and in lieu of reverting again I’ll take it here. It’s pretty simple: Deadline wrote a box office preview for the opening weekend projections of Endgame and wrote how over its first five days of international release the film would make “$680M abroad” and “$940M-$950M global” (writing “With the exception of Russia, which releases on Monday April 29, Endgame will go out everywhere day-and-date internationally beginning Wednesday. U.S./Canada starts off at 6 PM on Thursday.”). User NightShadow23 (who based on his edits but especially his choice of cited websites has ties to Russia, no fault there but could just mean he’s passionate to get the country included here) keeps changing the “Endgame was projected to gross $680 million over its first five days from every single foreign market (except Russia), for a global debut of around $940–950 million” to “Endgame was projected to gross $680 million over its first 10 days from every single foreign market, for a global debut of around $940–950 million“.

The reason this is disingenuous and makes the sentence inaccurate is this: Endgame wasn’t projected to make $680/950 million over its first 10. As the article says, those estimates are for the first five days of international release, in which Russia was not part of. The only way to get Russia included in the opening weekend line is to add on “...and $1.5 billion over its first 10”. But to change the release window in the Wikipedia article, without adjusting the gross estimate, makes it essentially a lie. It came out in Russia on April 29, so, like it or not, that did not make it part of the historic opening weekend. Would love anyone’s input and/or defense for either side of the apparent edit war. Cheers! (cc: SlashFox14 and TriiipleThreat) TropicAces (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Deadline: "...first 10 days". Where did you get these "5 days"? "With the exception of Russia, which releases on Monday April 29, Endgame will go out everywhere day-and-date internationally beginning Wednesday. U.S./Canada starts off at 6 PM on Thursday." - It's about the release, not the box office receipts. This does not mean that they excluded the Russian box office. NightShadow (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

NightShadow23 I’m getting the five days from the article itself being about the first five days of international release aka the opening weekend. Forgetting the fact nowhere in the article (aside from the “...and $1.5 billion in its first 10 days”) does it make note of the ten day frame, ask yourself does it make sense that the film would be projected to make $950 million in its first 10 days – as you’ve edited the Endgame article here to say – yet also at the exact same time be projected to make $1.5 billion from international territories in the first 10 days, as the Deadline article states? I think you just misunderstand the timeline here... TropicAces (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

You were mistaken about the Russian box office. But I also made a mistake, because the film earned $1 billion in foreign box office in 5 days. NightShadow (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

I don't think the plot summary should state that Steve married Peggy, because the film is deliberately vague about it. Steve refuses to tell Sam who he married and his dance with Peggy at the end doesn't mean that they got married, only that they had their long-promised dance (and a kiss). While the implication is certainly there, the film makes sure not to be explicit. Based on this, I think the plot summary should be adjusted to the effect of: " Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, then chooses to remain in the past, where he has his long-promised dance with Peggy Carter" or something similar. Siphida (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The current version of the article simply states "Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, and remains in the past to be with Peggy Carter in a branched reality." NiciVampireHeart 05:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

"Thor appoints Valkyrie as the king of New Asgard" should be changed to "Thor appoints Valkyrie as the Queen of New Asgard" Milamber (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done See "Just a small thing" discussion above for reasoning. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it should be queen not king. There is no such thing as a female king. The equivalent of that (a queen who acts like a king) would be queen regnant like Queen Elizabeth II.

Gamma radiation

The plot is at 660 words, which means an important detail can be added without removing something else: the different effects of gamma radiation (from the stones) on Bruce Banner and everyone else. Discussing this in the article might resemble a scene-by-scene breakdown (per wp:filmplot), but it clearly isn't since the gamma radiation leads to the death of Tony Stark, one of the main characters. I'll be adding something along these lines to the article. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly removed this for now and reduced the plot to 663 characters. Gamma radiation resistance is explained as the reason why Banner is chosen, but it's not the entire reason the Gauntlet kills Stark and injures Thanos. It just seems unwieldy. I think a broader discussion might be necessary as to what plot beats should be mentioned, or maybe even if we can use a longer summary - this is a long movie with a ton of plot details to discuss. Toa Nidhiki05 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: After your first edit removing this plot detail, DisneyMetalhead independently chose to add this information back to the plot section - which means that there's some amount of agreement among editors that the information about how Tony Stark died (a big deal!) needs to be in the article. I don't disagree that this plot section probably needs the old wp:iar treatment to allow it to grow to its proper length, but at the moment we're unlikely to exceed 700 even after this stuff is added. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

He used a different term than gamma radiation, which is better because Stark dies of his injuries, not necessarily gamma poisoning. I still think we need a comprehensive, complete discussion and consensus on a stable text in the Plot section though. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Other discussions on this page have referred to a transcript for the movie, but I haven't seen it; all I have is my recollection that the Hulk says "mostly gamma" while talking about the components of the radiation/energy released by the stones. If we can back up the plot summary with the transcript, that would be worth doing. Please feel free to start a discussion about the length of the plot section and whatever other topics are relevant; I'd note however that the more comprehensive we try to make such a discussion, the less likely we are to arrive at consensus. Anyway, I added the information back to the article while trimming a few words elsewhere. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Stephen trimmed one part of the gamma radiation discussion while leaving the rest in place... I guess this version of the article could work. @Toa Nidhiki05: BTW I think you're saying that Stark was done in mainly by his injuries from grappling with Thanos and being in a collapsing building. If you can substantiate that claim I'd be in favour of updating the article with that, because so far I've been going with the visual cues where Stark's face towards the end seemed ravaged in a way that didn't seem due to being bashed around. Peace. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there actually people here that believe Tony died from anything other than the Infinity Stones??... Is it not clear that the power/reverb/repercussion/blast from using the Infinity Stones killed Iron Man? It destroyed Thanos and Hulk's arms, and nearly killed Thanos the second time he used it. Entirely important to why one of the main characters sacraficed himself to save everyone else (i.e.: Main events of the film).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: Yep. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really the same thing, but it's in the same vein. I believe that something about how Tony refused to help them track down Thanos at the beginning of the film is important, because what's currently on there makes it look like Tony helped. WikiBrainHead (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@CookiesAndCreme: (apparently formerly known as, and still signing as, User:WikiBrainHead) At the time you wrote the above the article read The three ask Stark to help them retrieve the Stones from the past so they can reverse Thanos' actions in the present, but he refuses out of fear of losing his daughter, Morgan. After talking with his wife, Pepper Potts, Stark relents and works with Banner [...] to stabilize travel in the quantum realm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I realized after writing the above, but before saving, that he WBH/CAC was talking about the much smaller detail at the very start of the film rather than the more memorable and arguably plot-relevant point that already was included (I missed the word "Thanos" as opposed to "the stones", since I was 90% certain I knew what was being talked about by that point). I'm neutral on whether the bit about Tony freaking out and deciding to go shave at the start of the film needs to be included, but I needed to post the above even after realizing I was mistaken, or waste even more time incorporating a relevant part of it into a message I left on WBH/CAC's talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@WikiBrainHead:, totally agree. It's important to the plot, the character progression and the importance of him sacrificing himself at the end to save the rest of the world.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Captian America worthy

I think that captian america wielding mjolnir(thor's hammer) should be added because this is something realy important if you understand it.

You mean if you've read the comics where this has happened before, and following the speculation on this that started before Age of Ultron's release? It certainly can't be added to this film's plot summary without restructuring the plot summary to include analysis based on secondary sources discussing this film's relationship to the previous films. Personally I'd prefer if a properly sourced "analysis" section was included, but what do others think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason for this to be included, given that it is completely irrelevant to the plot summary and for us to include it, we would need to explain the qualities of Mjolnir, why Captain America needed to be worthy to lift it, why exactly he is worthy, and why it's important to the MCU. The plot summary is purely just that: plot summary. It isn't analysis. That would be a completely different section. If we want to add an analysis section, I'd say it's a little unnecessary, given that that's more of a Fandom thing than something that belongs in Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter). So yeah, I would say no to this. GrendelNightmares (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Towards the end of the film, Captain America travels back in time alone to return Thor's Mjolnir hammer and the Infinity Stones to their proper places in time. When he goes to Vormir in order to return the Soul Stone, he is going to meet Red Skull again where no doubt, they will renew their fight they started back on that Nazi aircraft in 1945. He must have obviously won that bout since he returns to Earth, albeit as an old man because he decided to spend his life with Margaret Carter as depicted in the final scene of the film.

Arrangements of cast members

The list of characters who died in the event of the Infinity War is messy. It is confusing to readers. Please arrange it so characters originate from the same film it looks more organised. Corachow (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

New Asgard is in Scotland

Can't edit as I don't have an account and the article is protected. But, New Asgard is a village in Scotland. The Land Rover Hulk and Rocket share has a UK registration plate. There is also a visible bottle of Irn Bru in Thor's cottage. Shooting location was St Abbs in Scotland

It was filmed in Scotland, but it’s not in Scotland in the film. It’s in Norway. Rusted AutoParts 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We should still mention that it was filmed in Scotland if that information can be sourced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s right in the credits.... Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: You can't be serious. Taking the fact that the film's credits say part of the film was shot in Scotland and extrapolating from that that the scene of the film that "looks kinda like Scotland" was shot there is almost as much of a blatant violation of WP:V as saying "I recognize the place in Scotland where that was filmed -- let's add it to our article". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And since I know no reasonable policy-based argument can be made on these talk pages without it being argued that I'm just hiding behind policy to push a view I personally agree with, I should clarify that I think the scenes that were shot in Scotland probably were the New Asgard scenes, and I thought this when I rewatched the film on Wednesday and noticed that part of the credits. That's why I said "we should mention it if it can be sourced" -- I personally agree that it's probably accurate, and so I said that on the talk page; I've long been an advocate of the part of WP:NOR that says This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just being facetious.... Trillfendi (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry about that. I don't know how often you edit these pages, but FWIW having never interacted with you before I had no reason to believe you were joking, and having seen plenty of editors who have been here longer than you have make similar mistakes I had no reason to believe you weren't being sincere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also (I just noticed this) I'm pretty sure it's legal to drive UK cars in Norway, so it's not a continuity error in the film if they have a car with a UK license plate in Norway, and if I can get Murphy's beer in Japan it wouldn't at all surprise me if Irn Bru is readily available in Norway (let alone that several of those Asgardians can fly). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: Since Thanos destroyed Thor's ship in Avengers:Infinity War, how did the surviving Asgardians manage to get to Earth?

Whilst this isn't really the place to be asking such questions since the talk page is for discussing changes to the article itself, not the subject of the article I can answer this question. At the start of Infinity War, if you look carefully, you can see that the ship has literally been torn in two; the lead half is destroyed by Thanos but the remaining half, which presmabely holds half of Asgard's population still, survives relatively unschated.As for how they got to Earth, not sure. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent Film?

There are a total of two instances in the article calling Avengers: Endgame the highest grossing independent film of all time. According to Wikipedia's own definition, an independent film is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies. Can a film financed, produced, and distributed by Walt Disney really qualify? Unsigned comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.231.89.45 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Avengers is definitely not an independent film, but what are the sources calling it an independent film? QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not an independent film. Wherever that it is, it needs to be corrected.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot additions

I'd like to propose the following additions to the plot: starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Explain the mechanics of time travel (already discussed above, but no harm to repeat). any changes in the past create a branched alternative reality in the past, instead of affecting the current reality's present. and Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, and remains in the past to be with Peggy Carter in a branched reality. Sources: [2] QUESTION: It’s crucial to your film that in your formulation of time travel, changes to the past don’t alter our present. How did you decide this? ANSWER BY WRITER CHRISTOPHER MARKUS: Basically said what the Hulk says in that scene, which is, if you go to the past, then the present becomes your past and the past becomes your future. So there’s absolutely no reason it would change. [3] DIRECTOR JOE RUSSO: If Cap were to go back into the past and live there, he would create a branched reality starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include past Thanos' motivations - we don't explain that at all, while we did explain the heroes' motivations right at the start. So I propose Thanos attacks the Avengers' compound, intending to obtain the Stones and use them to destroy the current universe, then create a new peaceful universe where life would be grateful to him, instead of being grieving and rebellious as the current survivors are. starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include a major point of Thor's arc - we already note he is now an overweight drunk despondent over his failure, so the plot should include that on Asgard, Thor has his confidence restored by his mother Frigga and his retrieval of his hammer Mjolnir. starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include a major point of Captain's arc - Stark, Rogers and Thor battle Thanos, during which Rogers proves worthy of wielding Mjolnir - well, an ultimate endorsement of character. The first human in the films to wield the weapon, and it gave him lightning powers. starship.paint (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

These are more in line with a Themes and analysis section than Plot. DonQuixote (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: The character arcs maybe if you want to lump them together. The time travel concept isn’t, that’s explaining how the world works. With the new Spider-Man trailer exploring this concept and it’s ramifications, it’s relevant. The Thanos motivation is central to the plot. It’s why there is even a fight at the end. starship.paint (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A reminder that the plot section is not the article. "How the world works" should be in an appropriate section that's not the plot section. And character motivations should be discussed in Themes and analysis, a shortened version attacks the compound in order to obtained the stones should suffice. DonQuixote (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Thanos motivation is already there - I re-added an earlier version that was inexplicably removed overnight. Thor and Cap are specific character moments, not plot ones - we can’t include every interaction here. The time travel mechanics are bulky and awkward to explain here, it could go somewhere but it’s just hard to explain succinctly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with what Toa Nidhiki05 said. This stuff doesn't belong in the plot section, save for perhaps Thanos's motivations.  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanos' motivations were in the Plot section previously, but were at some point removed. I have re-inserted as per this dicsussion. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 and GrendelNightmares: - the time travel mechanics need no further explanation, it's already done. There are 21 words in the first fragment, 4 words in the second fragment, and even with those, we're still at 695 words. The whole time heist plot wouldn't make sense if this movie were like Back to the Future (changing the past instantly changes the present/future), and in 25 words we've steered readers clear of those notions. starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Fine, fair enough. The point still stands that the rest of your suggestions simply don't belong in the Plot section.  GrendelNightmares  (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The plot-point that Thor regains his confidence by a conversation with his deceased mother, is indeed a key plot-point. Without its inclusion, it appears as though he remained a 'drunk/despondent'. Everyone keeps counting how many words are in this plot... this film is 3 hours long and weaves plot points from other films... is it really necessary to worry about how long the summary is? I argue, it's irrelevant. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Most Tweeted Film of All-Time

I'm not sure where this should go, but here's another massive record for Avengers: Endgame: 'Avengers: Endgame' is the most tweeted-about movie ever

"Twitter has announced that Marvel's Avengers: Endgame has cemented its place in history. The film had earned over 50 million tweets since the beginning of 2019."

Someone should add this somewhere. MARIO^Fan78 00:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Too trivial. Trillfendi (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How? That's a massive accomplishment and social media presence is very important in today's society. MARIO^Fan78 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

... it really isn’t. Take that to IMDb. Trillfendi (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning that Twitter later confirmed this, wouldn't be 'too trivial'. Listing it as an accomplishment however, isn't exactly accurate. Twitter doesn't determine the success/accomplishments of a film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but it does show the massive effect this show has had on society as a whole. That's a pretty big record, and given how important social media is and how much of an impact the movie has had I think it's worth mentioning somewhere. It's not some random "trivial fact" that this many people are talking about the film. MARIO^Fan78 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How many of those tweets were trolls trying to spoil the ending or the various plot beats? The fact of its being the second highest grossing film in history is evidence enough of its cultural impact: the Twitter detail is misleading. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

Change "Culminate" to "Completes". Crawfish10 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Culminates is grammatically correct. Trillfendi (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Scene with Starlord and Gamora

Why is it forbidden to make any mention of the scene in which Starlord seducingly approaches 2014-Gamora and she physically attacks him? That is a significant little plot-twist that the filmmakers probably paid a lot of attention to. Furthermore, without any mention of that event there is absolutely no context to the sentence "Quill searches for 2014 Gamora" in the last paragraph. Are you so desperate to keep a certain word count that you included a significant subplot that consists out of just 2 scenes, and then you mentioned only one scene in the most obscure possible way? Editor-Plejer (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a plot summary written here, many intricate scenes such as Cap picking up MeowMeow, the one you mentioned regarding Gamora, Nat and Clint fighting over who will die, etc are of importance to the audience, however this is a summary and if one editor starts writing small details, then another might do the same. Let the plot be as short and concise as it can be CaptainGKPrime (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)