I’ve always said the writers are the most under-appreciated people when it comes to movie making I’m so glad I got answers from the horses’ mouths so to speak. I kind of figured that was the mechanics of how the time travel worked and how Cap fixed everything but other people kept arguing with me and I was like “did we not listen to the Ancient One together”?? Lol so I’m glad the WRITERS confirmed it for me and cleared some things up too, now I can watch it a second time and be like YUPP THAT’S HAPPENING lol 😄
I like the transparency of the thought and creative process too. Especially when it comes to these movies because of how remarkable it is that they organized all sorts of different stories and characters and managed to weave them into excellent CONSISTENT end products. They deserve all the praise and study.
Great interview Kevin. I love the detailed, specific questions you asked about the making of the movie. These are questions I want to see, not the general broad interviews you see in the daytime interviews. Lots of good tidbits about the movie from these two geniuses. I love how self-aware Markus, and McFeely and the Russo's are about the movie. Stuff like "Hawkeye's wife still have cell service" or audiences beating us up about the snap "Oh they're going to be brought back anyways".
Great interview. These guys deserve an Oscar. So much thought and effort into Infinty War and Endgame. It was executed so well. Not to mention all the other marvel movies they wrote. Just staggering.
Prejudice by elites about "comic book" movies. These movies are the modern day equivalent of the stories we told over fires. Marvel and DC heroes are the African, Egyptian, Greek pantheons of old. Analogue stories will continue to entertain and teach for generations.
I just saw it for the third time today at noon in a small hometown theater not a Regal or AMX type theater and it still had 20+ people not bad for a monday and their were still people crying , Laughing and cheering I don't consider Endgame a movie more like a must see Event .
Certainly an event, much like infinity war and civil war for me. I was completely overwhelmed and had no idea what to think during my first viewing. I’ve seen it 3 times now and love it more and more each time.
I’m also a member of the 3x club. Last time I saw it, was this past Saturday 3D and true Imax. Blew me away again. And yeah ppl were still cheering and crying (me included) this movie hits hard in the best ways. Great closing film. 👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽
yeah people in my theater...disappointed, it was “alright” i’ve seen it twice and...it was lack luster, bland, drawn out with a severe lack of use of certain characters, ignored growth from previous films and wasted a villain. worse yet the deaths felt unnecessary and didn’t carry emotional weight other than the “that’s it ? that’s what we get?” feeling. almost mad because i looked forward to it for a long time...i was let down considerably however i found it entertaining but sub par.
For when Tony snapped, I was certain that he would see Natasha in the way station and he gets to tell her that he did it and they won. Thats just me though.
IMO that takes away from her sacrifice. It works emotionally but not logically, as McFeely and Markus would say. If he could see her, he could bring her back. Tragedy is necessary in epics to create these grand moments and her death along with Tony's were the cost for the effect. If it consoles you, there are an infinite amount of Natashas as well as Tonys in infinite universes that are always existing in the "quantum realm" so she's not truly dead as in her character can easily return at anytime Feige/ Writers/ Directors deem appropriate
I love hearing these guys talk about their writing process for the Marvel films. If only they participated in more long-form interviews/discussions like this.
GREAT INTERVIEW! Great, knowledgeable questions. Great answers. I can’t believe he asked every question I wanted to know, like what new characters could have been included.
Great interview, both questions and answers are spoken like true screenwriters. I was expecting a lot of Marvel-nerd related discussion but I got more. Good job. Cheers
I love how they explain time travel and then they contradict themselves by saying that Steve lived with peggy in the prime timeline. They say that you can't change your present/future by changing the past (killing baby thanos doesn't change the present) and then they say that you create a alternate timeline or branch only if you take away an infinity stone from the past...wtf
The second part makes sense. Killing Thanos wouldn't change what happened, but taking an infinity stone from that time will definitely create an alternate timeline, but not for THEM, for whoever was there at the time the stone was taken, creating an alternate timeline, which would be healed if the stone is returned exactly when it was taken. Steve could be with Peggy in the prime timeline given he lived a mostly undisclosed life under a false name, and chose to ignore the bad things happening everywhere, and then revealing himself when his past self disappears to replace the infinity stones. Other explanation that the directors gave, contradicting this, is that he jumped onto an alternate timeline (kind of sideways time travelling) and jumped back after living a full life with Peggy. All in all, it's entirely fiction, and time-travelling doesn't exist, so at this point, best to just enjoy it as it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@nafisa.t13 What I'm saying is: they say you can create an alternate timeline only if a stone is taken but what happen when you kill baby thanos then? It doesn't change your future but in that alternate timeline Thanos doesn't exist. So you have created an alternate timeline without taking an infinity stone. The way that quantum physics explains a possible timetravel (and they talk about this in the interview) contradicts the theory of Cap living with peggy in the prime timeline. In the end, as you said, it's not really that important, it's just nerds nitpicking. It's also funny that directors and screenwriters don't agree :v
@@nafisa.t13 but there's a way to write time travel in a clean logical non-paradoxical manner, like the directors explained... any change you make in the past, creates an alternate branch timeline. and then there's the paradoxical mess that is the Writer's version, which after spending half the movie shitting on Back to the Future time rules, is essentially Back to the Future rules with bonus stones that create alternate timelines... but if you don't touch the stones it's just basic BTTF rules. Loki escapes in the battle of new york... that happens in our timeline, by their rules, because the stones hadn't been removed yet... but loki never escaped in our timeline... The Avenger's already effecting the past and events are playing out differently than before, like Loki escaping, or Tony having a heart attack, even before taking the stones... so somehow we have two versions of the events but still in one timeline, until they remove the stones... Also, What if the Captain living with Peggy then goes and kills Baby Zemo... with the russo brothers rules(the directors), no problem he's in an alt timeline anyway, things can happen differently, civil war won't happen. With the writers rules, it's contradicts what Hulk says about killing Baby Thanos. so, why not just use the cleaner logical multiverse version.
The only thing that makes sense is that ANY travel to the past creates an alternate timeline, whether or not a stone is taken, and returning the stones doesn't "prune" those alternate timelines, it it just done to ensure you haven't screwed over the inhabitants of those new timelines. The Ancient One's dialog even says that returning the stone is to protect the new timeline that she's in. Not the main one. Steve lived his life in an alternate timeline, and returned to the main MCU timeline after Peggy died. He had to, there's no way he was going to live his whole life knowing about all of the evil he could prevent and not doing it. So he did, in that other universe. The only thing about it that is confusing is that he didn't return to the platform as everyone else did when they traveled. To me that implies that he took an alternate route back home. Maybe after 60+ years in the other timeline, the "quantum GPS" couldn't get him back home, so Stark and/or Pym from that universe helped him build a new quantum tunnel to get home.
@@michaelbrice5169 They didn't direct it though. In Hollywood, screenwriters are a dime a dozen. Their stuff gets scrapped and/ or rewritten all the time. The real end- all be-all is the opinion of the producers and directors.
So glad Marvel allowed them to write an ending to this saga with no absolute ties to the future. That is very freeing and it allows all the creative minds to go all in before they trimmed it out for the best.
I'm baffled by people still not getting how the timetravel works in Endgame. It's like they fell asleep during Tony's Mobious Strip scene. Tony has them jump on and ride a Mobious Strip and then get off it again. Its very straight forward.
The reason people aren't getting it is because it's straight up nonsense in the movie. They make a huge deal about having to get the stones back to preserve the timeline, but Thanos was pulled from the timeline and then killed. Total contradiction and absolute garbage. Hulk's explanation of how time travel doesn't work is pure doublespeak, and Nebula's agreement was clearly just for fun to add to the notion that non-terrestrials are smarter than most humans. It doesn't make Hulk or Nebula correct. It just makes them characters in a movie. :p
The Hulk compromise in Infinity War, would have been just great for the Hulk arc and a nice omage to the comics. Amazing movies, but i feel like they blew a chance for great moments, cutting of so many Hulk scenes, leaving in the "Ant-man old baby debacle i think i've peed myself" scene in, while they could've put that in the bonus for the Bluray.
Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus' explanation of time travel falls apart at the 46:00 mark when they talk about Peggy's children always been Steve's (Captain America), as that would imply that traveling to the past can change the future. Per the rules explained in the movie, you cannot change the past--the past will be your new future and the future will be your past. Steve going back and time and living a life with Peggy is a new reality that cannot happen in current day, as the past is fixed. But the movie has a larger problem, as we never see how Steve returned. Every time saw time travel in Endgame, those traveling to the past needed a starting point and exit point, and the point was a time traveling portal. The Avengers leave and return via the Portal. However, the movie shows us that it is possible to travel farther back in time from your original origin point, but your exit still requires a portal exit point--heck, even Thanos needed an exit point to travel 9 years into the future. How the heck did Steve get back to the present without a portal? The Russus answered this question in a interview. They said that Steve traveled back to the future at some point--when wasn't made clear. I think it's safe to say that this isn't common knowledge and has left many people thinking that Steve waited until time caught up and returned to meet everyone at the time he left, as that's how the scene plays out. I was sort of hoping that that was the case as it would create the possibility of the MCU having a young and old Captain America occupying the same reality, opening the possibility of Chris Evens' return, but that seems doubtful. I'm not terribly disappointed, as I'm sure Sam Wilson will make a great Captain America. Chris did such a fine job playing Captain America that he is all I see (or hear) when I think of the character. I will miss him. I got a bit sidetracked. I just wanted to say that the writers' explanation of time travel at the end doesn't add up with what we saw. Changes in the past will not change the present.
Shadiversity has a theory that the entire MCU takes place in a split timeline from whatever would be the original, untouched timeline in order for this event to work out. So all the movies we watched have been in the timeline where Cap has gone back and lived his entire life with Peggy off screen, and the Cap we watch go back in time goes to another timeline where he, separately, lives with Peggy and so on, the implication being that Captain America will always take the chance to live out a full life with the woman he loves if given the chance. This kind of introduces a problem though, what's going on in Old Cap's timeline, and does our timeline only happen because there's a Captain America living off screen the entire time? Also I'm pretty sure this isn't what the screen writers were thinking, and might break other time travel rules in universe. I've also heard another theory, that if you go back in time and cause events to happen as they've already happened, then you aren't changing the present, but fulfilling things that already happened the way they always have. You don't create a new timeline, you just make a closed loop that ensures your timeline happens the way it did. So Cap goes back in time, and everything happens the way it always did, meaning he's in the same timeline (because what determines a different timeline is a possible event either happening or not happening, so if something in the past that's already happened is caused by time travel mumbo jumbo, then technically the rules haven't been broken), so he can still show up at the end. This introduces the bootstrapping paradox, but I think the directors might have had this interpretation of how it works, but I'll need to watch the movies again to come to a conclusion
C , These theories don’t work within the rules about time stated in Endgame. The theories you posted work on Back to the Future principals, principals the writers state in this interview, and in Endgame, that they didn’t want to follow because it causes more problems than solutions. They solved the issue by stating up front that you cannot change what was, the present will always be the present no matter what you do in the past. So, Steve going back in time to live a full life with Peggy can never change the present because he never did that. He could however create a new reality and live a life that is completely separate from the present, and that is exactly what happened according to the Russos-the movie doesn’t explain this well, mind you. It isn’t possible for Steve to have gone back in time to live a full life with Peggy and have children in the present in in theory with the rules set in place. However, if the Avengers had failed to return anyone of the Infinity stones or all of the them to their respective points in time perhaps that could have been possible in a very nightmarish way as the Ancient One was pretty clear about a new, nasty, timeline(s) coming about if the stones were not returned from where they came. I think we fans should move on and embrace the change no matter how hard it might be. In the end, it might not be as hard as we think. “The snap,” as Nick Fury states it, though I think it’s due to multiple snaps, created a problem not too different from what the Ancient One spoke of. We don’t have splinter timelines, but we now have multiple linear universes colliding into one another. Our world has been identified as Earth 616 in a longer clip talking about the Multiverse. In Quentin Beck world, there apparently isn’t a Spider-Man, but there’s possibly Shield. While Gamora and Natasha from present time, they might be a live and well on a different Earth or world. Notice how the writers dodged the question about Natasha. I think they know what’s planned for her and I don’t think her story is just an origin. Maybe the deal for the Soul stone is absolute as they say it is, but maybe we’ll get a new Black Widow in a similar fashion to how we got a new Gamora and Nebula (I know she’s now dead, just pointing out that she came to the present) in the current timeline. Whatever is coming will be hinted at in Spider-Man Far From Home so we’ll see soon enough.
@@G1Transformed Hey, I was just offering some alternate explanations that people have thought up. And what do you mean "move on and embrace the change?" I've fully embraced the time travel and possible multiverse being introduced, discussing theories about different ways it could possibly work and how that does or doesn't fit into what we've seen so far doesn't change that. No, I actually really like that element of it. Now, while I don't necessarily agree that either of those theories are what's going on in the Marvelverse, I don't think either of them are strictly impossible. The closed loop, for example, doesn't have to break the way time travel works. You can't go back and change what's already happened, true, but what if you go back and do something that ends up being the cause of what's already happened to you as you originally experienced it? You aren't changing anything, you're the cause of your timeline the way it's always happened. Nothing in the way time travel was explained in Endgame necessarily makes that impossible. The present is the present no matter what you do in the past, but if you experienced the present a certain way, go back, and then do something that causes an event to take place in the present that you already experienced, what's happening there? You *aren't* changing the present, the present was a timeline that already had you time traveling in it. If you went back in time, became the cause of an important event, and then stayed in the past to watch it all unfold, you'd watch your entire timeline unfold the exact way it did the first time. It's not a different timeline then, because all the same things happened. Do you get what I'm saying? Forget the movie for a second and just think about how that time logic stands on its own. How would you differentiate between the two timelines if they're the same? You can't. And, as for the other theory, I just find it interesting, but I think it's less plausible as something the directors had in mind. Oh, right, that's another thing, it's possible the Russos (directors) and the screen writers (the people in this interview) have slightly different interpretations of how the time travel works.
"Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus' explanation of time travel falls apart at the 46:00 mark when they talk about Peggy's children always been Steve's (Captain America), as that would imply that traveling to the past can change the future. Per the rules explained in the movie, you cannot change the past--the past will be your new future and the future will be your past." Their explanation was that in their timeline, Captain America had always travelled back. There were two Cap's, making it their actual past.
@__ About this theory--not possible. Steve cannot go to an alternate reality. You can only back in time, to what was. Time is static, as it was never moving a bit slower than it already is. Alternate reality is created when someone from the present goes to the past and changes something. So you see, it isn't so simple. The idea of time travel as explained in Endgame is, but not how old Steve could have aged and returned. Yeah, a lot of people seem to have a varying ideas on the matter, but again, we didn't see what happened, and that's why it's a problem and why it's hard, and why the writers and directors keeping getting asked these questions.
I'm really well impressed with everything in this interview, the writers are absoultely brilliant, the way they explain everything I feel for the most part is extraordinary, it's really amazing how self aware they are of the writing in these movies and what the audience feel etc, the interviewer was really really good too giving this at ease vibe about him. The only thing I want to point out is that you should have named them in the title of the vid rather than the description, I mean these guys are absolutely brilliant, its clear they are just no in it for the money....give them the recognition they deserve
I do disagree with “it’s only if you remove the stones that you create a branch reality”. That’s not exactly what the ancient one says. And that’s not the logical basis of using Quantum theory for time travel. Since there are no “Infinity Stones” in Quantum theory. [the ancient one uses removing the stones as an example - but the logic applies to any major change that is not reversed obviously] I interpret the ancient one as saying that if you significantly change the past - you get a branch reality - leading to a new future, instead of changing your present. This is also what the director’s imply. On this point I respectfully agree with the directors, and not one of the writers. 45:00
I thought this too but after a rewatch the Ancient One does specifically state that a branched timeline happens only if you move a stone. You can interpret it how you like or disagree but what's said in the film is what's said in the film.
I don’t agree. You are not understanding that when Professor Hulk says you - “You can’t change your future by altering your past because, the past become your new future”, he is talking about a *branched timeline*. It has *nothing* to do with Infinity Stones. It has to do with Quantum Tunnel time travel. Here is my question for you: What do you think Hulk means when he says this???
@@summertyme5748 Hulks quote means you're not creating new timelines because it's all linear. You're travelling along your own personal straight line of time. Travel from future to past > that future now becomes your past > what used to be the present you traveled from aka the future is now the past > you can't change the past. You always travel in a straight line, just like what Tony's morbious strip model showed. Its just a big loop. Nothing Hulk says creates a branch. Then later the Ancient One in 2014 introduces the ideas of branches when you remove a stone. But Hulk says everything will return back to normal and branches will close if you put the stones back to before they were taken in the first place.
Not to beat a dead horse but, this is the dialogue from the film,. The Ancient One never uses the word “only” as in only if you remove a stone: “The Infinity stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits. Now, this may benefit your reality but my new one, not so much. In this new branched reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world will be over run. Millions will suffer. So, tell me Doctor, can your science prevent all that?” ^ That makes sense, and Professor Hulk agrees, which is why he suggests that if you put the stone back at the same point in time you can clip the branch. That also makes sense. But be careful....in no way does the Ancient imply that you can make any change you want to the timeline as long as you don’t remove a stone because *only* removing a stone impacts the timeline. That is not what she says and that would *not* make any sense.
@@summertyme5748 No she doesn't say only. But they're specifically talking about the stones in that conversation. She says remove a stone and the flow splits. It's HEAVILY implied that removing stones causes branched realities and basically nothing else. There is no butterfly effect. That's what the writers say the case is too, that only moving stones creates branched timelines because the stones themselves create time. I guess it's opinion because like the writers said the directors don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm just saying what the film and script present as the case.
The movie was long, but the "superhero Hulk" premise is lost in the film. We actually see other Avengers reporting from around the universe after saving lives, but we just see Hulk (more or less) relaxing & being a celebrity.
unlikely it will be different - they are strictly following what RR Martin told them - you can argue how they set it up and that's fair - but they had cut down the number of episodes as the cast salaries of 500k per episode + production costs were way out of control
@@aguzman222 That's actually not true. HBO wanted more episodes (reportedly ten seasons) but it was D&D's idea to keep it short so they can move on to writing Star Wars and Civil War fan fiction.
@monokhem I LOVE the idea of Dany going evil. After reading the books, it makes complete sense. But in the context of a season filled with hollow stakes, thicc plot armor, and lazy writing, I just wasn't into it. To each their own, I guess.
im so thrilled to have watched the writers of the this epic saga talk about it. The best interview with regard to mcu which only true fans will understand
How can they say that those kids are Caps kids? Changing the past doesn’t change the future. Those kids already exists at the time of winter soldier movie. That time Cap didn’t even go back.
@Rixen Jacob Because it wasn't a "change". It was ALWAYS that way. The kids only exist BECAUSE he went back. When Young Cap is looking at the pictures, Old Cap is still there in that timeline. It is a loop back on the main timeline, not a branch to another timeline. In 2012, there existed 3 Captain America's at the same time: the 2 young ones fighting each other and the old one living his life with Peggy.
@@Lowthar1425 Sorry mate, but the movie makes it very clear that nothing you do in the past will effect the present you just left. He can't have always been there, because if that's the case, then all the things that happened when they all went back would also have always been in place such as Loki stealing the stone and Captain America saying he was Hydra! You don't think that would have caused some issues for Winter Solider? The writers are wrong and the directors are right. He had to have gone into an alternate timeline. The problem everyone has is how did he then travelled back to the prime timeline.
@@gedaliaw Sorry man, I think you are mixing things up here. He's saying that you can't change the past because the past was always that way, like when the Avengers caught Loki, Tony from the present was always up on the building watching that happen. It's why you can't kill baby Thanos, because if you were supposed to, you would have and there would be no Thanos. There is nothing to demonstrate that Cap didn't live his life in our timeline and father the children, because theoretically, it could have always been that way. Also, your examples don't really mean anything, the Loki escape and Hail Hydra happened in a branch (alternate reality) when the stone was moved. So those would not have affected the main timeline. Whichever explanation Marvel chooses is up to them, but the writer's are probably more correct than the Russo's on this particular matter.
49.43 they briefly mention the name of Braddock being dropped saying it's Cap B - though I'd assume it's his father as the timing would be wrong if they are intro-ing the Cap later.
Same. I probably watch the Avengers movies (along with Civil War) more than Winter Soldier, but WS is arguably the best MCU film and one of the most mature ones (for those who say that Marvel films are for kids).
Agreed, it’s the best solo pic of the MCU movies. And bizarrely there’s pretty much no supernatural powers in it until the post credit scene. Just a terrific action conspiracy thriller set in the MCU
What we need is both screen writer and the directors and kevin feige in one room and seen how chaotic and how the debate going abt their different interpretations of the time heist.
I get the feeling that the first Avengers (2012), Infinity Wars and Endgame kind of correspond to A New Hope, Empire and Return of the Jedi. The tone of these three films, both in the case of Star Wars and Avengers, follows the same progression. As New Hope sets up the world, so does Avengers; as Empire leaves you emotionally devastated, so does Infinity Wars; and as Jedi leaves you cheering, so does Endgame. The one hiccup is, of course, Tony's death.
wish they would have cleared up.... 1. how Thanos was able to travel in time (2014-present day)? Nebula had pim particles for 1 round trip same as the rest... so how did she bring Thanos' ship through the quantum tunnel/time?? 2. how the power surge affected both Thanos & Hulk, both characters showed to be in pain/discomfort when they put on the gauntlet but Tony just took a really deep breath & appeared stunned before saying "I am Iron Man" breathlessly. After all he's just a man in a can. 3. only the worthy are able to lift Mjolnir - assuming same rules apply to Stormbreaker.. why was Thanos able to hold/use Stormbreaker, and also kick/smack Mjolnir away from Steve during their fight? 4. In previous films whenever someone touched an infinity stone, (the collector's slave girl on Nowhere, Ronin taking stone for himself or when the guardian's joined hands with Peter to defeat Ronin) one of two things happened - a huge explosion representing power surge or severely hurting / killing that person... why didn't this movie follow that "rule"?
@@danzostream39 ...meaning the only stone that was handled in my question? it happens with other stones. Hawkeye held soul stone, hulk held the time stone - tho he is very strong, he does not posses immense power. **info taken from MCU fandom** "Only beings of immense power can directly wield the Stones, such as Celestials,[1] and the Mad Titan Thanos.[2] Lesser beings face dire consequences: Johann Schmidt was cursed to Vormir to guard the Soul Stone after touching an active Tesseract, Jane Foster became ill after being exposed to the Aether, Carina exploded when she touched the Power Stone; however, these effects can be reduced if a group is sharing the power among themselves.[1] It is also possible to place an Infinity Stone (or multiple) inside a container to allow the user to wield the Stone's power without suffering the normal repercussions."
@@ev1lp1nk That is entirely based off of the Collector's PowerPoint presentation. If you look at the evidence, though... . The rule about the stones harming the bearer seems to have largely applied to the Power stone. Only extremely powerful beings could hold it *unaided*. Thanos briefly held the power stone in his fight with Wanda, but I think it's safe to say Thanos was an extremely powerful being. While the Reality stone/Aether seemed to be harming Jane Foster, it didn't immediately blast her. None of the other stones has shown a propensity for blasting their bearers, so I think this movie did okay with the power surges. . Why was Thanos able to hold/use Stormbreaker? Mjolnir is unique in the worthy requirement. It's something laid on the weapon by Odin in the first Thor movie. Stormbreaker, while attuned to Thor, doesn't quite have the same restriction.
@@DAVIDND24 While being bald or balding isn't something that most people associate with "attractiveness" I think anyone who's able to pull off being bald without looking ugly is actually really attractive which it seems like both of these men are
@@drunkdonutboy Its a shame i have to explain.. My comment wasn't a derogatory statement towards the two writers theres absolutely nothing wrong with them.. i was highlighting the fact that while the interviewer was trying to be self-deprecating, he accidentally disrespected the two guys by implying that losing his hair was a thing which would make him look less attractive..
@@DAVIDND24 Well my comment wasnt derogatory towards you I just thought I'd put it out there so whoever is balf out there would feel a little better about themselves
great interview. very insightful. one thing I like that I have learned is marvel does the private test screenings to see how things play out and people react. This is similar to motown music, they would have a room of people to listen to a song and they vote if good or bad. marvel seems to do the same thing and they use their team to decide if they are on the right track or not
McFeely and Markus have definitely established themselves as some of the great writers of Hollywood. I really loved listening to a conversation about my favorite aspect of filmmaking - the writing, and I love how they completed most of the character arcs. However, I take major issue with how they wrote the Hulk/Banner to Professor Hulk transition. Even showing the Hulk saving people from a burning building would have fallen short of explaining to the viewer how the Hulk-Banner amalgamation comes about. The Hulk is actually a very complex character, and how Banner's experiences lend to Hulk's rage and primal nature often got overlooked in the MCU. Notwithstanding the Universal distribution rights problem, there is still room for doing justice to the Hulk character without writing oneself into a corner, and even though these guys really tried, I feel that they didn't really do justice to the character. Why is it "off to the races" after the diner scene. Not only did that scene inadequately explain how the transition to Doc Green happened, it also didn't help the Hulk's arc. I understand that Banner is finally at peace with the Hulk, finally having worked out his life-threatening issues with the big guy, and I hate that that happened off-screen, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why is he dabbing and grinning away, when the world around is so dark and gloomy, though? No, really, I can see why going from feeling like an exposed nerve to achieving the perfect balance of two constantly-fighting identities can be a source of elation. But that doesn't change the fact that half the world is fucking dead. And don't tell me that it's because Banner didn't lose anybody significant. So didn't Natasha, but she was devastated, and it still showed five years after the snap. The movie succeeds in really showing me many of the characters' motivations for why they do what they do to undo the snap, but the Hulk is not one of those characters. There are plenty of smart superheroes, and there are plenty of strong ones, but there is only one superhuman who truly manifests the man vs monster dichotomy. That is the defining characteristic of the Hulk, a monster that must be kept at bay by a smart guy, because that monster is ready for a never-ending war (as that is precisely what Bruce is dealing with in his brain, a never ending war with the other identity, for control over the steering wheel). I'm not the kind of Hulk fan that just likes the Hulk for the brute that he is, I like the meta aspects of the character, the larger conversation to be had about inner demons. You can't just have the Hulk pose for photographs and expect me to move on. I love the MCU, but the exact reasons why I love characters like Iron Man and Captain America are why I have grown to detest the MCU hulk - character growth and the narrative of the sequence of events that lead to that growth. People shit on Ang Lee's Hulk, but at least he took the time to explain to me the sheer tragedy that is the Hulk's existence. The MCU has paid lip service to a character that I grew up loving and admiring. So no, I'm not just salty because the MCU Hulk is a depowered shadow of the comic book Hulk. My disappointment with the Hulk has more to do with the character's story in the MCU, or the lack thereof.
I don’t agree about the handling of Hulk and Banner. I think it was done well. Meaning - I was surprised and delighted to see what happened, and intuitively even before the explanation of “blah blah” gamma lab, it made perfect sense. I do *not* want this 3 hour movie to belabor something that seems to be so small and petty and irrelevant to the overwhelming context of the story of 1/2 the Universe being wiped out. Just to communicate in 10 or 15 minutes - what they effectively demonstrated in a single scene at a dinner - which is one of the best scenes in the film
“The Hulk is a very complex character” ^ Only over the course of 30 years of comic books most of which are simplistic and mediocre, and... The 3 movie arc of Thor Ragnorok - Infinity War and End Game. Hulk of Universal studios solo Hulk films: ***Is not complicated**. He is a CGI character with no more complexity than Godzilla or King Kong. I think you are a fan of 1 character and your advice would stop the movie in it’s tracks to provide Hulk fan service, while destroying the film’s momentum and distracting from it’s narrative. I’m glad the writers did not do that.
One last point of disagreement: “Why is he dabbing and grinning away”. ^ Read this: In Endgame, we see that arc of rebirth especially boldly in Bruce Banner. For years, he struggled with the useful green monster inside of him. And when Bruce needed Hulk the most, the big guy refused to come out-afraid of the bigger guy; broken by Thanos. Again, we hear about failure-the angsty shame that Bruce feels for Thanos’ Infinity War victory. (“No one blamed you,” Natasha Romanoff tells him; “I did,” Bruce says.) But that failure led to another reclamation of sorts-the blending of Bruce and Hulk into one unified person that doesn’t cause quite so many ripped shirts.” www.patheos.com/blogs/watchinggod/2019/05/endgame-is-all-about-colossal-failure-and-second-chances/ I think you are a Hulk fan and need the movie to obsess over one character - but it just doesn’t have time to wallow in Hulk-mania.
I think putting Hulk becoming Professor Hulk in Infinity War would have been better, my least favorite thing about endgame was that we spent an entire movie watching Bruce Banner struggling to get Hulk to come out only for it to be resolved offscreen.
What about people who were snapped away while in a airplane, when they re-materialize, do they just fall back to earth as the plane is no longer in that spot after 5 years?
What about people who were snapped away while the planet was at a different point in it's rotation, do they just appear in the middle of the ocean? do Americans appear back next to the Roman Colosseum? What about people who were snapped away while the earth was at a different point in it's revolution around the sun. Do they just reappear in the middle of space and their remains just wait for the earth to come along and splatter them across the atmosphere like bugs on a windshield? What about people who are brought back at the same place even though the expansion of the universe has left them not even a remaining in the milky way?
AFC 9798 : I love their writing, but their explanation of the time travel at the films end does not make sense which is why the Russo’s could not play along with it. Sorry.
@@summertyme5748 The writers interpretation is that the whole time we've been watching young Cap there has been an old Cap living a normal life with Peggy within the same timeline. The Russo's interpretation is that Old Cap is from an alternate timeline that somehow without explanation was able to travel between timelines. Neither one makes any sense I just prefer the writers version because it ties in with who Peggy's (never revealed) husband was.
Oooooooh 31:33 he spills the beans not that it’s such a secret. Valkyrie is gay, supposedly all the Valkyrie were, and it’s a behind the scenes tidbit that when Valkyrie was telling about how the other one saved her in that slo mo flashback in Ragnarok, the unsaid thing was that was her lover. In one of the other recent interviews with the Russos, they mention there will be a reveal in the MCU soon one of the heroes being gay, so they could have been referring to Valkyrie.
One of the reasons is, I think the plot should reinforce Natasha’s role beyond just being dead. In fact her spirit is inside the soul stone, and she was not sacrificed by Thanos. I actually thought that Thanos would fail to complete the final snap because he never sacrificed anyone for the gauntlet. Because if you think about it-> If Thanos can wield the Gauntlet based on someone else’s sacrifice regardless of love, then the original sacrifice of Gamora was not necessary. He could have just as easily killed Nebula - who is loved by Gamora and then if the stone is given to Gamora just take it from her. Or he could kill Corvus Glave, and take the stone from Proxima Midnight. I can’t believe the soul stone would permit shenanigans. I assume the point of the soul stone reinforcing a moral conscience to the narrative is that it can’t be side stepped. I like to think of Natasha as having helped defeat Thanos in what amounts to an act of espionage at the spiritual level.
Great questions. Great answers. Great interview. Great mind. Great ideas. AWESOME F*CKING MOVIE! THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS MOVIE!
I was wondering how it was decided that Nat and Clint went to Vormir.... in the MCU itself I mean.... I feel there was a closed conversation between Tony and Nebula, where they have to have discussed it, and who needs to go... hard choices... it can't have just been chance, to be believable in that universe.
watch Infinity War again. everyone seems to think Nebula knew Gamora had to be sacrificed to get the stone. Not even Gamora (who found where the stone was in the first place) knew about that until she and Thanos arrived on Vormir and red skull tells them how it works. All Nebula (and Tony) learn from Thanos on Titan is that Thanos is in pain after killing Gamora. They can stipulate WHERE he killed her. But they have no information to explain to them WHY he killed her.
@@rabennett79 Yeah I get that, but she can add it up, she stated that they went to Vormir together, he returned, she didn't. Granted, she doesn't know the details of the sacrifice for the stone, it might have simply been a dangerous battle that killed Gamora right.... but it's just strange lazy writing if it's just coincidence that the Avengers just happened to send the only two team members that have a deep love for each other.
Sheldon substitute lazy writing for emotional storytelling and you’re there. As you say, no one knew how to get the stone. Clint and Natasha were natural working partners - they’ve been a team long before the Avengers came into being. It’s perfectly natural that they would team up.
One question I have that I haven't seen asked; was there ever a time when they wanted to include the TV characters in act three, even for just a cameo?
I wonder how natasha and bruce's 5 year lapse life would've changed if he had transformed into professor hulk during infinity war... i don't know, i still don't buy that they didn't see each other during that time! if she was running shield and he was a superhero........
I have question for all parties involved in Avengers:EndGame and I am NOT trolling. To Kevin Feige, Joe and Anthony Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely... Why do you hate the Hulk so much? The MCU Hulk doesn't have a healing factor and doesn't get stronger exponentially as he gets angrier. If you take those two things away then you don't really have a Hulk. Hulk fans grudgingly acknowledged and accepted, even though we didn't like it, him getting his ass whipped in Infinity War because we knew it was to establish Thanos as a bad ass and a serious threat to the Avengers. We waited one year because we assumed the character we love was going to get his rematch and redeem himself only to realize that we would never see Hulk Smash again in what is soon to be the highest grossing movie of all time. Don't get me wrong. I LOVED AVENGERS:ENDGAME. But...as a Hulk fan I had to give the movie a 4.5 out of 5 rating instead of a perfect score because I was so disappointed that the Hulk wasn't even a factor in the final battle and never had a chance to redeem himself against Thanos like everyone else did. To add insult to injury, Marvel created a story in the comics where Thanos had the Hulk on a leash as his pet. This infuriated me so much that I can't even articulate my feelings in this letter. I love and appreciate all of the hard work you gentlemen have put in for this 10 year culmination and I would never throw out a Rolls Royce because it had a scratch on it. It just hurts that my favorite comic book character, in the eyes of the general public, is going to be forever remembered as the one that got his ass kicked by Thanos and refused to come out and fight again and not remembered as the strongest one there is.
Holip sism hulk was the one that brought everyone back. While it would have been cool to see an action scene, hulk was still an integral part of the film
38:00 you know.. a prequel for Natasha is a bad idea..it really is. Because the person died and it's hard to mix and blend it with the current mentality and digestion of the emotions with regards to Black Widow, specially how marvel studios works with plots and everything if you know what i mean. I mean it's pointless having a prequel movie if the person has died already in the present timeline. Correct me if I'm wrong guys. What's your idea?
Why do so many people I've come across online just assume that Widow's film is going to be a prequel? Maybe that's just what Marvel wants everyone to think? I'm not saying you're one of those people who believe it's a prequel, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I personally think the film will explore her past, and it will deal with a villain/organization that has close ties to her backstory. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that it will be set entirely in the past, part of it could be set closer to the time we meet her in Endgame. And I have a sneaking suspicion that we will get some closure to the events of Endgame at the conclusion of the film. They might even tease us just enough at the end to imply that she (the Natasha from our prime timeline) might not be gone forever. Maybe we get a hint that she could be in the soul world, or some other red herring that sets up a possible return a few years down the line for another avengers team up crossover or GOTG3. My point is anything in comics can be reversed given the right circumstances and the right amount of PROFIT potential. We shall see. Either way, I'm ecstatic that the movie is finally about to become a reality. This amazing character, played brilliantly by Scarlett Johansson, deserves every bit of this moment to shine on her own as the MAIN.
I don't completely understand the confusion. 2 versions of a self can exists in the same timeline as proven by Cap fighting Cap, Nebula fighting Nebula, 2 versions of Gamora and Thanos. Therefor, a version of Cap could marry Peggy in the same timeline as Cap living out Winter Soldier, Civil War, etc. At the same time, there is a multiverse where there are timelines where the stones were never destroyed.
The confusion is... for example, if future version Cap marries Peggy, what about the past version Cap? He gonna time travel elsewhere to find another Peggy for himself? That's kind of weird.. Imho, it's better if a story is clear and linear. Creating a multiverse, I feel, really doesn't provide closure.
@@yourlarkivist I know these comments are older, but I can't help wanting to clear this up. There is only one Cap. He fought in WWII and went into the ice. He woke up in 201?, joined the Avengers, lost the Avengers, did a little time travel with the Avengers, fighting his slightly earlier self in the process, then boogied on back to 1945 to hook up with Peggy and lived the rest of his life on the DL. While I belive it's a bit of retcon, it's not sever enough for me to argue. When he had aged past the endgame, he went to the funeral and handed over his shield. So, that's my read on how Caps whole life played out, in order. To me, that IS linear. No multiverse needed. - Okay. You go. What are your criteria for defining future Cap and past Cap? Why does he need another Peggy?
Why couldnt they get the reality stone when it was with the collector, that wouldve been easier, but We wouldnt have had that great scene with Thor and his mother so, it didnt matter
I feel the Morgan in the Soul Stone would've really worked if they used young Morgan instead. A whole lot of additional onions in the cinema to say the least
@@summertyme5748 was thinking this but I have to assume the snap and the soul sacrifice are different, mainly because Thanos' projection post snap was young Gamora rather than the older Gamora he sacrified. Idk, maybe for Tony he'd immediately project the person he's trying to protect the most etc and for me young Morgan would make sense rather than the reported older Morgan
OMG if you think about it, In the Universe where Thor took his hammer and the Reality stone wasn't returned then it would be interesting if that Universe became a 'War of The Realms' world.
I honestly think it would have been better if they didn't end the story with the new ability to time travel. Doesn't really provide closure.. It would have been better if Cap just return the stones, come back and they don't time travel anymore.
This is gonna look a bit like a dick move here: I remember when Yahoo was a "slightly less usefull Google"... Years later, they're doing some really deep Interviews with the screenwriters of "what I would call the next Star Wars". Hope it's as much of an improvement for them, as it is for me. Very good work with this Interview. Got you my Sub.
They could have used the “fake” Infinity Gauntlet on Asgard against Thanos in Endgame. They probably would have seen it if they went for the Tesseract on Asgard.
That's a decent notion. I'm still not sure there was a real reason for the fake gauntlet being there other than for laughs. But I think they went after the tesseract in NY because of the opportunity to get 3 in one place and time. Limited particles and such.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't remember the last time I saw a detailed interview w/screenwriters instead of directors. Thank you.
this was GOLD. great insight. good interview
IMDb has up a fantastic interview with Anthony Mackie, too. It’s 40 minutes and stunning.
Well said!
(And, speaking as a writer as well.)
I’ve always said the writers are the most under-appreciated people when it comes to movie making I’m so glad I got answers from the horses’ mouths so to speak. I kind of figured that was the mechanics of how the time travel worked and how Cap fixed everything but other people kept arguing with me and I was like “did we not listen to the Ancient One together”?? Lol so I’m glad the WRITERS confirmed it for me and cleared some things up too, now I can watch it a second time and be like YUPP THAT’S HAPPENING lol 😄
I like the transparency of the thought and creative process too. Especially when it comes to these movies because of how remarkable it is that they organized all sorts of different stories and characters and managed to weave them into excellent CONSISTENT end products. They deserve all the praise and study.
Great interview Kevin. I love the detailed, specific questions you asked about the making of the movie. These are questions I want to see, not the general broad interviews you see in the daytime interviews. Lots of good tidbits about the movie from these two geniuses.
I love how self-aware Markus, and McFeely and the Russo's are about the movie. Stuff like "Hawkeye's wife still have cell service" or audiences beating us up about the snap "Oh they're going to be brought back anyways".
Django love these kind of interviews!!
I love independent film!
Holy crap I never even thought about the Tesseract being on Asgard.
Great interview. These guys deserve an Oscar. So much thought and effort into Infinty War and Endgame. It was executed so well. Not to mention all the other marvel movies they wrote. Just staggering.
IKR. But they won’t ‘cause the Academy is fucking stupid.
XD
They don't deserve shit.
@@princekyle4132 they don't deserve a shit. Writing was lazy af.
Prejudice by elites about "comic book" movies. These movies are the modern day equivalent of the stories we told over fires. Marvel and DC heroes are the African, Egyptian, Greek pantheons of old. Analogue stories will continue to entertain and teach for generations.
I just saw it for the third time today at noon in a small hometown theater not a Regal or AMX type theater and it still had 20+ people not bad for a monday and their were still people crying , Laughing and cheering I don't consider Endgame a movie more like a must see Event .
Certainly an event, much like infinity war and civil war for me. I was completely overwhelmed and had no idea what to think during my first viewing. I’ve seen it 3 times now and love it more and more each time.
I’m also a member of the 3x club. Last time I saw it, was this past Saturday 3D and true Imax. Blew me away again. And yeah ppl were still cheering and crying (me included) this movie hits hard in the best ways. Great closing film. 👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽
yeah people in my theater...disappointed, it was “alright” i’ve seen it twice and...it was lack luster, bland, drawn out with a severe lack of use of certain characters, ignored growth from previous films and wasted a villain. worse yet the deaths felt unnecessary and didn’t carry emotional weight other than the “that’s it ? that’s what we get?” feeling. almost mad because i
looked forward to it for a long time...i was let down considerably however i found it entertaining but sub par.
Really good job on this interview. Interviewer is obviously well versed and interested but level headed in his approach.
Interviewer is excellent
For when Tony snapped, I was certain that he would see Natasha in the way station and he gets to tell her that he did it and they won. Thats just me though.
IMO that takes away from her sacrifice. It works emotionally but not logically, as McFeely and Markus would say. If he could see her, he could bring her back. Tragedy is necessary in epics to create these grand moments and her death along with Tony's were the cost for the effect. If it consoles you, there are an infinite amount of Natashas as well as Tonys in infinite universes that are always existing in the "quantum realm" so she's not truly dead as in her character can easily return at anytime Feige/ Writers/ Directors deem appropriate
That's a great idea tho tbh. You just gave me a great fanfiction idea.
She sacrificed herself so idk if there was a possible way he could see but then too.. thanos survived 2 snaps and stark died from his
that was a scene but they cut it because it was slowing down the pace
@@allilutes417 it was with morgan
I love hearing these guys talk about their writing process for the Marvel films. If only they participated in more long-form interviews/discussions like this.
Great questions. Great interview
Probably best screenwriters of all time for creating the best cinematic experience to date (IW and Endgame).
GREAT INTERVIEW! Great, knowledgeable questions. Great answers. I can’t believe he asked every question I wanted to know, like what new characters could have been included.
These guys are incredibly clever and smart, and possess amazing insight into human nature. Clearly the success has benefited from them greatly.
Yahoo on Google’s TH-cam... damn plot twist
Great interview, both questions and answers are spoken like true screenwriters. I was expecting a lot of Marvel-nerd related discussion but I got more. Good job. Cheers
I didn't know Yahoo still existed. But this was a good video.
They have a female CEO, who looks like the woman who directed Thanos. Err, Theranos.
@@O1OO1O1 nope...she got fired after taken yahoo to the ground...
Yaaaa HOOO O
I love how they explain time travel and then they contradict themselves by saying that Steve lived with peggy in the prime timeline.
They say that you can't change your present/future by changing the past (killing baby thanos doesn't change the present) and then they say that you create a alternate timeline or branch only if you take away an infinity stone from the past...wtf
That's why the Russo brothers explanation of Old Man Cap is better, and doesn't contradict the entire time travel rules that the movie sets up.
The second part makes sense. Killing Thanos wouldn't change what happened, but taking an infinity stone from that time will definitely create an alternate timeline, but not for THEM, for whoever was there at the time the stone was taken, creating an alternate timeline, which would be healed if the stone is returned exactly when it was taken.
Steve could be with Peggy in the prime timeline given he lived a mostly undisclosed life under a false name, and chose to ignore the bad things happening everywhere, and then revealing himself when his past self disappears to replace the infinity stones. Other explanation that the directors gave, contradicting this, is that he jumped onto an alternate timeline (kind of sideways time travelling) and jumped back after living a full life with Peggy.
All in all, it's entirely fiction, and time-travelling doesn't exist, so at this point, best to just enjoy it as it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@nafisa.t13 What I'm saying is:
they say you can create an alternate timeline only if a stone is taken but what happen when you kill baby thanos then? It doesn't change your future but in that alternate timeline Thanos doesn't exist. So you have created an alternate timeline without taking an infinity stone.
The way that quantum physics explains a possible timetravel (and they talk about this in the interview) contradicts the theory of Cap living with peggy in the prime timeline.
In the end, as you said, it's not really that important, it's just nerds nitpicking. It's also funny that directors and screenwriters don't agree :v
@@nafisa.t13 but there's a way to write time travel in a clean logical non-paradoxical manner, like the directors explained... any change you make in the past, creates an alternate branch timeline.
and then there's the paradoxical mess that is the Writer's version, which after spending half the movie shitting on Back to the Future time rules, is essentially Back to the Future rules with bonus stones that create alternate timelines... but if you don't touch the stones it's just basic BTTF rules.
Loki escapes in the battle of new york... that happens in our timeline, by their rules, because the stones hadn't been removed yet... but loki never escaped in our timeline...
The Avenger's already effecting the past and events are playing out differently than before, like Loki escaping, or Tony having a heart attack, even before taking the stones... so somehow we have two versions of the events but still in one timeline, until they remove the stones...
Also, What if the Captain living with Peggy then goes and kills Baby Zemo...
with the russo brothers rules(the directors), no problem he's in an alt timeline anyway, things can happen differently, civil war won't happen.
With the writers rules, it's contradicts what Hulk says about killing Baby Thanos.
so, why not just use the cleaner logical multiverse version.
The only thing that makes sense is that ANY travel to the past creates an alternate timeline, whether or not a stone is taken, and returning the stones doesn't "prune" those alternate timelines, it it just done to ensure you haven't screwed over the inhabitants of those new timelines. The Ancient One's dialog even says that returning the stone is to protect the new timeline that she's in. Not the main one.
Steve lived his life in an alternate timeline, and returned to the main MCU timeline after Peggy died. He had to, there's no way he was going to live his whole life knowing about all of the evil he could prevent and not doing it. So he did, in that other universe. The only thing about it that is confusing is that he didn't return to the platform as everyone else did when they traveled. To me that implies that he took an alternate route back home. Maybe after 60+ years in the other timeline, the "quantum GPS" couldn't get him back home, so Stark and/or Pym from that universe helped him build a new quantum tunnel to get home.
My Top3 MCU films are written by these guys. This was a great interview.
The Ancient One didn’t say ONLY removing a stone can create an alternate timeline! She said removing one definitely would. That’s a huge difference.
They wrote it though haha so...
@@michaelbrice5169 They didn't direct it though. In Hollywood, screenwriters are a dime a dozen. Their stuff gets scrapped and/ or rewritten all the time. The real end- all be-all is the opinion of the producers and directors.
@@jimhogarth9678 that is your opinion
Michael Brice That’s a fair point. Another fair point is maybe he meant the stones actively stop alternate timelines from existing. So I guess.
@@Jbluez1 their theory of time travel is that you can't effect past because if you went back in time you were always there. Time travel is crazy
So glad Marvel allowed them to write an ending to this saga with no absolute ties to the future. That is very freeing and it allows all the creative minds to go all in before they trimmed it out for the best.
I'm baffled by people still not getting how the timetravel works in Endgame. It's like they fell asleep during Tony's Mobious Strip scene. Tony has them jump on and ride a Mobious Strip and then get off it again. Its very straight forward.
Michel Lalin because the rest of the movie didn’t click. it felt jumbled and unorganized
The reason people aren't getting it is because it's straight up nonsense in the movie. They make a huge deal about having to get the stones back to preserve the timeline, but Thanos was pulled from the timeline and then killed. Total contradiction and absolute garbage. Hulk's explanation of how time travel doesn't work is pure doublespeak, and Nebula's agreement was clearly just for fun to add to the notion that non-terrestrials are smarter than most humans. It doesn't make Hulk or Nebula correct. It just makes them characters in a movie. :p
This is the first time I've seen the writers of the movie. Good for this channel, interviewing them...writers of great movies need more recognition.
Such a beautiful interview! Good job man! And thank you Markus and McFeely
20:52 The ONLY question that needed to be asked lol. Excellent interview all the way through @djkevlar
The Hulk compromise in Infinity War, would have been just great for the Hulk arc and a nice omage to the comics. Amazing movies, but i feel like they blew a chance for great moments, cutting of so many Hulk scenes, leaving in the "Ant-man old baby debacle i think i've peed myself" scene in, while they could've put that in the bonus for the Bluray.
Agreed. I realize they can only have so much in there, but Hulk was treated as a secondary character in the end.
surfitlive gee thanks for enlightening me on that
Thank you for this interview. Great questions, great answers!
I LOVE LOVE listening to the screen writers more!!! its better than with the director
Love these guys, i hope they write more movies for the mcu
They've already written 6 so far.
I love their reaction to the Ant-Man Thanus question. They clearly think it's hilarious.
Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus' explanation of time travel falls apart at the 46:00 mark when they talk about Peggy's children always been Steve's (Captain America), as that would imply that traveling to the past can change the future. Per the rules explained in the movie, you cannot change the past--the past will be your new future and the future will be your past. Steve going back and time and living a life with Peggy is a new reality that cannot happen in current day, as the past is fixed.
But the movie has a larger problem, as we never see how Steve returned. Every time saw time travel in Endgame, those traveling to the past needed a starting point and exit point, and the point was a time traveling portal. The Avengers leave and return via the Portal. However, the movie shows us that it is possible to travel farther back in time from your original origin point, but your exit still requires a portal exit point--heck, even Thanos needed an exit point to travel 9 years into the future. How the heck did Steve get back to the present without a portal?
The Russus answered this question in a interview. They said that Steve traveled back to the future at some point--when wasn't made clear. I think it's safe to say that this isn't common knowledge and has left many people thinking that Steve waited until time caught up and returned to meet everyone at the time he left, as that's how the scene plays out. I was sort of hoping that that was the case as it would create the possibility of the MCU having a young and old Captain America occupying the same reality, opening the possibility of Chris Evens' return, but that seems doubtful. I'm not terribly disappointed, as I'm sure Sam Wilson will make a great Captain America. Chris did such a fine job playing Captain America that he is all I see (or hear) when I think of the character. I will miss him.
I got a bit sidetracked. I just wanted to say that the writers' explanation of time travel at the end doesn't add up with what we saw. Changes in the past will not change the present.
Shadiversity has a theory that the entire MCU takes place in a split timeline from whatever would be the original, untouched timeline in order for this event to work out. So all the movies we watched have been in the timeline where Cap has gone back and lived his entire life with Peggy off screen, and the Cap we watch go back in time goes to another timeline where he, separately, lives with Peggy and so on, the implication being that Captain America will always take the chance to live out a full life with the woman he loves if given the chance. This kind of introduces a problem though, what's going on in Old Cap's timeline, and does our timeline only happen because there's a Captain America living off screen the entire time? Also I'm pretty sure this isn't what the screen writers were thinking, and might break other time travel rules in universe.
I've also heard another theory, that if you go back in time and cause events to happen as they've already happened, then you aren't changing the present, but fulfilling things that already happened the way they always have. You don't create a new timeline, you just make a closed loop that ensures your timeline happens the way it did. So Cap goes back in time, and everything happens the way it always did, meaning he's in the same timeline (because what determines a different timeline is a possible event either happening or not happening, so if something in the past that's already happened is caused by time travel mumbo jumbo, then technically the rules haven't been broken), so he can still show up at the end. This introduces the bootstrapping paradox, but I think the directors might have had this interpretation of how it works, but I'll need to watch the movies again to come to a conclusion
C ,
These theories don’t work within the rules about time stated in Endgame. The theories you posted work on Back to the Future principals, principals the writers state in this interview, and in Endgame, that they didn’t want to follow because it causes more problems than solutions.
They solved the issue by stating up front that you cannot change what was, the present will always be the present no matter what you do in the past. So, Steve going back in time to live a full life with Peggy can never change the present because he never did that. He could however create a new reality and live a life that is completely separate from the present, and that is exactly what happened according to the Russos-the movie doesn’t explain this well, mind you.
It isn’t possible for Steve to have gone back in time to live a full life with Peggy and have children in the present in in theory with the rules set in place.
However, if the Avengers had failed to return anyone of the Infinity stones or all of the them to their respective points in time perhaps that could have been possible in a very nightmarish way as the Ancient One was pretty clear about a new, nasty, timeline(s) coming about if the stones were not returned from where they came.
I think we fans should move on and embrace the change no matter how hard it might be. In the end, it might not be as hard as we think. “The snap,” as Nick Fury states it, though I think it’s due to multiple snaps, created a problem not too different from what the Ancient One spoke of. We don’t have splinter timelines, but we now have multiple linear universes colliding into one another. Our world has been identified as Earth 616 in a longer clip talking about the Multiverse. In Quentin Beck world, there apparently isn’t a Spider-Man, but there’s possibly Shield. While Gamora and Natasha from present time, they might be a live and well on a different Earth or world. Notice how the writers dodged the question about Natasha. I think they know what’s planned for her and I don’t think her story is just an origin. Maybe the deal for the Soul stone is absolute as they say it is, but maybe we’ll get a new Black Widow in a similar fashion to how we got a new Gamora and Nebula (I know she’s now dead, just pointing out that she came to the present) in the current timeline.
Whatever is coming will be hinted at in Spider-Man Far From Home so we’ll see soon enough.
@@G1Transformed Hey, I was just offering some alternate explanations that people have thought up. And what do you mean "move on and embrace the change?" I've fully embraced the time travel and possible multiverse being introduced, discussing theories about different ways it could possibly work and how that does or doesn't fit into what we've seen so far doesn't change that. No, I actually really like that element of it.
Now, while I don't necessarily agree that either of those theories are what's going on in the Marvelverse, I don't think either of them are strictly impossible. The closed loop, for example, doesn't have to break the way time travel works. You can't go back and change what's already happened, true, but what if you go back and do something that ends up being the cause of what's already happened to you as you originally experienced it? You aren't changing anything, you're the cause of your timeline the way it's always happened. Nothing in the way time travel was explained in Endgame necessarily makes that impossible. The present is the present no matter what you do in the past, but if you experienced the present a certain way, go back, and then do something that causes an event to take place in the present that you already experienced, what's happening there? You *aren't* changing the present, the present was a timeline that already had you time traveling in it. If you went back in time, became the cause of an important event, and then stayed in the past to watch it all unfold, you'd watch your entire timeline unfold the exact way it did the first time. It's not a different timeline then, because all the same things happened. Do you get what I'm saying? Forget the movie for a second and just think about how that time logic stands on its own. How would you differentiate between the two timelines if they're the same? You can't.
And, as for the other theory, I just find it interesting, but I think it's less plausible as something the directors had in mind. Oh, right, that's another thing, it's possible the Russos (directors) and the screen writers (the people in this interview) have slightly different interpretations of how the time travel works.
"Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus' explanation of time travel falls apart at the 46:00 mark when they talk about Peggy's children always been Steve's (Captain America), as that would imply that traveling to the past can change the future. Per the rules explained in the movie, you cannot change the past--the past will be your new future and the future will be your past."
Their explanation was that in their timeline, Captain America had always travelled back. There were two Cap's, making it their actual past.
@__ About this theory--not possible. Steve cannot go to an alternate reality. You can only back in time, to what was. Time is static, as it was never moving a bit slower than it already is. Alternate reality is created when someone from the present goes to the past and changes something.
So you see, it isn't so simple. The idea of time travel as explained in Endgame is, but not how old Steve could have aged and returned. Yeah, a lot of people seem to have a varying ideas on the matter, but again, we didn't see what happened, and that's why it's a problem and why it's hard, and why the writers and directors keeping getting asked these questions.
I'm really well impressed with everything in this interview, the writers are absoultely brilliant, the way they explain everything I feel for the most part is extraordinary, it's really amazing how self aware they are of the writing in these movies and what the audience feel etc, the interviewer was really really good too giving this at ease vibe about him. The only thing I want to point out is that you should have named them in the title of the vid rather than the description, I mean these guys are absolutely brilliant, its clear they are just no in it for the money....give them the recognition they deserve
This is a real gem! Thanks for putting this together with the writers!
I do disagree with “it’s only if you remove the stones that you create a branch reality”.
That’s not exactly what the ancient one says. And that’s not the logical basis of using Quantum theory for time travel.
Since there are no “Infinity Stones” in Quantum theory. [the ancient one uses removing the stones as an example - but the logic applies to any major change that is not reversed obviously]
I interpret the ancient one as saying that if you significantly change the past - you get a branch reality - leading to a new future, instead of changing your present.
This is also what the director’s imply. On this point I respectfully agree with the directors, and not one of the writers. 45:00
I thought this too but after a rewatch the Ancient One does specifically state that a branched timeline happens only if you move a stone. You can interpret it how you like or disagree but what's said in the film is what's said in the film.
I don’t agree. You are not understanding that when Professor Hulk says you - “You can’t change your future by altering your past because, the past become your new future”, he is talking about a *branched timeline*. It has *nothing* to do with Infinity Stones. It has to do with Quantum Tunnel time travel.
Here is my question for you: What do you think Hulk means when he says this???
@@summertyme5748 Hulks quote means you're not creating new timelines because it's all linear. You're travelling along your own personal straight line of time.
Travel from future to past > that future now becomes your past > what used to be the present you traveled from aka the future is now the past > you can't change the past. You always travel in a straight line, just like what Tony's morbious strip model showed. Its just a big loop. Nothing Hulk says creates a branch.
Then later the Ancient One in 2014 introduces the ideas of branches when you remove a stone. But Hulk says everything will return back to normal and branches will close if you put the stones back to before they were taken in the first place.
Not to beat a dead horse but, this is the dialogue from the film,.
The Ancient One never uses the word “only” as in only if you remove a stone:
“The Infinity stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits. Now, this may benefit your reality but my new one, not so much. In this new branched reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world will be over run. Millions will suffer. So, tell me Doctor, can your science prevent all that?”
^ That makes sense, and Professor Hulk agrees, which is why he suggests that if you put the stone back at the same point in time you can clip the branch.
That also makes sense.
But be careful....in no way does the Ancient imply that you can make any change you want to the timeline as long as you don’t remove a stone because *only* removing a stone impacts the timeline.
That is not what she says and that would *not* make any sense.
@@summertyme5748 No she doesn't say only. But they're specifically talking about the stones in that conversation. She says remove a stone and the flow splits. It's HEAVILY implied that removing stones causes branched realities and basically nothing else. There is no butterfly effect. That's what the writers say the case is too, that only moving stones creates branched timelines because the stones themselves create time.
I guess it's opinion because like the writers said the directors don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm just saying what the film and script present as the case.
The thing behind Markus's head keeps making me think he has a ponytail haha
I can't even listen to what they're saying now b/c of this.
Ha thought I was the only one
The movie was long, but the "superhero Hulk" premise is lost in the film. We actually see other Avengers reporting from around the universe after saving lives, but we just see Hulk (more or less) relaxing & being a celebrity.
Kinda agree. They cut alot of his character and felt a little empty. For an OG, I don't think they quite did him justice here.
If only these guys wrote the last season of Game of Thrones.
@monokhem devil's in the details. Maybe the tentpoles are the same but the way it happens is off.
unlikely it will be different - they are strictly following what RR Martin told them - you can argue how they set it up and that's fair - but they had cut down the number of episodes as the cast salaries of 500k per episode + production costs were way out of control
@monokhem Actually love the ending in theory, in execution though...
@@aguzman222 That's actually not true. HBO wanted more episodes (reportedly ten seasons) but it was D&D's idea to keep it short so they can move on to writing Star Wars and Civil War fan fiction.
@monokhem I LOVE the idea of Dany going evil. After reading the books, it makes complete sense. But in the context of a season filled with hollow stakes, thicc plot armor, and lazy writing, I just wasn't into it. To each their own, I guess.
im so thrilled to have watched the writers of the this epic saga talk about it. The best interview with regard to mcu which only true fans will understand
This interview was excellent. Thank you!
This was an amazing interview thank you
This was a great quality interview. Really in depth questions, and good discussion vibe
How can they say that those kids are Caps kids?
Changing the past doesn’t change the future.
Those kids already exists at the time of winter soldier movie. That time Cap didn’t even go back.
this is why time travel should be banned from films.
@Rixen Jacob Because it wasn't a "change". It was ALWAYS that way. The kids only exist BECAUSE he went back. When Young Cap is looking at the pictures, Old Cap is still there in that timeline. It is a loop back on the main timeline, not a branch to another timeline. In 2012, there existed 3 Captain America's at the same time: the 2 young ones fighting each other and the old one living his life with Peggy.
@@Lowthar1425 Sorry mate, but the movie makes it very clear that nothing you do in the past will effect the present you just left. He can't have always been there, because if that's the case, then all the things that happened when they all went back would also have always been in place such as Loki stealing the stone and Captain America saying he was Hydra! You don't think that would have caused some issues for Winter Solider? The writers are wrong and the directors are right. He had to have gone into an alternate timeline. The problem everyone has is how did he then travelled back to the prime timeline.
@@gedaliaw Sorry man, I think you are mixing things up here. He's saying that you can't change the past because the past was always that way, like when the Avengers caught Loki, Tony from the present was always up on the building watching that happen. It's why you can't kill baby Thanos, because if you were supposed to, you would have and there would be no Thanos. There is nothing to demonstrate that Cap didn't live his life in our timeline and father the children, because theoretically, it could have always been that way. Also, your examples don't really mean anything, the Loki escape and Hail Hydra happened in a branch (alternate reality) when the stone was moved. So those would not have affected the main timeline. Whichever explanation Marvel chooses is up to them, but the writer's are probably more correct than the Russo's on this particular matter.
The Russos said Cap lived out his days with Peggy in an alternate timeline and then made a jump back to the main timeline to deliver Sam the shield.
49.43 they briefly mention the name of Braddock being dropped saying it's Cap B - though I'd assume it's his father as the timing would be wrong if they are intro-ing the Cap later.
I would not change anything about that movie, but I must admit that I would love to have seen Heimdal fight Iron-man.
Multiverse is coming. Braddock was mentioned in Endgame and Cap B is in charge of the corp that polices the multiverse...
Winter Soldier remains my favorite MCU movie (although, to be honest, it's tied with Guardians Vol).
Vol 2?
I am with you
Same. I probably watch the Avengers movies (along with Civil War) more than Winter Soldier, but WS is arguably the best MCU film and one of the most mature ones (for those who say that Marvel films are for kids).
Agreed, it’s the best solo pic of the MCU movies. And bizarrely there’s pretty much no supernatural powers in it until the post credit scene. Just a terrific action conspiracy thriller set in the MCU
What we need is both screen writer and the directors and kevin feige in one room and seen how chaotic and how the debate going abt their different interpretations of the time heist.
I loved rocket referring to mantis as the chick with the antenna, but he didnt list groot first, did he?
MahoutsuGuy drax Star lord groot
I get the feeling that the first Avengers (2012), Infinity Wars and Endgame kind of correspond to A New Hope, Empire and Return of the Jedi. The tone of these three films, both in the case of Star Wars and Avengers, follows the same progression. As New Hope sets up the world, so does Avengers; as Empire leaves you emotionally devastated, so does Infinity Wars; and as Jedi leaves you cheering, so does Endgame. The one hiccup is, of course, Tony's death.
Good interview, man. Good job.
wish they would have cleared up....
1. how Thanos was able to travel in time (2014-present day)? Nebula had pim particles for 1 round trip same as the rest... so how did she bring Thanos' ship through the quantum tunnel/time??
2. how the power surge affected both Thanos & Hulk, both characters showed to be in pain/discomfort when they put on the gauntlet but Tony just took a really deep breath & appeared stunned before saying "I am Iron Man" breathlessly. After all he's just a man in a can.
3. only the worthy are able to lift Mjolnir - assuming same rules apply to Stormbreaker.. why was Thanos able to hold/use Stormbreaker, and also kick/smack Mjolnir away from Steve during their fight?
4. In previous films whenever someone touched an infinity stone, (the collector's slave girl on Nowhere, Ronin taking stone for himself or when the guardian's joined hands with Peter to defeat Ronin) one of two things happened - a huge explosion representing power surge or severely hurting / killing that person... why didn't this movie follow that "rule"?
ev1lp1nk that’s only with the power stone, no one used the power stone outside the gauntlet aside from Thanos
@@danzostream39 ...meaning the only stone that was handled in my question?
it happens with other stones. Hawkeye held soul stone, hulk held the time stone - tho he is very strong, he does not posses immense power. **info taken from MCU fandom** "Only beings of immense power can directly wield the Stones, such as Celestials,[1] and the Mad Titan Thanos.[2] Lesser beings face dire consequences: Johann Schmidt was cursed to Vormir to guard the Soul Stone after touching an active Tesseract, Jane Foster became ill after being exposed to the Aether, Carina exploded when she touched the Power Stone; however, these effects can be reduced if a group is sharing the power among themselves.[1] It is also possible to place an Infinity Stone (or multiple) inside a container to allow the user to wield the Stone's power without suffering the normal repercussions."
@@ev1lp1nk That is entirely based off of the Collector's PowerPoint presentation. If you look at the evidence, though...
.
The rule about the stones harming the bearer seems to have largely applied to the Power stone. Only extremely powerful beings could hold it *unaided*. Thanos briefly held the power stone in his fight with Wanda, but I think it's safe to say Thanos was an extremely powerful being. While the Reality stone/Aether seemed to be harming Jane Foster, it didn't immediately blast her. None of the other stones has shown a propensity for blasting their bearers, so I think this movie did okay with the power surges.
.
Why was Thanos able to hold/use Stormbreaker?
Mjolnir is unique in the worthy requirement. It's something laid on the weapon by Odin in the first Thor movie. Stormbreaker, while attuned to Thor, doesn't quite have the same restriction.
"Aren't you more handsome than a year ago"
"Ehh I dont know about that.... my hair is thinning"
Same bro, same.
...and he says it to two almost bald men lol
@@DAVIDND24 While being bald or balding isn't something that most people associate with "attractiveness" I think anyone who's able to pull off being bald without looking ugly is actually really attractive which it seems like both of these men are
@@drunkdonutboy Its a shame i have to explain.. My comment wasn't a derogatory statement towards the two writers theres absolutely nothing wrong with them.. i was highlighting the fact that while the interviewer was trying to be self-deprecating, he accidentally disrespected the two guys by implying that losing his hair was a thing which would make him look less attractive..
@@DAVIDND24 Well my comment wasnt derogatory towards you I just thought I'd put it out there so whoever is balf out there would feel a little better about themselves
great interview. very insightful. one thing I like that I have learned is marvel does the private test screenings to see how things play out and people react. This is similar to motown music, they would have a room of people to listen to a song and they vote if good or bad. marvel seems to do the same thing and they use their team to decide if they are on the right track or not
McFeely and Markus have definitely established themselves as some of the great writers of Hollywood. I really loved listening to a conversation about my favorite aspect of filmmaking - the writing, and I love how they completed most of the character arcs. However, I take major issue with how they wrote the Hulk/Banner to Professor Hulk transition. Even showing the Hulk saving people from a burning building would have fallen short of explaining to the viewer how the Hulk-Banner amalgamation comes about. The Hulk is actually a very complex character, and how Banner's experiences lend to Hulk's rage and primal nature often got overlooked in the MCU. Notwithstanding the Universal distribution rights problem, there is still room for doing justice to the Hulk character without writing oneself into a corner, and even though these guys really tried, I feel that they didn't really do justice to the character. Why is it "off to the races" after the diner scene. Not only did that scene inadequately explain how the transition to Doc Green happened, it also didn't help the Hulk's arc. I understand that Banner is finally at peace with the Hulk, finally having worked out his life-threatening issues with the big guy, and I hate that that happened off-screen, but I'm willing to let that slide. Why is he dabbing and grinning away, when the world around is so dark and gloomy, though? No, really, I can see why going from feeling like an exposed nerve to achieving the perfect balance of two constantly-fighting identities can be a source of elation. But that doesn't change the fact that half the world is fucking dead. And don't tell me that it's because Banner didn't lose anybody significant. So didn't Natasha, but she was devastated, and it still showed five years after the snap. The movie succeeds in really showing me many of the characters' motivations for why they do what they do to undo the snap, but the Hulk is not one of those characters.
There are plenty of smart superheroes, and there are plenty of strong ones, but there is only one superhuman who truly manifests the man vs monster dichotomy. That is the defining characteristic of the Hulk, a monster that must be kept at bay by a smart guy, because that monster is ready for a never-ending war (as that is precisely what Bruce is dealing with in his brain, a never ending war with the other identity, for control over the steering wheel). I'm not the kind of Hulk fan that just likes the Hulk for the brute that he is, I like the meta aspects of the character, the larger conversation to be had about inner demons. You can't just have the Hulk pose for photographs and expect me to move on. I love the MCU, but the exact reasons why I love characters like Iron Man and Captain America are why I have grown to detest the MCU hulk - character growth and the narrative of the sequence of events that lead to that growth. People shit on Ang Lee's Hulk, but at least he took the time to explain to me the sheer tragedy that is the Hulk's existence. The MCU has paid lip service to a character that I grew up loving and admiring. So no, I'm not just salty because the MCU Hulk is a depowered shadow of the comic book Hulk. My disappointment with the Hulk has more to do with the character's story in the MCU, or the lack thereof.
I don’t agree about the handling of Hulk and Banner. I think it was done well. Meaning - I was surprised and delighted to see what happened, and intuitively even before the explanation of “blah blah” gamma lab, it made perfect sense.
I do *not* want this 3 hour movie to belabor something that seems to be so small and petty and irrelevant to the overwhelming context of the story of 1/2 the Universe being wiped out.
Just to communicate in 10 or 15 minutes - what they effectively demonstrated in a single scene at a dinner - which is one of the best scenes in the film
“The Hulk is a very complex character”
^ Only over the course of 30 years of comic books most of which are simplistic and mediocre, and...
The 3 movie arc of Thor Ragnorok - Infinity War and End Game.
Hulk of Universal studios solo Hulk films: ***Is not complicated**. He is a CGI character with no more complexity than Godzilla or King Kong.
I think you are a fan of 1 character and your advice would stop the movie in it’s tracks to provide Hulk fan service, while destroying the film’s momentum and distracting from it’s narrative.
I’m glad the writers did not do that.
One last point of disagreement: “Why is he dabbing and grinning away”.
^ Read this: In Endgame, we see that arc of rebirth especially boldly in Bruce Banner. For years, he struggled with the useful green monster inside of him. And when Bruce needed Hulk the most, the big guy refused to come out-afraid of the bigger guy; broken by Thanos. Again, we hear about failure-the angsty shame that Bruce feels for Thanos’ Infinity War victory. (“No one blamed you,” Natasha Romanoff tells him; “I did,” Bruce says.) But that failure led to another reclamation of sorts-the blending of Bruce and Hulk into one unified person that doesn’t cause quite so many ripped shirts.”
www.patheos.com/blogs/watchinggod/2019/05/endgame-is-all-about-colossal-failure-and-second-chances/
I think you are a Hulk fan and need the movie to obsess over one character - but it just doesn’t have time to wallow in Hulk-mania.
Good talk, Good Hosting. Well done, Yahoo.
I think putting Hulk becoming Professor Hulk in Infinity War would have been better, my least favorite thing about endgame was that we spent an entire movie watching Bruce Banner struggling to get Hulk to come out only for it to be resolved offscreen.
20:52 This is where the deep stuff starts
What about people who were snapped away while in a airplane, when they re-materialize, do they just fall back to earth as the plane is no longer in that spot after 5 years?
Like the helicopter that Nick Fury saw lol
What about people who were snapped away while the planet was at a different point in it's rotation, do they just appear in the middle of the ocean? do Americans appear back next to the Roman Colosseum?
What about people who were snapped away while the earth was at a different point in it's revolution around the sun. Do they just reappear in the middle of space and their remains just wait for the earth to come along and splatter them across the atmosphere like bugs on a windshield?
What about people who are brought back at the same place even though the expansion of the universe has left them not even a remaining in the milky way?
Richard Bennett our solar system is not even in the same place in the galexy after five years, and the universe is constantly expanding...
:-O
I like Markus and McFeely's version of Cap's ending better than the Russo's.
AFC 9798 : I love their writing, but their explanation of the time travel at the films end does not make sense which is why the Russo’s could not play along with it. Sorry.
@@summertyme5748 The writers interpretation is that the whole time we've been watching young Cap there has been an old Cap living a normal life with Peggy within the same timeline. The Russo's interpretation is that Old Cap is from an alternate timeline that somehow without explanation was able to travel between timelines. Neither one makes any sense I just prefer the writers version because it ties in with who Peggy's (never revealed) husband was.
These two are a great interview.
Tony vs Heimdall 🤯🤯🤯
This is such a great interview
Devry commercial: "Today's students need balance.."
*Thanos has entered the chat*
Oooooooh 31:33 he spills the beans not that it’s such a secret. Valkyrie is gay, supposedly all the Valkyrie were, and it’s a behind the scenes tidbit that when Valkyrie was telling about how the other one saved her in that slo mo flashback in Ragnarok, the unsaid thing was that was her lover.
In one of the other recent interviews with the Russos, they mention there will be a reveal in the MCU soon one of the heroes being gay, so they could have been referring to Valkyrie.
Captain Marvel.
It would have been nice to see Bruce meeting natasha in the soul gem when he snapped his fingers
Agreed.
One of the reasons is, I think the plot should reinforce Natasha’s role beyond just being dead.
In fact her spirit is inside the soul stone, and she was not sacrificed by Thanos.
I actually thought that Thanos would fail to complete the final snap because he never sacrificed anyone for the gauntlet.
Because if you think about it->
If Thanos can wield the Gauntlet based on someone else’s sacrifice regardless of love, then the original sacrifice of Gamora was not necessary.
He could have just as easily killed Nebula - who is loved by Gamora and then if the stone is given to Gamora just take it from her.
Or he could kill Corvus Glave, and take the stone from Proxima Midnight. I can’t believe the soul stone would permit shenanigans.
I assume the point of the soul stone reinforcing a moral conscience to the narrative is that it can’t be side stepped.
I like to think of Natasha as having helped defeat Thanos in what amounts to an act of espionage at the spiritual level.
Great questions. Great answers. Great interview. Great mind. Great ideas. AWESOME F*CKING MOVIE! THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS MOVIE!
I was wondering how it was decided that Nat and Clint went to Vormir.... in the MCU itself I mean.... I feel there was a closed conversation between Tony and Nebula, where they have to have discussed it, and who needs to go... hard choices... it can't have just been chance, to be believable in that universe.
watch Infinity War again. everyone seems to think Nebula knew Gamora had to be sacrificed to get the stone. Not even Gamora (who found where the stone was in the first place) knew about that until she and Thanos arrived on Vormir and red skull tells them how it works.
All Nebula (and Tony) learn from Thanos on Titan is that Thanos is in pain after killing Gamora. They can stipulate WHERE he killed her. But they have no information to explain to them WHY he killed her.
@@rabennett79 Yeah I get that, but she can add it up, she stated that they went to Vormir together, he returned, she didn't. Granted, she doesn't know the details of the sacrifice for the stone, it might have simply been a dangerous battle that killed Gamora right.... but it's just strange lazy writing if it's just coincidence that the Avengers just happened to send the only two team members that have a deep love for each other.
Sheldon substitute lazy writing for emotional storytelling and you’re there. As you say, no one knew how to get the stone. Clint and Natasha were natural working partners - they’ve been a team long before the Avengers came into being. It’s perfectly natural that they would team up.
@@jayenolan9527 which is an amazing cosmic coincidence that really worked out for all concerned, eternity was definitely watching over our team.
Sheldon in the same way that everything always works out perfectly in Mission Impossible and Bond films. They’re fiction.
Such a good interview loved it
This was a good interview. I wish we'd have more interviews with writers
Money is the standard for how we judge art. And it is not even an awkward thing. It is exciting, nice and high note.
One question I have that I haven't seen asked; was there ever a time when they wanted to include the TV characters in act three, even for just a cameo?
It would have been nice if they'd found out Coulson was alive, but I guess it wasn't meant to be...
I wonder how natasha and bruce's 5 year lapse life would've changed if he had transformed into professor hulk during infinity war... i don't know, i still don't buy that they didn't see each other during that time! if she was running shield and he was a superhero........
Agree
I have question for all parties involved in Avengers:EndGame and I am NOT trolling.
To Kevin Feige, Joe and Anthony Russo, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely...
Why do you hate the Hulk so much? The MCU Hulk doesn't have a healing factor and doesn't get stronger exponentially as he gets angrier. If you take those two things away then you don't really have a Hulk.
Hulk fans grudgingly acknowledged and accepted, even though we didn't like it, him getting his ass whipped in Infinity War because we knew it was to establish Thanos as a bad ass and a serious threat to the Avengers. We waited one year because we assumed the character we love was going to get his rematch and redeem himself only to realize that we would never see Hulk Smash again in what is soon to be the highest grossing movie of all time.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVED AVENGERS:ENDGAME. But...as a Hulk fan I had to give the movie a 4.5 out of 5 rating instead of a perfect score because I was so disappointed that the Hulk wasn't even a factor in the final battle and never had a chance to redeem himself against Thanos like everyone else did.
To add insult to injury, Marvel created a story in the comics where Thanos had the Hulk on a leash as his pet. This infuriated me so much that I can't even articulate my feelings in this letter.
I love and appreciate all of the hard work you gentlemen have put in for this 10 year culmination and I would never throw out a Rolls Royce because it had a scratch on it. It just hurts that my favorite comic book character, in the eyes of the general public, is going to be forever remembered as the one that got his ass kicked by Thanos and refused to come out and fight again and not remembered as the strongest one there is.
Holip sism hulk was the one that brought everyone back. While it would have been cool to see an action scene, hulk was still an integral part of the film
You're over thinking it bro...just turn your brain off and enjoy it
Because Universal won't let them make a sequel
@maccajoe I'm sorry, did you type something?
Valkyrie is a lesbian, confirmed. Like the actual actress.
42:00 time travel talk
AMAZING Interview!!
what happened to soul world? why didnt hulk and tony see soul world when they snapped their fingers?
Writers are so underrated
Slapshot shirt is my favorite part of this interview and I'm like 3 min in
screenwriters explain time travel 41:22
the sarcasm at the beginning was so realistic I was like "...............(types google, box office = $2. something Billion)
I'm just gonna say it...Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely seem like pleasant fellows.
Great screenwriters session !
38:00 you know.. a prequel for Natasha is a bad idea..it really is. Because the person died and it's hard to mix and blend it with the current mentality and digestion of the emotions with regards to Black Widow, specially how marvel studios works with plots and everything if you know what i mean. I mean it's pointless having a prequel movie if the person has died already in the present timeline. Correct me if I'm wrong guys. What's your idea?
Why do so many people I've come across online just assume that Widow's film is going to be a prequel? Maybe that's just what Marvel wants everyone to think? I'm not saying you're one of those people who believe it's a prequel, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I personally think the film will explore her past, and it will deal with a villain/organization that has close ties to her backstory. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that it will be set entirely in the past, part of it could be set closer to the time we meet her in Endgame. And I have a sneaking suspicion that we will get some closure to the events of Endgame at the conclusion of the film. They might even tease us just enough at the end to imply that she (the Natasha from our prime timeline) might not be gone forever. Maybe we get a hint that she could be in the soul world, or some other red herring that sets up a possible return a few years down the line for another avengers team up crossover or GOTG3. My point is anything in comics can be reversed given the right circumstances and the right amount of PROFIT potential. We shall see. Either way, I'm ecstatic that the movie is finally about to become a reality. This amazing character, played brilliantly by Scarlett Johansson, deserves every bit of this moment to shine on her own as the MAIN.
@@multiplemike i definitely agree with you on a movie of her, but not a prequel. very well said mate. nice!
Smart interview. Well done!
I don't completely understand the confusion. 2 versions of a self can exists in the same timeline as proven by Cap fighting Cap, Nebula fighting Nebula, 2 versions of Gamora and Thanos. Therefor, a version of Cap could marry Peggy in the same timeline as Cap living out Winter Soldier, Civil War, etc. At the same time, there is a multiverse where there are timelines where the stones were never destroyed.
The confusion is... for example, if future version Cap marries Peggy, what about the past version Cap? He gonna time travel elsewhere to find another Peggy for himself? That's kind of weird.. Imho, it's better if a story is clear and linear. Creating a multiverse, I feel, really doesn't provide closure.
@@yourlarkivist I know these comments are older, but I can't help wanting to clear this up. There is only one Cap. He fought in WWII and went into the ice. He woke up in 201?, joined the Avengers, lost the Avengers, did a little time travel with the Avengers, fighting his slightly earlier self in the process, then boogied on back to 1945 to hook up with Peggy and lived the rest of his life on the DL. While I belive it's a bit of retcon, it's not sever enough for me to argue. When he had aged past the endgame, he went to the funeral and handed over his shield. So, that's my read on how Caps whole life played out, in order. To me, that IS linear. No multiverse needed.
-
Okay. You go. What are your criteria for defining future Cap and past Cap? Why does he need another Peggy?
"....explain time travel..."
I'm like yes, please
They can write “Avengers Vs. X-men”
I think they're gonna take a break for while.
Why couldnt they get the reality stone when it was with the collector, that wouldve been easier, but We wouldnt have had that great scene with Thor and his mother so, it didnt matter
I feel the Morgan in the Soul Stone would've really worked if they used young Morgan instead. A whole lot of additional onions in the cinema to say the least
I just don’t know why she would be there. It should be Black Widow in the soul stone.
@@summertyme5748 was thinking this but I have to assume the snap and the soul sacrifice are different, mainly because Thanos' projection post snap was young Gamora rather than the older Gamora he sacrified. Idk, maybe for Tony he'd immediately project the person he's trying to protect the most etc and for me young Morgan would make sense rather than the reported older Morgan
If there is no relationship between the snap and soul sacrifice then..... well, the sacrifice seems pointless.
🔲he calls them the OG Avengers like I have all this time !
OMG if you think about it, In the Universe where Thor took his hammer and the Reality stone wasn't returned then it would be interesting if that Universe became a 'War of The Realms' world.
I honestly think it would have been better if they didn't end the story with the new ability to time travel. Doesn't really provide closure.. It would have been better if Cap just return the stones, come back and they don't time travel anymore.
celiciagoes yes it makes watching the older films depressing, he undoes his entire arc by going back
This was such an amazing interview. I didn't even realize that it was over 3 hours long. Very captivating. 👍
The interview was only 50 minutes though?
haha two writers of the movie and two directors of the movie have a different take on how alternative timelines works
create rules for time travel to explain away a loop hole then break said rules at the end. hilarious lol
Troll with “lols” but not be able to identify said points you are trolling over. 😂
@@summertyme5748 is pretty straightforward
"That's what's called: someone else's problem." *Que Wandavision*
This is gonna look a bit like a dick move here:
I remember when Yahoo was a "slightly less usefull Google"...
Years later, they're doing some really deep Interviews with the screenwriters of "what I would call the next Star Wars".
Hope it's as much of an improvement for them, as it is for me.
Very good work with this Interview. Got you my Sub.
Benioff and Weiss ...are you listening !!!!!!!
Someone had to 🙌
Was this sarcasm in the beginning when they were talking about the box office?
Great interview and great movie
They could have used the “fake” Infinity Gauntlet on Asgard against Thanos in Endgame. They probably would have seen it if they went for the Tesseract on Asgard.
They’d be assuming it’d actually work.
That's a decent notion. I'm still not sure there was a real reason for the fake gauntlet being there other than for laughs. But I think they went after the tesseract in NY because of the opportunity to get 3 in one place and time. Limited particles and such.