Theory of Endgame

[owlmoose]

Initially, I left this as a comment on my first Endgame post, but I wanted to promote it because I've been thinking about it.


Natasha's sacrifice was narratively satisfying, but not emotionally satisfying.

Steve's choice to live in the past was emotionally satisfying, but not narratively satisfying.

Tony's sacrifice was both narratively and emotionally satisfying.

Therefore, I'm totally fine with Tony having died, sad as it was, because it felt right on both an emotional and story-telling level. It fit his arc in every way. (And from what I've seen, most other folks are okay with it, too, even if they are grieving for him.) But there are varying levels of dissatisfaction with Natasha's and Steve's arcs because, in one way or the other, they didn't satisfy. Personally I am less bothered in Steve's case because I care more about the emotional level than the story-telling level, but that's for me.

Thoughts? Does this resonate with anyone else?

Comments

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah that makes sense to me! I can get pretty annoyed at plot holes and see where the people who don't like Steve's end are coming from but it makes me happy anyway. Meanwhile I see the arguments for Nat's death and I don't carrrrre I want her to live.

[owlmoose]

Like I said to forests_of_fire below, I'd be a lot more unhappy about her death if there weren't a significant likelihood that she'd be back. As it is, I'm understanding from a plot standpoint but unsettled from a personal one.

And yeah, there are all kinds of logical arguments about Steve but I cannot deny how warm and fuzzy it makes me feel.

[seventhe]

I love this phrasing. It’s perfect. I’ll come back w more thoughts but thank you and i’ll Probably adopt it at some point.

[owlmoose]

Whenever you have more thoughts to share, I'm excited to see them! :)

[applenym]

Natasha's sacrifice was narratively satisfying, but not emotionally satisfying.

Steve's choice to live in the past was emotionally satisfying, but not narratively satisfying.

Oh, yes, I like the way you put that into words! And it explains why I keep saying to people, "Natasha's death made sense as the end of her story, and it was totally in character, but I hate it. She deserved better."

And, "I'm so happy for Steve that he gets a lifetime with Peggy, it warmed my heart and everything, but it doesn't make any sense for him to do that!"

Also agree on Tony. His story was done. It made me tremendously sad, but it felt right.

[owlmoose]

Thanks! Yeah, that pretty much sums up both positions (although I would reverse the order with Steve: "I totally see the ways in which it doesn't really make sense, but I'm so glad he and Peggy got a lifetime to be happy").

[grammarwoman]

I didn't find Natasha's death narratively satisfying, because I've objected to Clint's family as a plot point (omg don't get me started on how they're collectively a sexy lamp and stupid characterization) since the movie they were introduced, so I feel like "But he's got a faaaaamily!" is being crammed down my throat and it makes me ANGRY.

[owlmoose]

That's certainly fair. I expect part of the reason I see it differently is that I've always liked that Clint has a family, and the contrast it draws between him and almost the entire rest of the MCU.

[princessofgeeks]

Yes! This makes sense to me.

[owlmoose]

Thanks! :) Glad it's not just me.

[worlds_of_smoke]

yup, sorta-kinda. I really, really think it would have made more narrative sense to kill off Clint because he's not as major a character as Natasha is throughout the series. And he doesn't have a rumored movie coming up involving his character.

[owlmoose]

One of the things I appreciated about that scene is that, in the moment, I truly had no idea which way it was going to go. I could make a strong case for either character making the sacrifice, as far as the movie's internal narrative was concerned. But that's certainly true regarding the external factors, especially the upcoming Black Widow movie. I have to confess that I'd probably be more upset about Nat's death if it weren't for that movie guaranteeing that I'll get to see her again (and most likely that they'll find some excuse to bring her back).

[worlds_of_smoke]

I was 100% convinced that Hawkeye would be the one to go, since he's been in what... one movie?

[such_heights]

Yeah that makes sense to me! Also I very much hope that you're right about the BW movie, but I feel like I've spent so long not trusting the MCU with Natasha that I won't really believe anything until there's at least a trailer.

[singedsun]

That's pretty much how I feel about all three.

[peoriapeoriawhereart]

Natasha has more agency than well known Deaths of Women for Reasons. It parallels in different ways Bucky's fall from the train and Tony's taking the nuclear warhead through the portal.

I'm thinking that the Steve Rogers that appears on that bench is much older than 1970-2023 would tack on. I think he's been through some Crazy Adventures in the process of putting the Stones Back and Doing Things Because He's Steve. Since Marvel Time Travel doesn't subscribe to Grandfather Paradox (look, if you set out to do that, Stan Lee writes you out or Jack Kirby illustrates how the Universe retaliates. May their memories make us a blessing.) that Steve has pinballed through many installments of multiverse. And picked up some memories from when he didn't end up in another continuity.

Meanwhile, 2023 has a Gamora that would have a limited shelflife, except the event that terminated her cannot happen since Thanos got Snaptured earlier than his Sacrifice for the Soulstone. So, she's got as much future as she can make for herself. And a Peter that doesn't grasp he's made a bad second first impression.

I'm wondering how Steve was supposed to get to the Orb's Temple and Soul Stone Sacrifice Point. I'm wondering if Vision is going to return at some point with the Soul Stone instead of the Mind Stone in his forehead.

Of course, that Loki is now thoroughly a cat means there's plenty of wiggle room for Making Story.