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

[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").