Thoughts on Infinity War

I saw Avengers: Infinity War last night, so I can finally respond to repeated pleas for me to write something about it. Warning that I will go fully into spoilers (including one spoiler/speculation at the very end about Avengers 4) and also that I saw it late last night and am running on not much sleep. 

Non-spoilery version: it’s really good (but not perfect), it’s a really daring gamble with the entire cinematic universe thing, although I feel like you’ll get more out of the movie if you’ve seen at least the first Avengers, Captain America: Civil War, at least the first Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Black Panther. (But given that those films made either almost or over a billion dollars each, I’m going to guess that there is a huge audience that has.)

Plot

The basic plot structure is pretty simple – Thanos wants to acquire all six infinity stones so that he can wipe out half the population of the universe in the name of Malthusian economics, and the heroes are racing to try and stop him in a number of ways: 

  • Thor, Rocket, and Groot travel to Nidavellir to forge a weapon that can kill Thanos. 
  • the rest of the Guardians race to Knowhere to find the Aether/Reality Stone before Thanos can take it from the Collector.
  • Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Doctor Strange try to keep the Eye of Agamotto/Time Stone from Thanos and decide to stage an ambush against Thanos on his home planet of Titan.
  • and the Vision and Scarlet Witch are attacked by two of Thanos’ goons and Cap and the rest of the Secret Avengers take them to Wakanda to try to remove the Mind Stone from Vision without killing him. 

Towards the end of the film, these strands re-integrate as Thor and co. show up to try to save the day in Wakanda, and the rest of the Guardians pursue Thanos to Titan and join in the ambush with Tony and co., and finally Thanos shows up in Wakanda to get the last stone from Vision. 

Character Interactions

In part because they’re working with a much larger cast, Infinity War is not as fleet as Civil War was in terms of balancing screen-time and pace so that (almost) every character gets a fully-realized arc. Some characters – Tony, Gamora, Star-Lord, Vision and Wanda – get much more developed arcs than another characters. (I was surprised by how little dialogue Cap gets, for example.)

What the Russo brothers give us instead is an incredible kalleidoscope of character interaction, throwing together different knots of characters so we can see them bounce off eachother – Doctor Strange and Tony Stark’s arrogant-off, Thor palling around with Rocket and Groot (he calls Rocket a rabbit, learned Groot’s language as an elective), Star-Lord’s outrage that Spider-Man doesn’t really think Footloose is the best movie of all time…I could go on forever. When you have ten years of building up a relationship between these characters and the audience, there is an enormous emotional payoff in getting to see all of them react to one another on a scale that’s as big or bigger as that scene from the first Avengers movie.

I do have one critique when it comes to character arcs, which is that this movie undoes a LOT of the work that was done in Thor: Ragnarok – Thor’s refugeed Asgardians are seemingly wiped out, his repaired relationship with Loki is ended by the latter’s death, Thor even gets a new eye and a new axe to replace what he lost in the film. This heightens the already-existing risk of the big tentpoles undermining the individual character movies, and will make it much harder to keep talented filmmakers like Taika Waititi coming back if they feel like their work is being disrespected.

However, as I’ll explain below, I think there are ways of rowing this back. 

Thanos as a Character

One of the biggest open questions heading into this movie was whether Thanos would be a worthy enough villain to justify the hype and the stakes of the film. While he’s been a Doctor Claw-style presence from Avengers on, the audience hasn’t really seen Thanos as an active character before. Add to that the difficulty of pulling off a CGI/Mocap villain, which can be done very well or very badly and almost never in the middle. 

I would argue they broadly succeeded in a number of areas:

  • Thanos is a terrifying presence, who manhandles the main characters with ease, shrugs off seeming deaths repeatedly, and only becomes more terrifying as he acquires more stones and generates momentum until by the end where he is a runaway freight train that cannot be stopped. 
  • By leaning heavily on Nebula, Gamora, and Josh Brolin’s weary conviction, emotional intensity, and underplayed charisma, Thanos gets as close as you can get to being a real character when it comes to a universal population control fanatic who’s trying to become god. But by the end of it, you do get the sense of someone utterly determined to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to achieve his ideal.
  • In terms of plot structure, he’s absolutely the driving force of the film, a clear case of a villain protagonist on a dark version of the well-trod Hero’s Journey-by-way-of-Collection Quest. At every step, he’s one step ahead of the good guys, alternately using brawn, brains, and introspection to achieve his ultimate goal. 

His henchmen, by contrast, are pretty disposable, with the exception of Ebony Maw’s evangelical preacher, who gets some semblance of character. 

The Snap and the MCU

So let’s talk about the ending: Thanos wins. He collects all the stones despite the heroes coming very close to stopping him, snaps his fingers, and half the universe – including Black Panther, Falcon, Vision, Bucky, Star-Lord, Mantis, Gamora, Drax, Groot, Scarlet Witch, Spider-Man, Maria Hill, and Nick Fury – suddenly ceases to exist. Even before that happens, Heimdall, Loki, an unknown number of Asgardians, Gamora, and Vision are dead at his hands. 

This is the daring gamble I spoke of above the fold. The Russo brothers have blown up a huge chunk of the MCU: a good half of the Avengers, most of the Guardians of the Galaxy, and the stars of Black Panther and Spider-Man are gone. And even though on a meta level we know that some people are coming back – there’s a Black Panther 2 and Spider-Man 2 that’s going to happen, Black Widow has her solo movie, etc. – on an emotional level the loss felt real in the moment, and that’s all that matters. 

At the same time, Marvel have given themselves a huge number of outs:

  • Doctor Strange and the Time Stone: there’s a quite prominent narrative trick that happens in the Iron Man/Doctor Strange plot, where Doctor Strange explains at some detail that he will stop at nothing to defend the Time Stone, including abandoning Tony Stark to Thanos. Then Doctor Strange uses the Time Stone to see every possible alternate future to find the one in which Thanos can be defeated. Then, after the ambush fails, Doctor Strange simply hands over the Time Stone to save Tony Stark’s life and, before he himself disintegrates into nothingness, tells Tony that “now we’re in the endgame.” Conceivably, the Time Stone can be used to reset ANYTHING that happened in the film: the fandom seems to be coming around to the idea that this can only reset the people who died as a result of the snap, there’s no reason why one couldn’t go back further.*
  • Minds Set In Stone: while Gamora and Vision would seem to fall outside of the snap limitation, these two characters have specific outs. In Thanos’ vision, we see the soul of Gamora in the Soul Stone, so it’s quite possible that she could come back through that route. Likewise, Vision’s mind was actively being worked on by Shuri when they were attacked by Thanos’ goon, and it’s quite possible that she might have gotten close enough to separating Vision from the Mind Stone to have downloaded his consciousness or a copy thereof to her wrist computer. (And Vision has a history of reboots and upgrades to his consciousness in the comics…)
  • Just That Tough: on paper, a LOT of Asgardians died on their refugee ship before or after it was blown up by the Power Stone. However, as we see from Thor’s case, Asgardians are tough enough to survive in the vaccuum of space, so it’s possible that other Asgardians might have survived their wounds and gotten picked up. Heimdall and Loki are a more difficult case: we saw the light go out in Heimdall’s eyes, and although Thanos lampshaded Loki’s habit of faking his death, he could be doing it again. Then again, given the Time Stone, they could hit the reset button on either or both deaths.

So what I find so daring is not just that Marvel is risking fan ire by blowing up their franchise, but that they are about to attempt an in-universe reboot that would theoretically allow them to bring back or leave dead whoever they want in order to produce their preferred new status quo for Phase 4-6. And if they can get the fans to accept that, they can do anything.

***SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS 4:

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Based on set and casting news about Avengers 4 – Steve Rogers being seen in his Avengers 1 uniform, Thor with his original long haircut, and Cassie Lang (Ant-Man’s daughter) being recast to an older actress from the one playing her in Ant-Man and the Wasp – it’s pretty clear that Avengers 4 will involve extensive time travel both backwards and forwards in time and possibly to alternate timelines. This is why I’m more bullish on the Time Stone being used for more than just reversing the snap. 

Hi I love your blog btw! Ages ago I heard somewhere that in the medieval era the way they would remove an arrow from a wound would be to push it all the way through because to pull it out directly would cause more harm, but recently I have not been able to find a source and i kinda sounds fake. Have you ever heard of this? Was there any kind of “standard” procedure for wound treatment in medieval ages? I know boiled wine isn’t real but did they even know to boil water?

So the pushing out thing was sometimes used, although it’s important to note that a lot of damn stupid treatments have been used in the past. However, the usual treatment was to pull it out with specialized pliers

How did the Roman Emperors choose their heirs? How efficient was this system of choosing successors?

It varied enormously. There was quite a bit of inheritance by blood relation, there was quite a bit of inheritance by adoption, and quite often you had acclamation/election by either or both the Senate or the Army as well. 

Sometimes it worked very smoothly, and sometimes you got elite coups, and sometimes you had terrible civil wars. 

Why was the nobility so powerful in the west(Western Europe) but so weak in empires like China? How did those empires accomplish destroying feudalism?

I’d be very careful of making that blanket a statement – there were periods of incredibly powerful central authorities and weak aristocracies in the West, and periods of Chinese history where the emperor was either a puppet of the nobility or in fact there were multiple claimants to the imperial title. 

How are they making a movie where venom is the hero ? who’s the villain ? Will he fight tom holland ?

hedrigal:

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

Venom has helmed his own own series as a protagonist and/or a hero from time to time. Sometimes it is okay. Sometimes it is not. But he doesn’t have a memorable stable of villains. Largely he has fought Marvel C-listers when he’s being a hero, which is usually not a good sign.

Carnage could conceivably be a villain for him if they follow the model of totally rewriting the character they’ve done with Venom.

I don’t really see that as a positive, though. Venom’s own series were among the slighter (and most 90s) of the 90s comics, and attempts to revive that in recent years (Venomverse, Venom Inc, Poison X, Venomized) haven’t exactly been either a commercial or creative success. And Carnage is even worse.

I’m a U.S. historian who would love to learn more about the medieval world. Do you have any book recommendations that combine readability and scholarship? (Pardon me if you’ve done this before, but I can’t seem to locate the post.)

Some of the big universities and presses do good introductory texts: Routledge has a series of Handbooks and Companion texts on both general (The Routledge Companion to Medieval Europe) and specific (The Routledge Companion to Medieval Iconography, the Routledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical and Medieval Worlds) topics. Oxford University and Cambridge University also have some good Handbooks, Companions, and Histories, and Historical Encylopedias and Dictionaries. 

Then I would recommend pillaging their citations for important monographs in fields that you’re interested in. 

Hi Steven, first of all, thank you very much for your continued work on ASOIAF. I consider you to be the very best writer about the series and look forward to your future work on the subject. I’m currently finishing HBO’s Rome and am very impressed by Octavian as a politician. My questions: (1) How do you rate Octavian’s performance in the earliest stages of his career, (2) how would he fare as king in Westeros if he, instead of Robert, had assumed the throne after the rebellion and 1/2

(3) who would be his closest similarity in the books? I personally consider him to be a Tyrionesque character with more regard for PR but am not sure if that comparison has any merit. Thanks in advance! 2/2

  1. In his early career, Octavian was both daring and shrewd, choosing to go to Italy to stake his claim as Caesar’s heir rather than retreat to Macedonia, then getting his hands on Caesar’s war chest and using it to build himself a power base and an army, then playing Antony against Cicero to get the Senate on his side despite being just as illegal in his actions as Antony, then making peace with Antony to defeat the Optimates. He wasn’t necessarily the best general (although it’s more accurate to say that he wasn’t a particularly good admiral, he had a much better track record on land) but he had Agrippa to be his right hand.
  2. That’s kind of impossible to answer, because Octavian’s political instincts were forged in the late Roman Republic, and he had no experience of feudal politics. An Octavian who grew up in Westeros is functionally an entirely different person.
  3. I don’t know if there is a good parallel. I guess if you mixed Tyrion and Tywin?