Avengers 4: Endgame trailer

[Darth Credence]

The trailer and the supposedly spoilerific title of "Endgame" dropped this morning. I have no idea why they thought "Endgame" was a spoiler for the general populace, and frankly I am underwhelmed by the trailer. I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

ETA - hmm. Not sure why the trailer didn't show up. Hope it works this way.

[Eldan]

Ugh. I was so happy Ant-Man wasn't in the last one. Can't stand the guy.

[lord_khaine]

The trailer and the supposedly spoilerific title of "Endgame" dropped this morning. I have no idea why they thought "Endgame" was a spoiler for the general populace, and frankly I am underwhelmed by the trailer. I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

He is clearly recycling the little he has left.

[DigoDragon]

Trailer is a little underwhelming, but they probably want to keep spoilers as few as possible. Still, makes a nice reminder that 2019 is gonna be good.

I am also surprised by how lively Tony Stark is after four days without water.

The average human can go about 3 days without water before expiring, so I could see Lord_khaine's theory being good enough to explain it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He is clearly recycling the little he has left.

I haven't watched the trailer (nor will I; I already know I'm going to watch the film, so I don't need to be convinced further at the cost of spoilers), so I might be missing some important context but: the Iron Man suit can deal with pee (as seen in, IIRC, Iron Man 2). Tony keeps improving and changing the suit, but I doubt he ever takes features out. So the suit, even in a diminished state, can at the very least collect, and likely purify, any liquids exuded by Tony.

(Disregard this if, say, the trailer explicitly shows Tony out of magical nanomachine particles or whatever... just don't tell me about it. Or do, I'm unlikely to come back to the thread, since as posts increase, the chance of accidental spoilering tends to 1).

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

[Psyren]

Looks like Ant-Man managed to get himself out of the Quantum Realm. Or maybe Cassie did it? I'm seeing rumors that there may be a decently sizeable timeskip between IW and EG.

My biggest hope though is that Vision won't be completely sidelined. I'd hate to think that everything Shuri and SW did was completely for nothing. Even Thor's actions, though they failed, taught us a bit about the gauntlet, and Rocket should still have a bunch of that info.

No sign of Carol yet, so guess we'll have to wait and see on that front.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Very limited information giveaway, but as someone else pointed out--we're seeing the film, they don't actually need to hype us up for it. So we're getting a big teaser for now.

Spoiler

Show

And with the nod to Ronin, looks like the Russos have found a direction for Hawkeye that they really like. It's not a surprising pick, and I'll be glad to see them flex their stuff on the most underdeveloped Avenger. And, dare I hope this might mean Kate in the future? The comics Kate took over the Hawkeye identity when Clint was Ronin, so...it's a slim hope, but it's something.

[JadedDM]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

It's likely she just wasn't in the same room at the time. He was recording a private message for Pepper, after all.

[DigoDragon]

What I find weird is: why is he alone? Wasn't he left with Nebula at the end of the last one?

Maybe Nebula took Starlord's ship and Tony was left with Nebula's ship. The scene of the ship adrift doesn't look like Starlord's.

[Magic_Hat]

Ugh. I was so happy Ant-Man wasn't in the last one. Can't stand the guy.

So you opinion on the man is small?

Lame jokes aside I can't wait to see how this retcon the last movie as well as retcons the fact that apparently Captain Marvel has been around since the 90s but didn't appeared in any film (including Avengers I, II, and III) before.

[Ranxerox]

Very limited information giveaway, but as someone else pointed out--we're seeing the film, they don't actually need to hype us up for it. So we're getting a big teaser for now.

Spoiler

Show

And with the nod to Ronin, looks like the Russos have found a direction for Hawkeye that they really like. It's not a surprising pick, and I'll be glad to see them flex their stuff on the most underdeveloped Avenger. And, dare I hope this might mean Kate in the future? The comics Kate took over the Hawkeye identity when Clint was Ronin, so...it's a slim hope, but it's something.

Spoiler: If rumors warrant spoilers

Show

The rumor is that Katherine Langford, who is know to have a role in Avenger 4 will be playing Kate Bishop.
It is just a rumor, but she certainly looks the part.

[Clertar]

It's likely she just wasn't in the same room at the time. He was recording a private message for Pepper, after all.

When we do see Nebula it looks like she's also in the spaceship.

[Androgeus]

well as retcons the fact that apparently Captain Marvel has been around since the 90s but didn't appeared in any film (including Avengers I, II, and III) before.

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

[Legato Endless]

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

Marvel really can't please everyone. Some fans don't like how Earth-centric the MCU is with the number of Infinity Stones squirreled away, whereas others demand why everything isn't happening on Earth. How could someone be elsewhere in the galaxy when Plot was going on in New York? Why doesn't Fury summon every asset he has everytime there's an emergency?

(Even though that's not how agencies work in real life, let alone fictional institutions headed by guy's whose 'secrets have secrets')

[The Glyphstone]

For that matter, we might not even be able to call the resolution of the Snap a 'retcon', because it definitely happened. Unless the Un-Snap is so comprehensive that it removes even the memories of the survivors (possible, but i feel its unlikely), there will be plenty of people who knew it happened and probably plenty of physical evidence it happened even after everyone is returned to life.

[Kato]

I thought the trailer was kind of underwhelming.. I'm happy Clint is back but that's about it. I mean, we're likely going to get like ten more before the movie and those will probably show more but until then.. We got Tony being mopey, which is totally what I want from my marvel movies.

[Aotrs Commander]

I thought the trailer was kind of underwhelming.. I'm happy Clint is back but that's about it. I mean, we're likely going to get like ten more before the movie and those will probably show more but until then.. We got Tony being mopey, which is totally what I want from my marvel movies.

I am increasingly convinced that initial/teaser trailers are barely worth watching, as they always seem to be unhelpful at best and make the movie look worse than it is. At the very least, I am starting to treat them as nothing to get excited about, except to be aware they are around so I can wait for the later, better trailers.



(Deadpool, as usual, did not cleave to this trope.)

[Rex500]

Endgame is a somewhat dull title. Trailer wasn't that bad though.

[Devonix]

Well they have farmer Thanos in the story though it's interesting having it seeming like it will be in the beginning of the story rather than the end.

Having Thanos after acomplishing his goal trying to retire to a quiet life and dealing with the enormity of what he's done and mourning those that have died. Rather than it being him trying to move on after his failure.

[BWR]

I can understand not wanting to show too much in a trailer at this point but this was a resounding 'meh' for me. At least until they brought in Hawkeye, at which point I went 'Oh right, he's in this franchise too isn't he? I hope he doesn't get too much screen time because that would be seriously boring'.
Then they showed us Ant-Man. I was just getting happy over not having to sit through Starlord, and they give us Scott.
Bleh.

At least I probably won't have to sit through both of them at the same time.

[Magic_Hat]

Retcon does not mean the same thing as explains.

Because I'm sure their explanation is going to make complete sense and not have any cracks or plot holes.

[The Glyphstone]

Because I'm sure their explanation is going to make complete sense and not have any cracks or plot holes.

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Clertar]

I am increasingly convinced that initial/teaser trailers are barely worth watching, as they always seem to be unhelpful at best and make the movie look worse than it is. At the very least, I am starting to treat them as nothing to get excited about, except to be aware they are around so I can wait for the later, better trailers.

I feel the opposite way. This trailer already has shown us too much for my liking.

[Devonix]

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

All Retcons are explanations but not all explanations are retcons.

[The Glyphstone]

All Retcons are explanations but not all explanations are retcons.

True. I suppose it would be more accurate to say 'Neither of them are necessarily a retcon."

[Spacewolf]

A bad explanation is still an explanation, or at least an attempt at one. Neither of them are a retcon.

Or to quote an extreme obscure movie no one here has ever heard of, "That word - I do not think it means what you think it means."

No retcon fits the situation with Captain Marvel, as the film will almost certainly revise previous information in a way that wasn't originally intended or attach new significance to them as Captain Marvel wasn't planned at the time of the start of the marvel universe. The issue is you are treating the word Retcon as negative when it's not.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It'll probably be a mix of filling in holes that were never talked about in prior movies (because the info out there will never be comprehensive as shown in the film, especially where SHIELD and its secrets are concerned) and massaging facts to fit that. The fact-massaging is retcon, the filling-in of details is not. (Similar to how Agent Carter closed some continuity gaps by filling in details where nothing had explicitly been stated.)

[Devonix]

The things that they are doing with Captain Marvel are retcons though. They have to be. Because she is a character being placed into areas that she didn't originally belong in.

[Clertar]

The things that they are doing with Captain Marvel are retcons though. They have to be. Because she is a character being placed into areas that she didn't originally belong in.

Isn't that too broad a definition? It means that anything novel in a prequel is a retcon.

I think the way having a concept such as retcon makes sense is for it to be about the viewer, not about the content or the fictional world in the medium. The fact that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker is not a retcon---we never saw otherwise. The retcon is merely about Kenobi's one sentence to Luke, it went from being true to being a veiled lie.