Talk:Avengers: Endgame/Archive 3

Regarding the plot
As with all other movies, the plot to this movie will be needed to added. But since everyone is going nuts over the spoilers of the movie, should the plot be added as soon as anyone is ready to do it (The regular Way of editing WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES) or wait for a few days until Sunday which will mean that an exception is to be followed here regarding the plot? I will add the plot upto 26th, but can wait CaptainGKPrime (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @CaptainGKPrime : since when a mass, self-inflicted hysteria has to prevail over encyclopedic work? most of the hottest fans have already cut them off from social media and probably the whole internet. with these movies it is known that the good guys win. I have been genuinely surprised by other movies, like The Doubt. it's the 24th, and the movie has premiered in LA already. don't we have any editors from there? cheers, Awambawamb (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Post on release day or whenever the editor in question has already seen the content. Nothing has changed about the “spoiler” policy. 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:7502:133C:4F76:C57C (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks CaptainGKPrime  (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

So I've come home from the film earlier today. Here's a decent summary that I've written up. Feel free to clean it up and add whatever's missing or clarify anything I may have gotten wrong, but be sure to keep it concise per the Manual of Style. It' s a very, very meaty three hour film, so bear with the length. If a way to chop it down without losing vital information can be achieved, it would be greatly appreciated! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ''After Thanos uses the Infinity Stones, Clint Barton's family are turned to dust, along with half of all living creatures in the universe. Nebula and Tony Stark are stranded in space following their defeat by Thanos, but are returned to Earth by Carol Danvers and reunited with Black Widow, Bruce Banner, Captain America, Rocket Raccoon, Thor, and War Machine. The team formulate a plan to steal the Infinity Stones back from Thanos and use them to reverse his actions, but learn upon finding him that he had used the stones a second time to destroy them, preventing their further use. In anger, Thor kills Thanos.


 * ''Five years later, Scott Lang escapes from the quantum realm to discover that five years had passed, and that Hope van Dyne, along with half of the population, had disappeared. Lang goes to Black Widow and Captain America, and explain that while five years had passed, only five hours had passed for him in the quantum realm. The three go to Stark, who is now raising a child with Pepper Potts, and explain their theory that the quantum realm can be used to go back in time and steal the Infinity Stones before Thanos is able to collect them. Stark initially rejects their proposal with concern about risking parenthood, but after reflecting upon the loss of Peter Parker decides to test computer models for quantum time travel. He succeeds in finding a model that works, and is further encouraged by Potts to act after having further doubts.


 * The Avengers are reunited with a plan – Banner, Captain America, Lang, and Stark embark to retrieve the Time, Mind, and Space stones from New York during the Avengers' battle with Loki in 2012. Banner goes to the Sanctum Sanctorum, where he is informed by the Ancient One that taking the Time Stone from her timeline would prevent Doctor Strange's future efforts to stop Kaecilius from destroying the laws of nature. She concedes the Time Stone to Banner however, after he informs her that Strange had given Thanos the stone in his timeline, implying Strange had intended for a specific sequence of events to occur for Thanos to be defeated, including Banner taking possession of the Time Stone. Banner also promises the stones' return to her timeline in order to prevent any ill effects. Lang and Stark attempt to steal the Space Stone – Lang gives Stark's past self a cardiac arrest by pulling a circuit in his artificial heart and causing a scene, while Stark steals the briefcase when nobody is looking. Their plan is thwarted as Stark drops the briefcase after he is accidentally hit by the Hulk. Loki then uses the Space Stone to escape custody. Captain America succeeds in stealing the Mind Stone from undercover Hydra agents, but stumbles across and fights his past self, whom mistakes him for a disguised Loki. Lang returns to the present while Captain America and Stark devise a plan to steal the Space Stone from a U.S. Army installation in the 1950s, while stealing further vials of fluid in order to make the journey back home. While there, Captain America sights Peggy Carter and Stark converses with his father Howard before returning.


 * Rocket and Thor travel to Asgard to retrieve the Reality Stone before Malekith uses it against the nine realms. While in Asgrad, Thor is reminded that his mother, Frigga, would die soon and has a chance encounter with her while Rocket steals the Reality Stone from Jane Foster. The two return to Earth after Frigga counsels Thor and he retrieves his hammer. Nebula and War Machine travel to Xandar to steal the Power Stone before Peter Quill does. As War Machine returns to the present with the Power Stone, Nebula malfunctions and remains on Xandar. Her memories are accidentally transferred to her past self, which Thanos uses to learn that he would ultimately succeed in his plans to wipe out half the universe and that the Avengers are going back in time to retrieve the Stones before he does. Barton and Black Widow travel to Vormir to retrieve the Soul Stone, though are conflicted when Red Skull, keeper of the Soul Stone, informs them that the stone can only be retrieved by sacrificing someone they love. The two fight over who would make the sacrifice, and Black Widow ultimately takes the fall, with Barton taking the Soul Stone back to Earth and informing the other Avengers of Black Widow's death.


 * ''After Nebula is captured by Thanos and her time travel abilities given to her more loyal past self, the past Nebula uses Banner's time machine to transport Thanos and his army to the Avengers' base. The Avengers task Banner to use the Infinity Stones to bring everybody killed by Thanos back. He succeeds, though they are attacked by Thanos, who reduce the base to rubble. The past Nebula is killed by her future self as she attempts to take the Infinity Stones from Hawkeye, while Captain America, Thor, and Stark confront Thanos, who decides to instead use the Infinity Stones to destroy the universe and create one in his vision. Soon after Thanos' army lands on Earth, T'Challa appears before Captain America, along with all of the Avengers revived by Banner, before launching an assault on Thanos and his army. After a lengthy battle during which Stark is reunited with Parker and Gamora is reunited with Quill, Thanos wrestles with numerous Avengers for the Infinity Stones. Risking certain death, Stark rips the Infinity Stones from Thanos' hand and uses them to turn Thanos and his entire army into dust. Parker and Potts console Stark as he dies from the radiation emitted from the Stones.


 * Following the battle, The Avengers hold a funeral for Stark, whose artificial heart is floated into the sea. Thor makes Valkyrie the Queen of Asgard and joins the Guardians of the Galaxy. Meanwhile, Captain America is tasked to go into the past to return the stones and Thor's hammer to their original timelines, but decides not to return to the present and to instead live the rest of his life in the past with Carter. As an older man, he appears before Falcon and gives his shield to him.


 * As for the end scene: It looks like Gamora has somehow either vanished or escaped after the battle - she's not at the funeral, and according to some reddit threads searching for her is what Quill is attempting to do. Probably going to be the mission for GotG 3. 93.104.64.153 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering where Gamora went! The latter part about Quill searching for Gamora is pure speculation though, as it is never explicitly stated in the film. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quill is standing in front of a screen with Gamora’s face and the word ‘Searching’ underneath, just before Thor and he start bickering about leadership. Stephen 10:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's Morag, not Xandar. - Areaseven (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe change "Black Widow, Bruce Banner, Captain America, Rocket Raccoon, Thor, and War Machine" to "the surviving Avengers" or something to that effect? Booyahhayoob (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add any spoilers to this movie for a couple days. The Russo Brothers clearly stated that they don't want any website spoiling Endgame. Add it on the weekend or something. Respect their wishes, please. --86.161.91.94 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They only asked that people not spoil it for others. As far as I'm concerned, if they're on the wiki page for Endgame and get spoiled without having seen the movie, it's their own fault. WP:SW. Booyahhayoob (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there documented cases of publishers asserting copyright against plot summaries on grounds that they are too detailed to constitute a fair use? Would Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books apply? Worst case, we could end up with this article under WP:OFFICE protection and editors put on "repeat infringer" watch. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But by doing this, you ARE spoiling it for others on here. Give it some time for people to watch the movie and then post the plot. At least give it a few days. --86.161.91.94 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Its a risk people choose by scrolling down the page. For the same amount of people who dislike spoilers, there are the same amount of people who think spoilers enhance the experience. Faromics (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The film has been released in China, Thailand, Australia, and other parts of Asia. The plot is good to go. --Phyo WP (message)  15:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The Plot section expands only after someone clicks it. Wikipedia is for sharing information. ""Spoiler sensitive"" people should not try to expand the Plot section itself. It does not happen by mistake that ONE opens a wikipedia page, expands one of its section and starts reading it. The plot must stay as it is CaptainGKPrime (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Man, people should know to avoid this page it is up his/her own personal responsibility to avoid them. Faromics (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! Just look at the Page Views for this article (via the template at the top of this article). Readership actually spiked around the time of this film's release, up to 1.5 million. I have personally never seen a single article reach that high of a viewership in a single day in my entire life. So much for hiding spoilers; it seems that a huge number of fans either don't care, or actually want to read over the plot outline anyway. As for the "spoilers alert" issue, Wikipedia policy has always been to release the full plot summary at the time of the film's premiere (or whenever an editor is able to fully draft a working plot summary). If we were to withhold the plot, it would be no longer than the general release date. Anyhow, all this talk of preventing spoilers is completely moot at this point.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The page is locked - OK. Currently, the plot summary says this: "Banner visits the Sanctum Sanctorum to implore the Ancient One to give him the Time Stone. The Ancient One does so and tells Banner that the Stones must eventually be returned to their original time frames to prevent reality from breaking down. " This is not what happened. BANNER told the Ancient One that returning the stones to their original timeframes would prevent reality from breaking down. The Ancient One refuses to hand it over and only changes her mind when Banner tells her Strange handed over the stone to Thanos, willingly. It's quite an important difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.147.170 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Another change made to the plot. In the first paragraph, Tony Stark does NOT reconcile, and leaves the Avengers. He is not with them when they kill Thanos. They don't reconcile until 5 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.196.43 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

CBS This Morning
On CBS Sunday Morning Willie said the movie gross was over 1Billion as of Sunday Morning. When are we getting an updated Box Office? It's still sitting 600 million, which is apparently outdated at this point. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Being as it’s 10:00 AM EST on a Sunday.... don’t expect much before tomorrow. Trillfendi (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I expected an update, and I got it. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Spelling mistake
Maybe I’m wrong but it feels like it should read ‘but Nebula is unable to after her cybernetic implants interfere with those of her 2014 self’ instead of ‘interface with those of her 2014 self’ Magcargo64 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interfere is technically true, but interface is being used because the interference comes when the cybernetic implants in the two versions of Nebula begin to interact with each other and share memories. I think interface is a decent word to explain this. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but I think interfere makes more sense HAL  333  18:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Cast
Today I've seen the film in Germany: Cate Blanchette, Glenn Close, Anthony Hopkins and Chiwetel Ejiofor made no appearance. So could somebody please remove those actors? --Frederico34 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Do Robert Redford/Alexander Pierce, Natalie Portman/Jane Foster, and Angela Bassett/Queen Ramonda appear on-screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B91302 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all 3 appear. Pierce during Avengers sequence, Foster during The Dark World sequence, and Romanda during conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIM93 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Does Groot, who is voiced by Vin Diesel, appear in person and/or have speaking lines at any point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.104.142 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Groot appears after being revived, but I cannot remember if he spoke. Possibly said "I am Groot" once. --213.42.27.139 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Groot does indeed say "I am Groot." As I recall, he says it exactly once.Zeck (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Or Vision, for that matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B91302 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Vision does not appear, as he was actually killed and not snapped (unlike other returning characters). Loki, who was also actually killed, only appears in Avengers sequence. --213.42.27.139 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not see Katherine Langford (13 Reasons Why) in the film. Quite possibly her appearance did not make the final cut. --213.42.27.139 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Some are saying she played Ant-Man’s daughter in the film? Is that at all accurate? B91302 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC) I've seen sources that show it is Emma Fuhrmann, not Katherine Langford, that is playing Cassie Lang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.104.142 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)  Of course, it's possible Cassie Lang doesn't show up at all.
 * She does. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

James D'Arcy reprises his role as Edwin Jarvis is NOT the first MCU television member to appear in a major MCU film. Brett Dalton appears in his role of Grant Ward, a Hydra agent, as a potential buyer for the Yellowjacket suit unveiling/sale in 2015's Antman, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.38.188 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Vision is noticeably absent even in retro story lines. Paul Bettany is not credited. Unlike other characters that "died" outside of the snap, the "back in time" sequences didn't include any Paul Bettany appearances. Hiddleston, Portman and Russo all had credited appearances. I there a backstory to this obvious slight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:A2E:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Gorman should be added, as he played old Steve Rogers Allie Whitebear (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Corrections: Missing a comma after "Star-Lord". Also, "voiceover" is one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikevanoost (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Evans's contract
The source for Evans's contract is from a direct interview, and it matches what we have known for years: 6 films (3 Captain Americas and 3 Avengers), not including the Thor 2 or Spider-Man cameos or the reused footage for Ant-Man. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Direct interviews are primary sources. A better source would be a secondary one that elaborates on the problem. Presumably the brief cameos ("reused footage" is, AFAICR, inaccurate: the Ant-Man post-credits scene was, TTBOMR, quite different from the corresponding scene in Civil War), but we aren't allowed say that without a better source. Furthermore, you aren't allowed remove valid maintenance templates in order to "take it to the talk page": standard procedure is to keep the tag in pending either a better source or consensus that a better source is not needed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Ant-Man scene was reused from Civil War, just cut a bit differently. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stan Lee
Is is reason able to put the line "Avengers co-creator Stan Lee has a posthumous cameo in the film, appearing digitally de-aged as a car driver in 1970; this is his final cameo appearance in film." in here? Stan Lee is set to have a cameo in Far from Home. Lacon432 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's been completely confirmed, only a "maybe" as I can see from articles. QueerFilmNerd  talk 23:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2019
Change the "Thor appoints Valkyrie as the king" since "King" is for a male Monarchy. The correct word is Queen since it refers to the female side. Sup1233423 (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above. "There's a reference in the plot to justify the term. It's also how Thor describes her in the film. "Asgard needs a king" "It already has one."" QueerFilmNerd  talk 23:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation #46
Cite #46 is just a link to Dave Bautista's twitter. This is clearly WP:NOT. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Verified Twitter accounts are perfectly acceptable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a new one to me. I guess it's only a matter of time before every reference section will be filled with emojis. Carry on, then. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2019
Valkyrie is the queen of New Asgard. Hela's statements should take precedence over Thors, since she is both a woman and uses the title to identify herself in Ragnarok. 2600:1700:69D0:5E50:ECE5:79B5:8FE4:A822 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and she also seized the throne through a violent takeover, and more importantly doesn't appear in this film. Also see above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why Are They List By Their Birth Names
It seems really silly that all these characters are referred to by their "real names" and not their superhero names, and detracts considerably from the legibility of the article 24.171.3.175 (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are referred to their real names because that is what they go by in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you overestimate how much these characters "go by" any name in particular in this or that film. This particular film was definitely not made for an audience of people who hadn't at least seen Infinity War (part one) and probably also a bunch of other movies in the franchise, so it didn't need to shoehorn in a lot of people shouting out the name of the person they're addressing so that the audience can keep up with what each character's name is; I've still only seen the film once so far (on holiday in Tokyo, so if I want to see the film a second time I need to set aside a specific time block when I plan on being free to watch the film, and buy the ticket at least five or six hours in advance, or see it at midnight and spend a full vacation day groggy from not having slept the night before), but the one very specific moment in the film I remember of a character "going by" one or another name was what Tony said right before snapping his fingers. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

caption america
Maybe in § Cast, we could use "Clint Barton / Hawkeye" instead of just "Clint Barton". --77.173.90.33 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Related section. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

hulks family
Is hulks family died before the events of the Endgame? 04/19/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.140.165 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No,that's not likely Morris(ME)Junior (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

They disappear in the fingersnap, so they disappear at the same time as everybody else in Endgame. That said, it's only in Endgame that we actually see them die. Zeck (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hulk's family didn't die in any movie. ARZ100 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since when do we see hulks family in any avengers movie?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2019
Please delete the entire plot. You have ruined the work of great people by spoiling the Endgame. Delete it. Now. #dontspoiltheendgame. Don&#39;t Spoil The Endgame (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think the plot summary will need serious work because it is, in a manner of speaking, ruining the work of great people; but the solution is not to blank the entire thing. No one who doesn't want this film spoiled should be reading this Wikipedia article or any Wikipedia article related to it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Howard the Duck/Kraglin
So, upon rewatching the film, I realized that Howard the Duck makes a cameo during the final battle. He can be seen to the right of Wasp when she arrives via a portal. Does this necessitate adding to the article? I'm positive Kraglin made a split-second cameo as well, especially seeing as Sean Gunn is credited in the cast list as portraying him.
 * The Ravagers are one of the forces which emerge from the portals to join the battle, so it makes sense. Hektor (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Howard the Duck does not need to be added, since he's not really important or credited. I think it would be good to mention the leaders of the Asgardians (Valkyrie) and the Ravagers (Kraglin). 12.16.29.18 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2019
The sentence in the third paragraph of the article that reads "The film received praise for its direction, entertainment value and emotional weight, with critics lauding its culmination of the 22 film MCU story arc" requires a hyphen between 22 and film, and it would be ideal for the arc to be referred to as the "Infinity Saga arc" rather than the "MCU story arc," given that that is the arc's official name and the MCU is set to continue after Endgame. GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Partially done. Hyphens added to compound modifiers, and "MCU and "arc" removed as redundancies: "22-film story" says the same thing. Additionally, changed the WP:PEACOCK "received praise" to more neutral "received plaudits".--Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2019
There is a sentence in the plot summary that reads "Rhodes returns to the present with the Power Stone, but Nebula is unable to after her cybernetic implants interface with those of her 2014 self." The word "interface" should be replaced with the word "interfere." GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not a mistake. See the section above for more. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Should special cameo's be included?
Howard The Duck can be seen during the epic comeback, that's the only special cameo i caught. Tray Framework (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a "special" cameo? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ken Jeong was a security guard... it depends on how far we consider “special” and “cameo”. There were countless ones. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That just sounds like an actor in a role. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was so blink-and-you-miss it unnoticeable that if you ask people if Ken Jeong was in the movie they’d be shocked. He didn’t have one line. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, then it sounds like an actor in a small role. Not every small role is a cameo. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

But his "shocked" face is enough to make him noticeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tray Framework (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I said viewers would be shocked to realize he was in the movie at all, not about the shocked face. The makeup and hairstyling department made him look unrecognizeable. Trillfendi (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe those that are notable enough?
 * Any cameos which feature a noteworthy person in a role should be included (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson's cameo as Nick FUry, Stan Lee's cameo, etc.). Cameos such as Howard the Duck's should not be included, mainly because there's no one to credit. GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How about Joe Russo, Ava Russo, Jim Starlin and Helen? I think some of them are included but you definitely left some out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tray Framework (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait someone added Howard The Duck into the cast list already.....? Tray Framework (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That should be removed. There's no one to credit for Howard the Duck's performance, so he isn't actually part of the cast of actors. 12.16.29.18 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker review is misrepresented?
The page states, in reference to the New Yorker review: 'gave the film a compromising review finding the film to be overdeveloped and overwrought, stating: "For a while, in fact, that scenario (of weak filmmaking) seems quite likely'

First, the scenario he is referring to isn't 'weak filmmaking' but is just Lane being cute about how the film shares a name with a Beckett play in which characters literally wallow in a dustbin. He jokingly states that the film might have followed the same course as the Beckett play as the characters find themselves generally 'gone to seed' in the first act. If it is even a commentary on the movie, it is too subtle for me. I think he just having a bit of fun with the coincidence of names.

Second, Lane's 'review' isn't much of a review at all and offers no criticism of the film other than to say that at 3 hours run-time you could leave the theater for a big junk of the middle and not miss much. Aka, the plot doesn't really matter all that much. It's a non-review to get clicks for the real review of another film above it. Lane didn't give the film enough attention or interest to call it anything, really. If he found it 'overdeveloped and overwrought', he didn't state it in his review.

Arkigos (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Our articles on contemporary American blockbusters generally don't cite reviews themselves but the RottenTomatoes summaries thereof, which is IMO a very bad idea since that website proudly announces up front that it doesn't recognize nuance, and misrepresents any mixed or nuanced reviews accordingly. I've even been accused of "hating these movies" for thdm sin of saying it doesn't matter how I personally feel and we should be accurately summarizing the consensus of reliable secondary sources. It sucks, but that's how "consensus" has historically worked on these articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Kraglin Back to Cast List
Again, Sean Gunn is credited as both the on-set Rocket and Kraglin. Therefore, Kraglin appears in the film and should be listed with the other characters involved in the final battle. Please stop removing him!

B91302 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I second this. He is indeed credited as both in the movie, and the cast list should reflect that. If we're gonna have Ty Simpkins in the cast list for appearing for a brief moment during the movie as Harley Keener, Sean Gunn should be credited as Kraglin. GrendelNightmares (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree.

Spelling error
Besting needs to be changed to Beating in the Box Office section --Butter72 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a small thing
The Plot section makes note that Thor makes Valkyrie the new king of New Asgard...shouldn't she be the queen? A king can't be female by definition. If we want to move to a more gender-neutral thing, we could just replace the word with "leader." I would edit this myself, but I can't just yet, so I hope someone does it for me. Thanks in advance. GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a reference in the plot to justify the term. It's also how Thor describes her in the film. "Asgard needs a king" "It already has one." Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair, but Thor never directly referred to as the king, he only said that because it worked for a solid line in the script. I still think it should be changed. GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This depends on context. We've got very little detail on how either the Asgardian or Wakandan royal succession and titles work. In the real world Japan has historically used the same term (typically translated "emperor" for males and "empress" for females, though sometimes "emperor" as gender-neutral) for sovereigns regnants, and several different terms for female consorts (typically translated "empress"). We've never had an on-screen reference to a female sovereign of Asgard before (excluding the kinda-exceptional case of Hela), but maybe for the Asgardians "queen" implies "consort", and this was meant to be subtly emphasized for audiences with this film placing more emphasis Frigga than either of the first two Thor films.
 * As a loosely related aside, I don't think we can call T'challa king of Wakanda when discussing this film: in Black Panther they thought he was dead for a few hours and immediately crowned a new king, and presumably Black Panther 2 will explain what happened during the five years he actually was dead. (Civil War gave no hint that primogeniture didn't automatically kick in on the death of his father, leading to the Japanese and presumably other language versions of that film assuming Rhodey's addressing him as "Highness" was typical American ignorance of proper forms of address for a monarch, rather than in-universe awareness than Wakandan succession is more complicated than that, and translating it with a title that implied he was already king. And we now have a king in these movies who has returned from the dead twice.)
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Very interesting. Trillfendi (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, interesting. Hela does refer to herself as the queen of Asgard during her rule, so I think it would be appropriate to change it to queen instead of king. GrendelNightmares (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Hela had been locked away for thousands of years -- maybe she was using dated terminology, or just making it up on the spot during her coup. (Or maybe her dialogue was consciously worded to allude to Blanchett's line from The Fellowship of the Ring?) These films contradict each other left, right and center on these fine points, so we really can't use Thor: Ragnarok as a primary source for calling Valkyrie a "queen" -- as much as I hate to use the "Asgard needs a king" line from this film to justify not calling her a queen, it's definitely better than relying on equally ambiguous dialogue from another film in the same franchise. What we really need is secondary think pieces (or scholarly articles and books, but I won't hold my breath on those showing up) that explicitly address the issue. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Insider, Bustle, Entertainment Tonight, and The Hollywood Reporter acknowledge that Valkyrie is referred to as king in the film. Why should the film's plot section invoke a term that goes against that? KyleJoan talk 02:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, and while the sources are not what I want per my own latest comment, they are fine. I don't think they need to be directly cited in the article, though, and sources that say Thor "makes her the king" definitely should not be cited inline, as they are probably avoiding using "queen" so as not to imply Thor marries her. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2019
Someone removed all references to the Avengers making a new Gauntlet. Without this information the story doesn't make much sense. ARZ100 (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have re-inserted reference to a gauntlet being made; additional information such as who made the gauntlet, what it's made of etc. is not strictly necessary. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that informatio is not necessary. ARZ100 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Higher resolution poster?
Can we get a poster with a higher resolution please? It's barely readable when you click on it. Thanks. Rreginald1 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wikipedia's Image Use Policy states that images on the site should be at the lower resolution that is still identifiable to the reader. The lead image meets that criteria, even if it's not what some might consider readable. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Scott Lang in the Quantum Realm
Hi

Just a small thing, but the second paragraph of the plot section states that Scott 'experienced only five hours while trapped' in the quantum realm. I keep seeing this around but I swear in the film he says he experienced only five minutes while trapped.

Found some articles that support this. Would be great if this could be checked and plot updated if necessary.

See 2nd paragraph: http://time.com/5576656/avengers-endgame-time-travel

See section 4: https://screenrant.com/avengers-endgame-mysteries-plotholes

See section 3: https://www.lowyat.net/2019/184714/avengers-endgame-time-travel-plot-holes

Thanks!

Dogsontv (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I might be wrong but I'm almost certain it was 5 hours. ARZ100 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Second ARZ, iirc he said 5 hours. QueerFilmNerd  talk 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also thought it was minutes. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rewatched the scene, can confirm he said it felt like "five hours", rather than five years. QueerFilmNerd  talk 02:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's 5 hours.

Here's the transcript.

Scott: Alright so, 5 years ago, right before Thanos, I was in a place called the quantum realm. The quantum realm is like it's own microscopic universe. To get in there you have to be incredibly small. Hope, she's my uh... she was my... she was... she was supposed to pull me out. Thanos happened and I got stuck in there.

Natasha: Sorry that must have been a very long 5 years.

Scott: Yeah but that's just it, it wasn't. For me it was 5 hours. See the rules of the quatum realm aren't like they are up here, everything is unpredictable.

Tbb 911 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
Last Paragraph of Plot, Change Thor appoints Valkyrie as "King" of New Asgard to "Queen" Sidcr15 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As per the discussion above titled "Just a small thing".  QueerFilmNerd  talk 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
Rogers did not live out the rest of his life in the past after marrying Carter. He came back late in his life to pass on the shield to Falcon. The way it is written at this time insinuates as if he is still in the past. He, clearly, is not. 213.205.240.71 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He did not "come back" to the present. He just lived up to that point. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

More information needed about the Return of scott lang
″Five years later, Scott Lang escapes the quantum realm[N 2] and meets Romanoff and Rogers at the Avengers' compound.″ this skips a lot of important information on what actually happened. Scott Lang didn't directly go to the Avengers' compound, he went to The Vanished Memorial, went to go see Cassandra Lang who's now 15, And then after that did he proceed to go to the Avenger's Compound. This is very important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.241.211 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The plot summary does not need to be a scene by scene analysis. Though the scene where he goes back and sees Cassie is a nice one, it is not necessary to understanding the rest of the film. QueerFilmNerd  talk 01:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2019
I would like to add that Avengers is the first movie to ever go over a billion dollars in it's first weekend SlimeRancher2002 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this one.Kay girl 97 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It'll be added, but thdd hard part is finding the best citation. This week's Charting With Dan mentioned it, but it also mentioned about 8,000,000 other things that we probably should include, so accurately summarizing its contents would be quite a task (much more effort than should be put into answering an edit request), while cherry-picking this factoid from it (which if I recall correctly was only alluded to indirectly) would also be suboptimal. There's also the fact that "weekend" in this case includes the previous Wednesday in several large markets including China, so simply stating in Wikipedia's voice that it "earned more than one billion dollars in a single weekend" would be inappropriate. Can you state exactly the text you would like to add to the article, and provide a source that explicitly supports that text? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Extended-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Gangster8192 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Arrangements of cast members
The list of characters who died in the event of the Infinity War is messy. It is confusing to readers. Please arrange it so characters originate from the same film it looks more organised. Corachow (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Russia in the Box office
Ok so we’ve essentially entered an edit war and in lieu of reverting again I’ll take it here. It’s pretty simple: Deadline wrote a box office preview for the opening weekend projections of Endgame and wrote how over its first five days of international release the film would make “$680M abroad” and “$940M-$950M global” (writing “With the exception of Russia, which releases on Monday April 29, Endgame will go out everywhere day-and-date internationally beginning Wednesday. U.S./Canada starts off at 6 PM on Thursday.”). User NightShadow23 (who based on his edits but especially his choice of cited websites has ties to Russia, no fault there but could just mean he’s passionate to get the country included here) keeps changing the “Endgame was projected to gross $680 million over its first five days from every single foreign market (except Russia), for a global debut of around $940–950 million” to “Endgame was projected to gross $680 million over its first 10 days from every single foreign market, for a global debut of around $940–950 million“.

The reason this is disingenuous and makes the sentence inaccurate is this: Endgame wasn’t projected to make $680/950 million over its first 10. As the article says, those estimates are for the first five days of international release, in which Russia was not part of. The only way to get Russia included in the opening weekend line is to add on “...and $1.5 billion over its first 10”. But to change the release window in the Wikipedia article, without adjusting the gross estimate, makes it essentially a lie. It came out in Russia on April 29, so, like it or not, that did not make it part of the historic opening weekend. Would love anyone’s input and/or defense for either side of the apparent edit war. Cheers! (cc: SlashFox14 and TriiipleThreat) TropicAces (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Deadline: "...first 10 days". Where did you get these "5 days"? "With the exception of Russia, which releases on Monday April 29, Endgame will go out everywhere day-and-date internationally beginning Wednesday. U.S./Canada starts off at 6 PM on Thursday." - It's about the release, not the box office receipts. This does not mean that they excluded the Russian box office. NightShadow (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * NightShadow23 I’m getting the five days from the article itself being about the first five days of international release aka the opening weekend. Forgetting the fact nowhere in the article (aside from the “...and $1.5 billion in its first 10 days”) does it make note of the ten day frame, ask yourself does it make sense that the film would be projected to make $950 million in its first 10 days – as you’ve edited the Endgame article here to say – yet also at the exact same time be projected to make $1.5 billion from international territories in the first 10 days, as the Deadline article states? I think you just misunderstand the timeline here... TropicAces (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces
 * You were mistaken about the Russian box office. But I also made a mistake, because the film earned $1 billion in foreign box office in 5 days. NightShadow (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add Kraglin back into cast list
Sean Gunn is credited as "on-set Rocket/Kraglin". He needs to be listed as such in the article as well. He wouldn't still be credited as Kraglin had he not appeared in the final cut of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B91302 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this. Sean Gunn should be credited.
 * ✅ Added Sean Gunn as Kraglin to the cast list. GrendelNightmares (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't Kraglin back on the cast list???

Incorrect terms - no time travel
The Avengers travelled to a paralel universe, NOT into the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:CCD5:DC4F:F3AA:72E2 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression it was time travel, given the number of references to the term "time travel". - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * They travel through a "parallel universe" to travel through time. I use the inverted commas because Lang makes it clear he is explaining quantum entanglement in layman's terms. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how they do it, this is obviously just time travel. I think the plot summary explains it as shown in the film pretty clearly. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the obvious way forward for post-Endgame films is to explore time travel-related complications: Loki escaping with the Power Stone, Nebula killing her old self, Thanos dying in the future, etc. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it doesn't matter as far as our plot section goes - but the point was that by travelling back in time, they can't alter their present (that just becomes their past), but any changes they make do create alternate realities - however returning the stones back nullifies that (hence why Rogers goes back to do so). The movie yada yadas about how that actually happens, but that's the intent). - Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Time travel is completely accurate HAL  333  20:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC) They travel to an alternate dimension to go to the past but the alternate dimension s just like a gateway they dont stay there.

Time travel is an accurate term. However, when they make changes to the past, unless they did’t change anything, they create alternative universes, as the Ancient One explained to Banner. Corachow (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Director Joe Russo says If Cap were to go back into the past and live there, he would create a branched reality. This was explained by Hulk and the Ancient One in the film, and I have updated the plot to reflect it. It's a basic premise of the film.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

During the Quantum suit testing scene, they mention Back to the Future, Terminator, Quantum Leap, Time After Time, Hot Tub Time Machine and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. However, they failed to mention The Time Machine, The Time Tunnel, Timeslip and Doctor Who

Captian America worthy
I think that captian america wielding mjolnir(thor's hammer) should be added because this is something realy important if you understand it.
 * You mean if you've read the comics where this has happened before, and following the speculation on this that started before Age of Ultron's release? It certainly can't be added to this film's plot summary without restructuring the plot summary to include analysis based on secondary sources discussing this film's relationship to the previous films. Personally I'd prefer if a properly sourced "analysis" section was included, but what do others think? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for this to be included, given that it is completely irrelevant to the plot summary and for us to include it, we would need to explain the qualities of Mjolnir, why Captain America needed to be worthy to lift it, why exactly he is worthy, and why it's important to the MCU. The plot summary is purely just that: plot summary. It isn't analysis. That would be a completely different section. If we want to add an analysis section, I'd say it's a little unnecessary, given that that's more of a Fandom thing than something that belongs in Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter). So yeah, I would say no to this. GrendelNightmares (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Towards the end of the film, Captain America travels back in time alone to return Thor's Mjolnir hammer and the Infinity Stones to their proper places in time. When he goes to Vormir in order to return the Soul Stone, he is going to meet Red Skull again where no doubt, they will renew their fight they started back on that Nazi aircraft in 1945. He must have obviously won that bout since he returns to Earth, albeit as an old man because he decided to spend his life with Margaret Carter as depicted in the final scene of the film.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
I don't think the plot summary should state that Steve married Peggy, because the film is deliberately vague about it. Steve refuses to tell Sam who he married and his dance with Peggy at the end doesn't mean that they got married, only that they had their long-promised dance (and a kiss). While the implication is certainly there, the film makes sure not to be explicit. Based on this, I think the plot summary should be adjusted to the effect of: " Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, then chooses to remain in the past, where he has his long-promised dance with Peggy Carter" or something similar. Siphida (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article simply states "Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, and remains in the past to be with Peggy Carter in a branched reality." NiciVampireHeart 05:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent Film?
There are a total of two instances in the article calling Avengers: Endgame the highest grossing independent film of all time. According to Wikipedia's own definition, an independent film is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies. Can a film financed, produced, and distributed by Walt Disney really qualify? Unsigned comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.231.89.45 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Avengers is definitely not an independent film, but what are the sources calling it an independent film? QueerFilmNerd  talk 19:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely not an independent film. Wherever that it is, it needs to be corrected.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot additions
I'd like to propose the following additions to the plot:  starship .paint  (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Explain the mechanics of time travel (already discussed above, but no harm to repeat). any changes in the past create a branched alternative reality in the past, instead of affecting the current reality's present. and Rogers returns the Infinity Stones to their original places in time, and remains in the past to be with Peggy Carter in a branched reality. Sources: QUESTION: It’s crucial to your film that in your formulation of time travel, changes to the past don’t alter our present. How did you decide this? ANSWER BY WRITER CHRISTOPHER MARKUS: Basically said what the Hulk says in that scene, which is, if you go to the past, then the present becomes your past and the past becomes your future. So there’s absolutely no reason it would change.  DIRECTOR JOE RUSSO: If Cap were to go back into the past and live there, he would create a branched reality  starship  .paint  (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include past Thanos' motivations - we don't explain that at all, while we did explain the heroes' motivations right at the start. So I propose Thanos attacks the Avengers' compound, intending to obtain the Stones and use them to destroy the current universe, then create a new peaceful universe where life would be grateful to him, instead of being grieving and rebellious as the current survivors are.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include a major point of Thor's arc - we already note he is now an overweight drunk despondent over his failure, so the plot should include that on Asgard, Thor has his confidence restored by his mother Frigga and his retrieval of his hammer Mjolnir.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include a major point of Captain's arc - Stark, Rogers and Thor battle Thanos, during which Rogers proves worthy of wielding Mjolnir - well, an ultimate endorsement of character. The first human in the films to wield the weapon, and it gave him lightning powers.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * These are more in line with a Themes and analysis section than Plot. DonQuixote (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The character arcs maybe if you want to lump them together. The time travel concept isn’t, that’s explaining how the world works. With the new Spider-Man trailer exploring this concept and it’s ramifications, it’s relevant. The Thanos motivation is central to the plot. It’s why there is even a fight at the end.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A reminder that the plot section is not the article. "How the world works" should be in an appropriate section that's not the plot section. And character motivations should be discussed in Themes and analysis, a shortened version attacks the compound in order to obtained the stones should suffice. DonQuixote (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Thanos motivation is already there - I re-added an earlier version that was inexplicably removed overnight. Thor and Cap are specific character moments, not plot ones - we can’t include every interaction here. The time travel mechanics are bulky and awkward to explain here, it could go somewhere but it’s just hard to explain succinctly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Toa Nidhiki05 said. This stuff doesn't belong in the plot section, save for perhaps Thanos's motivations.  GrendelNightmares   (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanos' motivations were in the Plot section previously, but were at some point removed. I have re-inserted as per this dicsussion. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

- the time travel mechanics need no further explanation, it's already done. There are 21 words in the first fragment, 4 words in the second fragment, and even with those, we're still at 695 words. The whole time heist plot wouldn't make sense if this movie were like Back to the Future (changing the past instantly changes the present/future), and in 25 words we've steered readers clear of those notions.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, fair enough. The point still stands that the rest of your suggestions simply don't belong in the Plot section.  GrendelNightmares   (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The plot-point that Thor regains his confidence by a conversation with his deceased mother, is indeed a key plot-point. Without its inclusion, it appears as though he remained a 'drunk/despondent'. Everyone keeps counting how many words are in this plot... this film is 3 hours long and weaves plot points from other films... is it really necessary to worry about how long the summary is? I argue, it's irrelevant. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Extend a description of the type of relationship that exists between Black Widow and Hawkeye. "Budapest" was mentioned again. The talk they had on Vormir prior to obtaining the Soul Stone implies that this was more that just friendship but stopped well short of an affair.  It appears to resemble a 'brother-and-sister' type of bond.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019
Change "Culminate" to "Completes". Crawfish10 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Culminates is grammatically correct. Trillfendi (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Gamma radiation
The plot is at 660 words, which means an important detail can be added without removing something else: the different effects of gamma radiation (from the stones) on Bruce Banner and everyone else. Discussing this in the article might resemble a scene-by-scene breakdown (per wp:filmplot), but it clearly isn't since the gamma radiation leads to the death of Tony Stark, one of the main characters. I'll be adding something along these lines to the article. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've boldly removed this for now and reduced the plot to 663 characters. Gamma radiation resistance is explained as the reason why Banner is chosen, but it's not the entire reason the Gauntlet kills Stark and injures Thanos. It just seems unwieldy. I think a broader discussion might be necessary as to what plot beats should be mentioned, or maybe even if we can use a longer summary - this is a long movie with a ton of plot details to discuss. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After your first edit removing this plot detail, DisneyMetalhead independently chose to add this information back to the plot section - which means that there's some amount of agreement among editors that the information about how Tony Stark died (a big deal!) needs to be in the article. I don't disagree that this plot section probably needs the old wp:iar treatment to allow it to grow to its proper length, but at the moment we're unlikely to exceed 700 even after this stuff is added. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He used a different term than gamma radiation, which is better because Stark dies of his injuries, not necessarily gamma poisoning. I still think we need a comprehensive, complete discussion and consensus on a stable text in the Plot section though. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Other discussions on this page have referred to a transcript for the movie, but I haven't seen it; all I have is my recollection that the Hulk says "mostly gamma" while talking about the components of the radiation/energy released by the stones. If we can back up the plot summary with the transcript, that would be worth doing. Please feel free to start a discussion about the length of the plot section and whatever other topics are relevant; I'd note however that the more comprehensive we try to make such a discussion, the less likely we are to arrive at consensus. Anyway, I added the information back to the article while trimming a few words elsewhere. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like Stephen trimmed one part of the gamma radiation discussion while leaving the rest in place... I guess this version of the article could work. BTW I think you're saying that Stark was done in mainly by his injuries from grappling with Thanos and being in a collapsing building. If you can substantiate that claim I'd be in favour of updating the article with that, because so far I've been going with the visual cues where Stark's face towards the end seemed ravaged in a way that didn't seem due to being bashed around. Peace. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there actually people here that believe Tony died from anything other than the Infinity Stones??... Is it not clear that the power/reverb/repercussion/blast from using the Infinity Stones killed Iron Man? It destroyed Thanos and Hulk's arms, and nearly killed Thanos the second time he used it. Entirely important to why one of the main characters sacraficed himself to save everyone else (i.e.: Main events of the film).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Airbornemihir (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really the same thing, but it's in the same vein. I believe that something about how Tony refused to help them track down Thanos at the beginning of the film is important, because what's currently on there makes it look like Tony helped. WikiBrainHead (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (apparently formerly known as, and still signing as, User:WikiBrainHead) At the time you wrote the above the article read The three ask Stark to help them retrieve the Stones from the past so they can reverse Thanos' actions in the present, but he refuses out of fear of losing his daughter, Morgan. After talking with his wife, Pepper Potts, Stark relents and works with Banner [...] to stabilize travel in the quantum realm. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I realized after writing the above, but before saving, that he WBH/CAC was talking about the much smaller detail at the very start of the film rather than the more memorable and arguably plot-relevant point that already was included (I missed the word "Thanos" as opposed to "the stones", since I was 90% certain I knew what was being talked about by that point). I'm neutral on whether the bit about Tony freaking out and deciding to go shave at the start of the film needs to be included, but I needed to post the above even after realizing I was mistaken, or waste even more time incorporating a relevant part of it into a message I left on WBH/CAC's talk page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , totally agree. It's important to the plot, the character progression and the importance of him sacrificing himself at the end to save the rest of the world.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2019
"Thor appoints Valkyrie as the king of New Asgard" should be changed to "Thor appoints Valkyrie as the Queen of New Asgard" Milamber (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See "Just a small thing" discussion above for reasoning. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it should be queen not king. There is no such thing as a female king. The equivalent of that (a queen who acts like a king) would be queen regnant like Queen Elizabeth II.Donnyamyc (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit because you elected to remove the notice advising a discussion be made on the talk page from the article. On that note, I have also modified the article to use the word "ruler" instead of king, queen, queen regnant or whatever other permutation there might be so as to avoid gender specifics and arguments over what is the correct word to use. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019
In the 'Reception' Header, I'd like to submit a request to include that James Cameron congratulated Kevin Feige for surpassing Titanic as the second highest grossing film of all time.

Change from: In its first week, the film's top five largest international markets were China ($459.4 million), the United Kingdom ($68.2 million), South Korea ($60.3 million), Mexico ($48.6 million), and India ($40.9 million).[156] A week after its release, it became the highest-grossing foreign film of all time in China[157] and India.[158] In its second weekend the film's running total passed $1.569 billion from international markets, passing Titanic as the second-highest film overseas of all time.[137]

Change to: In its first week, the film's top five largest international markets were China ($459.4 million), the United Kingdom ($68.2 million), South Korea ($60.3 million), Mexico ($48.6 million), and India ($40.9 million).[156] A week after its release, it became the highest-grossing foreign film of all time in China[157] and India.[158] In its second weekend the film's running total passed $1.569 billion from international markets, passing Titanic as the second-highest film overseas of all time.[137] James Cameron congratulated Kevin Feige and the Marvel team on their success via a tweet. DaviesEmma (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Electromechanical suits of armour
We should be describing Tony Stark better than the current "benefactor of the Avengers with electromechanical suits of armor of his own making" does. It reads to me as though he helps out the Avengers by giving them suits of armour - which isn't accurate. It seems to me that we could do better by stating what he does with those suits of armour. An obvious answer to that would be "fighting crime", but the Iron Man movies haven't been much about him fighting crime the way Spiderman/Batman do, and nor have the Avengers movies had him doing that kind of stuff. Anyway, I'm going to make a change and invite other editors to discuss. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Scene with Starlord and Gamora
Why is it forbidden to make any mention of the scene in which Starlord seducingly approaches 2014-Gamora and she physically attacks him? That is a significant little plot-twist that the filmmakers probably paid a lot of attention to. Furthermore, without any mention of that event there is absolutely no context to the sentence "Quill searches for 2014 Gamora" in the last paragraph. Are you so desperate to keep a certain word count that you included a significant subplot that consists out of just 2 scenes, and then you mentioned only one scene in the most obscure possible way? Editor-Plejer (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a plot summary written here, many intricate scenes such as Cap picking up MeowMeow, the one you mentioned regarding Gamora, Nat and Clint fighting over who will die, etc are of importance to the audience, however this is a summary and if one editor starts writing small details, then another might do the same. Let the plot be as short and concise as it can be CaptainGKPrime (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The scene is irrelevant to the plot summary, and as such, doesn't belong in the plot section. Sorry.  GrendelNightmares   (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question: why did you include a significant subplot that consists out of just 2 scenes, and then you mentioned just one scene in the most obscure way possiblr? Because that's an extremely half done job. Editor-Plejer (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Most Tweeted Film of All-Time
I'm not sure where this should go, but here's another massive record for Avengers: Endgame: 'Avengers: Endgame' is the most tweeted-about movie ever
 * "Twitter has announced that Marvel's Avengers: Endgame has cemented its place in history. The film had earned over 50 million tweets since the beginning of 2019."

Someone should add this somewhere. M A R I O Fan78 00:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Too trivial. Trillfendi (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How? That's a massive accomplishment and social media presence is very important in today's society. M A R I O  Fan78 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ... it really isn’t. Take that to IMDb. Trillfendi (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that Twitter later confirmed this, wouldn't be 'too trivial'. Listing it as an accomplishment however, isn't exactly accurate. Twitter doesn't determine the success/accomplishments of a film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but it does show the massive effect this show has had on society as a whole. That's a pretty big record, and given how important social media is and how much of an impact the movie has had I think it's worth mentioning somewhere. It's not some random "trivial fact" that this many people are talking about the film. M A R I O  Fan78 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How many of those tweets were trolls trying to spoil the ending or the various plot beats? The fact of its being the second highest grossing film in history is evidence enough of its cultural impact: the Twitter detail is misleading. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It doesn't if it's "trolls" talking about it or not, because that is not up for us to decide. Wikipedia is built upon facts, and it's factually accurate that over 50 million tweets were talking about Endgame. It's your "opinion" that these were all trolls. "The Twitter detail is misleading." How? How is it misleading to say it is the most talked about film in Twitter history. That's factual. M A R I O Fan78 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

New Asgard is in Scotland
Can't edit as I don't have an account and the article is protected. But, New Asgard is a village in Scotland. The Land Rover Hulk and Rocket share has a UK registration plate. There is also a visible bottle of Irn Bru in Thor's cottage. Shooting location was St Abbs in Scotland
 * It was filmed in Scotland, but it’s not in Scotland in the film. It’s in Norway. Rusted AutoParts  20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should still mention that it was filmed in Scotland if that information can be sourced. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s right in the credits.... Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Taking the fact that the film's credits say part of the film was shot in Scotland and extrapolating from that that the scene of the film that "looks kinda like Scotland" was shot there is almost as much of a blatant violation of WP:V as saying "I recognize the place in Scotland where that was filmed -- let's add it to our article". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And since I know no reasonable policy-based argument can be made on these talk pages without it being argued that I'm just hiding behind policy to push a view I personally agree with, I should clarify that I think the scenes that were shot in Scotland probably were the New Asgard scenes, and I thought this when I rewatched the film on Wednesday and noticed that part of the credits. That's why I said "we should mention it if it can be sourced" -- I personally agree that it's probably accurate, and so I said that on the talk page; I've long been an advocate of the part of WP:NOR that says This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just being facetious.... Trillfendi (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Sorry about that. I don't know how often you edit these pages, but FWIW having never interacted with you before I had no reason to believe you were joking, and having seen plenty of editors who have been here longer than you have make similar mistakes I had no reason to believe you weren't being sincere. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also (I just noticed this) I'm pretty sure it's legal to drive UK cars in Norway, so it's not a continuity error in the film if they have a car with a UK license plate in Norway, and if I can get Murphy's beer in Japan it wouldn't at all surprise me if Irn Bru is readily available in Norway (let alone that several of those Asgardians can fly). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 1: Since Thanos destroyed Thor's ship in Avengers:Infinity War, how did the surviving Asgardians manage to get to Earth?
 * Whilst this isn't really the place to be asking such questions since the talk page is for discussing changes to the article itself, not the subject of the article I can answer this question. At the start of Infinity War, if you look carefully, you can see that the ship has literally been torn in two; the lead half is destroyed by Thanos but the remaining half, which presmabely holds half of Asgard's population still, survives relatively unschated.As for how they got to Earth, not sure. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Question 2: Since New Asgard is supposed to be in Norway, then why is the road sign saying "Welcome to New Asgard" shown on the film written in English and not Norwegian? Was this a film production error?
 * It's written in English so that English speaking audiences can read it. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of authenticity, the same job could have been achieved by writing the road sign in Norwegian and then adding English subtitles on screen during editing.

"The character Howard the Duck appears in a non-speaking cameo."
This is extremely problematic wording, since a bunch of the actors we name as portraying characters in the film also have non-speaking cameos. The only difference is that Howard is entirely CGI -- which actually kinda contradicts Webster's definition of "cameo" as a small theatrical role usually performed by a well-known actor and often limited to a single scene. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to: "The character Howard the Duck appears in a minor, non-speaking role."? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That definition includes the caveat usually, which means that sometimes it's not a well-known actor. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019
Tessa Thompson did not die before infinity as she is seen early in endgame before everyone is revived for the Thanos snap. The directors also stated that she survived when Thanos took over the Asgardian's ship in infinity war 14.202.91.36 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It doesn't say she died before IW. She's listed as a someone who reprised their role from previous MCU films, including some who died prior to IW. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 10:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)