Talk:Avengers: Endgame/Archive 3

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. LightandDark2000 🌀 (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)

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)

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 HAL333 18:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Today I've seen the film in Germany:

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)

@Hijiri88: 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)

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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)

Cite #46 is just a link to Dave Bautista's twitter. This is clearly

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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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?

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please delete the entire plot. You have ruined the work of great people by spoiling the Endgame. Delete it. Now. #dontspoiltheendgame. Don'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.[1] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 Not done This is not a mistake. See the section #Spelling mistake above for more. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:58, 27 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 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)

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.

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

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 Done 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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Last Paragraph of Plot, Change Thor appoints Valkyrie as "King" of New Asgard to "Queen" Sidcr15 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As per the discussion above titled "Just a small thing". QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

″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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. @SlimeRancher2002: 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)

 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)

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)

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.

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.

talk

) 12:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

 Done 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???

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 · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 13:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Time travel is completely accurate HAL333 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)

[2] 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

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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: [3] 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. [4] 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)

@DonQuixote: 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)

(edit conflict) 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)

@Toa Nidhiki05 and GrendelNightmares: - 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)

@Starship.paint: 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.

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Culminate" to "Completes". Crawfish10 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Culminates is grammatically correct. Trillfendi (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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 Nidhiki05 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@

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. Toa Nidhiki05 17:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: 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. @Toa Nidhiki05: 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)

@DisneyMetalhead: 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.

@

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)

@

WikiBrainHead:, 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

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"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)

 Not done 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)

@Donnyamyc: 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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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.^[1] DaviesEmma (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 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)

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)

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)

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. MARIO^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. MARIO^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. MARIO^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. MARIO^Fan78 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

@

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.

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)

This edit request to Avengers: Endgame has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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. NiciVampireHeart 10:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)