Skip to main content

marvel - Why didn't this character die even though they shot this person in Avengers: Endgame?


Rest assured, my question is entirely Endgame spoiler-free unless you hover over the hidden quotes. Probably best not to read on.


Background:




Time travel is fickle, and Endgame's plot is centered entirely around it. Conventional time travel has a golden rule: change the past and you change the future. I am aware of what is said at the start of the film: (quoting Banner/Stark? from memory) "whatever happens in the past the future remains the same". This may explain how reality remains OK even after the un-snap with the vanished half suddenly coming back 5 years later, as the future goes on normally as if the vanished had really vanished for the last 5 years and only reappeared again without having to fill in the 5 year time gap.



My inquiry:



This begs the question, however: How is Nebula still alive and kicking at the end of the movie, after she kills (literally shooting a hole through) her past self? Logically speaking, shouldn't killing her own past self erase her from existence, completely, in the future?




Answer



The "answer" (or at least the theory upon which the answer to your query is based) is in the scene you first quoted. Based upon my one viewing of the movie (spoilers, of course):




After Stark posits this theory that the Avengers' actions in the past would not change their collective present, the other characters in the room run through a plethora of movies that instead relied on your "golden rule." In those movies, the characters' actions in the past altered their present. At the end of this rapid-fire listing of movies, Ant Man says something like, "so Back to the Future was all bullshit?" The movie then moves forward without further analysis, having laid the groundwork exposition that the past cannot be changed. The implication of all this is that, even though present-Nebula shot past-Nebula, that act did not change present-Nebula's present condition. (For what it's worth, all but one of the other events in the movie appear to conform to the theory. The one that I think may not follow the rule (SERIOUSLY, this is a SPOILER from the end of the movie, so STOP READING NOW if you don't want to spoil it!): Captain America appears at the end as an old man, having gone back in time and apparently spending a lifetime with Peggy Carter. This could have altered her timeline, unless you accept that she was actually married to Cap in the original timeline. This is a possibility as past movies did not reveal the identity of her husband. If so, I would concede this follows the in-movie rule; otherwise, it would be (TV Trope warning) New Rules as the Plot Demands.)



The theory and the result of the event in your second spoiler-block does seem to defy logic. However, it is based upon one widely accepted theory concerning the potential impact of the plan they were discussing in the movie. See, for example (warning: hovering over the following link will reveal a spoiler), Prof. Miller's essay in The Philosophers' Magazine, June 25, 2017


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...