neurobashing/gist:4752af3dd6fa5df189ddfc3d8ed4880b

## gistfile1.txt
StarLord was unlikeable; what little they gave him to do was neither rogueish nor heroic.

I understand why Dr. Strange would not like Tony Stark even before he actually met him, but I would have liked to see a backstory about it. (In the comics, there would be a line with an asterisk pointing to the issue in another book)

Giving Loki an honorable death was good, except that the odds are he'll end up being resurrected and just turn bad again. I mean, that's how comics work. But in the frame of the film alone, it was good.

Making Thor a noble semi-idiot - a kind of extremely good-hearted frat bro - is one of the smartest decision the MCU made.

Semi-destroying Wakanda felt like a betrayal after the genius of Black Panther.

The Black Order were supposed to be a threat but they weren't.

Why didn't they just cut off Thanos' fucking arm when Mantis had him immobilized.

Peter's 'I don't want to die' moment felt unnecessary; gratutious heartstring pulling. No one else really got a chance to do that.

The third act felt inevitable; they built up stakes then he got all the damn stones. I thought for a minute there would actually be a chance we wouldn't see the full Gauntlet until the second part. Now the "endgame" is inevitable; someone is going to get the gauntlet and use time+reality to un-kill everyone and fix everything. (this is, FWIW, happens in the comics)

I don't understand how Princess Sparklefist (Captain Marvel) is going to help. She's powerful, to be sure, but unless she's leading the entire Shi'ar Imperial Guard (ostensibly at about 50% capacity!) I fail to see how a single additional superhero changes the "endgame". Also that would mean further expanding the MCU.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: it was the Kree, not the Shi'ar, who gave Danvers her powers. The point still stands. Are they really going to involve THAT shitshow in the MCU?)

So I dunno. I liked a lot of it.
	StarLord was unlikeable; what little they gave him to do was neither rogueish nor heroic.

	I understand why Dr. Strange would not like Tony Stark even before he actually met him, but I would have liked to see a backstory about it. (In the comics, there would be a line with an asterisk pointing to the issue in another book)

	Giving Loki an honorable death was good, except that the odds are he'll end up being resurrected and just turn bad again. I mean, that's how comics work. But in the frame of the film alone, it was good.

	Making Thor a noble semi-idiot - a kind of extremely good-hearted frat bro - is one of the smartest decision the MCU made.

	Semi-destroying Wakanda felt like a betrayal after the genius of Black Panther.

	The Black Order were supposed to be a threat but they weren't.

	Why didn't they just cut off Thanos' fucking arm when Mantis had him immobilized.

	Peter's 'I don't want to die' moment felt unnecessary; gratutious heartstring pulling. No one else really got a chance to do that.

	The third act felt inevitable; they built up stakes then he got all the damn stones. I thought for a minute there would actually be a chance we wouldn't see the full Gauntlet until the second part. Now the "endgame" is inevitable; someone is going to get the gauntlet and use time+reality to un-kill everyone and fix everything. (this is, FWIW, happens in the comics)

	I don't understand how Princess Sparklefist (Captain Marvel) is going to help. She's powerful, to be sure, but unless she's leading the entire Shi'ar Imperial Guard (ostensibly at about 50% capacity!) I fail to see how a single additional superhero changes the "endgame". Also that would mean further expanding the MCU.

	(EDITOR'S NOTE: it was the Kree, not the Shi'ar, who gave Danvers her powers. The point still stands. Are they really going to involve THAT shitshow in the MCU?)

	So I dunno. I liked a lot of it.