The Infinity Stones

[Flash525]

Wasn’t sure whether to post this here or in the Avengers sub section, but this seemed to make more sense.

Am I right in thinking they no longer exist?; even though Thanos came to the future to acquire them all at once, he’d have still taken them from the past, or at least his past self would’ve done, right? After Steve returned all the stones to their rightful locations.

This brings me to two questions;

Firstly, Dormmamu. The good doctor initially defeated him by using the time stone against him. Should Dormmamu figure out that the time stone no longer exists, he’s now free to go back on his deal and attack Earth?

Secondly, Loki took the tesseract (and thus the space stone) so the events of his death no longer occur. Does the space stone therefore still exist?

And thirdly, something I’ve only just thought of, but are we in a different timeline now? If Loki escaped with the space stone, how does that tie in to Thor 2, Thor 3 and Infinity War? Those events wouldn’t have happened now, right?

Beyond confused.

 

[Bayne]

They no longer exist as stones, but their power must continue to exist because they 'control the flow of time' and time didn't stop flowing when Thanos destroyed them all. They can probably be recreated or may even naturally reconstitute.

The space stone was with Thanos in Infinity War, therefore Loki stealing it did not prevent anything and it was also destroyed with the other stones. Either there's something wonky and as yet unexplained going on there or Loki eventually is forced to return the tesseract to where he got it..

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

And thirdly, something I’ve only just thought of, but are we in a different timeline now? If Loki escaped with the space stone, how does that tie in to Thor 2, Thor 3 and Infinity War? Those events wouldn’t have happened now, right?

The end of Endgame occurs in the normal timeline. It's Loki that has to be in a different timeline as he took the Tesseract from where it's supposed to be and created an offshoot. It's in his timeline that things would happen differently, although whether he'll experience any of that or if he makes it back to the normal timeline remains to be seen.

Technically the stones should still be available to the Avengers as they still have the technology to time travel, although I would bet on that they dismantle it and vows not to use it again (until they have to).

 

[Flash525]

The space stone was with Thanos in Infinity War, therefore Loki stealing it did not prevent anything and it was also destroyed with the other stones. Either there's something wonky and as yet unexplained going on there or Loki eventually is forced to return the tesseract to where he got it..

This is what gets me, as surely the other Avengers (specifically Stark and Thor at this point) would remember these events happening to themselves?

The end of Endgame occurs in the normal timeline. It's Loki that has to be in a different timeline as he took the Tesseract from where it's supposed to be and created an offshoot. It's in his timeline that things would happen differently, although whether he'll experience any of that or if he makes it back to the normal timeline remains to be seen.

That's a death sentence for him if he does.

Technically the stones should still be available to the Avengers as they still have the technology to time travel, although I would bet on that they dismantle it and vows not to use it again (until they have to).

I know it was always going to involve time travel, but that's one of the big problems within the MCU now. If they lose another Avenger, or a city/continent gets wiped out, they have the ability to undo said death/destruction, so under what grounds wouldn't they?

Something else that maybe I don't understand about the Infinity Stones and Gauntlet; when combined, they're capable of practically anything, right? Thanos even stated he was going to wipe out all life and start it from scratch. Why then, when Tony first got the gauntlet on, didn't he make himself invincible to the effects of the stones, then snap his fingers and get rid of Thanos after? No brainer really.

 

[Imjenn]

It's entirely possible the stones are not all powerful like they are in the comics. They appear to have limits of sorts, especially with the drawbacks that don't exist in the comics.

The MCU made sure to be vague about the powers and limits of the stones, both individually and together with the gauntlet.

So maybe Stark couldn't make himself immune to the stones. Maybe he could but didn't think of it in that high adrenaline moment.

As for the timelines and alternate universes, the timeline we've watched since Ironman in 2008 is still intact as we know it. Loki is out in some alternate timeline, and who knows what happened with the Dark World and beyond (tone into Disney+ to find out). Other things that don't fit into our timeline could be said to be branched off timelines.

Personally I like to think all of this time traveling and infinity stone usage still has repercussions on the "prime timeline". That's my headcanon for the Homecoming timeline mashup, as well as Vision's statement about Tony becoming Ironman in Civil War. Little "time boom" remnants, holes in time that are the result of this cosmic power. Maybe an in- universe reason not to time travel again?

 

[metaphysician]

Why would anyone remember changes made by Loki, or any other time traveler? Those changes occur in divergent timelines leading to different presents.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Why would anyone remember changes made by Loki, or any other time traveler? Those changes occur in divergent timelines leading to different presents.

This.

They literally stop the fillm dead in its tracks multiple times to give the audience exposition on how they are approaching time travel and how it's NOT like all the versions they have seen in other movies or TV shows... Snd yet I keep seeing that wasn't enough to make so many understand.

 

[metaphysician]

This.

They literally stop the fillm dead in its tracks multiple times to give the audience exposition on how they are approaching time travel and how it's NOT like all the versions they have seen in other movies or TV shows... Snd yet I keep seeing that wasn't enough to make so many understand.

I think part of that, the movie goes out of its way to emphasize the need to put the Infinity Stones back, lest bad things happen, so a lot of people assume this must mean their absence would "actually" screw the past. The idea that this screwing *other* timelines should matter, because those people count just as much as those from our timeline, is just too alien.

 

[Bayne]

I think part of that, the movie goes out of its way to emphasize the need to put the Infinity Stones back, lest bad things happen, so a lot of people assume this must mean their absence would "actually" screw the past. The idea that this screwing *other* timelines should matter, because those people count just as much as those from our timeline, is just too alien.

The problem is the movie doesn't give a logical reason why the stones absence would screw anyone, so the natural assumption (for many) is that the mere existence of those alternate timelines is a bad thing in itself.

The only things the Ancient One ever says is that 1) removing a stone causes an alternate timeline and 2) an alternate timeline where the sorcerors don't have access to the Time Stone would be really bad because the time stone is their 'great weapon against the darkness'. That's just not a logical reason to make a big deal about returning all the other stones, too. Especially since - if Cap returned everything exactly where it came from - they were returning the mind stone to Hydra, the power stone to Ronan and the reality stone to Malekith.

Also, combine that with the fact that the movie goes out of its way to explain that removing a stone causes an alternate timeline while literally no character anywhere in the movie ever explicitly states that the time travel itself causes an alternate timeline and that's bound to cause confusion about whether alternate timelines are plentiful and normal or limited to the stone shenanigans and unnatural/dangerous.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The problem is the movie doesn't give a logical reason why the stones absence would screw anyone, so the natural assumption (for many) is that the mere existence of those alternate timelines is a bad thing in itself.

The only things the Ancient One ever says is that 1) removing a stone causes an alternate timeline and 2) an alternate timeline where the sorcerors don't have access to the Time Stone would be really bad because the time stone is their 'great weapon against the darkness'. That's just not a logical reason to make a big deal about returning all the other stones, too. Especially since - if Cap returned everything exactly where it came from - they were returning the mind stone to Hydra, the power stone to Ronan and the reality stone to Malekith.

Also, combine that with the fact that the movie goes out of its way to explain that removing a stone causes an alternate timeline while literally no character anywhere in the movie ever explicitly states that the time travel itself causes an alternate timeline and that's bound to cause confusion about whether alternate timelines are plentiful and normal or limited to the stone shenanigans and unnatural/dangerous.

Why doesn't it make sense to return the stones to the timelines they came from? At the end of the film the "end" result was all "positive". They know that though the stones for periods are in the hands of those who use them for general harm, that the heroes eventually overcome them and save the day in each situation culminating in the defeat of Thanos and the restoration of the lives he took. Bringing the stones back (sans the cube that Loki got away with causing an alternate reality in all probability) allows for those timelines to also culminate in a way that lines up with the events of Endgame, minus, again, the one where Loki gets away with the cube and the one where Thanos disappears from 2014 never to return to menace that timeline/reality again. That all seems sensible to me.

 

[Bayne]

Why doesn't it make sense to return the stones to the timelines they came from? At the end of the film the "end" result was all "positive". They know that though the stones for periods are in the hands of those who use them for general harm, that the heroes eventually overcome them and save the day in each situation culminating in the defeat of Thanos and the restoration of the lives he took. Bringing the stones back (sans the cube that Loki got away with causing an alternate reality in all probability) allows for those timelines to also culminate in a way that lines up with the events of Endgame, minus, again, the one where Loki gets away with the cube and the one where Thanos disappears from 2014 never to return to menace that timeline/reality again. That all seems sensible to me.

Except that if those are all alternate timelines from the start (which is what people are claiming should be the 'natural' assumption) then they don't actually know everything will go the same way. Thor could get lost on the underground on the way to stop Malekith. Drax or Gamora could refuse to trust the other guardians. Wanda could learn quickly and kill the Avengers at the start of AoU.

And even if everything goes the same way, can you really inarguably say that it's better to live in a world where Ronan almost killed everyone on Xandar but was stopped rather than him never having the power to attack in the first place? If the stone being absent isn't a problem, then why not even ask that question? Are the people who died in that attack not worth trying to save, even if that means they'll live on in an alternate universe?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Except that if those are all alternate timelines from the start (which is what people are claiming should be the 'natural' assumption) then they don't actually know everything will go the same way. Thor could get lost on the underground on the way to stop Malekith. Drax or Gamora could refuse to trust the other guardians. Fury could actually die, leaving no one to rescue Cap.

No... They aren't alternate timelines from the start. They diverged the moment the team went back in time and "changed" things by being there to grab the Stones. If they had not returned them then they wouldn't be there for the flow of events to play out as they originally did in the prime timeline. That's the reason why the Ancient One is reticent to give the Time Stone to Bruce in the first place. Bruce then suggests that if they return them in a manner where their absence doesn't radically change the history, then events in that timeline should play out more or less the same to the history that Bruce, from the future, is aware that they do.

 

[Bayne]

No... They aren't alternate timelines from the start. They diverged the moment the team went back in time and "changed" things by being there to grab the Stones. If they had not returned them then they wouldn't be there for the flow of events to play out as they originally did in the prime timeline. That's the reason why the Ancient One is reticent to give the Time Stone to Bruce in the first place. Bruce then suggests that if they return them in a manner where their absence doesn't radically change the history, then events in that timeline should play out more or less the same to the history that Bruce, from the future, is aware that they do.

From the start is perhaps not the right wording, but the mere fact that you call them alternate universes proves there's no guarantee things would play out the same way as before. Removing and returning the stones is still a change, if only a very small one.

Also, I edited this into my last post but apparently after you'd already seen it:
Even if everything goes the same way, can you really inarguably say that it's better to live in a world where Ronan almost killed everyone on Xandar but was stopped rather than him never having the power to attack in the first place? If the stone being absent isn't a problem, then why not even ask that question? Are the people who died in that attack not worth trying to save, even if that means they'll live on in an alternate universe?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

From the start is perhaps not the right wording, but the mere fact that you call them alternate universes proves there's no guarantee things would play out the same way as before. Removing and returning the stones is still a change, if only a very small one.

Also, I edited this into my last post but apparently after you'd already seen it:
Even if everything goes the same way, can you really inarguably say that it's better to live in a world where Ronan almost killed everyone on Xandar but was stopped rather than him never having the power to attack in the first place? If the stone being absent isn't a problem, then why not even ask that question? Are the people who died in that attack not worth trying to save, even if that means they'll live on in an alternate universe?

Time travel as a concept is fraught with these questions, yes. One could also posit that in a timeline where you keep Ronan from the Power Stone that while you might save those on Xandar altering the flow of events that leads to something even worse.

The Age Of Ultron comic story is all about how using time travel to nip something in the bud rather than allow history to unfurl as it should is a risky action with loads of unintended consequences. The heroes in the AEG story are just trying to act as responsible as possible to make sure that they don't create realities with said unintended consequences even if those alternate timelines don't effect them personally given the way the film talks about how time travel actually can't affect the present. The information they had at the end of the film, living through the battle and restoring life, was the "end" point they felt was the best outcome. They couldn't change every bad thing in the past. Even for themselves they realized that they couldn't change Tasha's fate. Rather than risk something, as in your example, by keeping the Stone away from Ronan, they just have to accept that the flow of events plays out to the least worst end point. Yes there's no absolute guarantee it will but in the end they are thinking about the entirety of life even in those alternate timelines. This was the Ancient One's point to Bruce. The time periods they visited were as the team from the future were as they remembered them from the past, but who knows how they would play out without the Stones as important objects in the history that they knew if they weren't there? Trying to maintain the sanctity of events more or less was why they had to return the stones and the hammer.

Now in fact we may be getting a series that will deal with how altering the past to create these deviating timelines turns out. Loki's story, or let's say, Loki2's story post his escape with the cube might well be about the fallout of creating an alt-timeline.

 

[Bayne]

Time travel as a concept is fraught with these questions, yes. One could also posit that in a timeline where you keep Ronan from the Power Stone that while you might save those on Xandar altering the flow of events that leads to something even worse.

The Age Of Ultron comic story is all about how using time travel to nip something in the bud rather than allow history to unfurl as it should is a risky action with loads of unintended consequences. The heroes in the AEG story are just trying to act as responsible as possible to make sure that they don't create realities with said unintended consequences even if those alternate timelines don't effect them personally given the way the film talks about how time travel actually can't affect the present. The information they had at the end of the film, living through the battle and restoring life, was the "end" point they felt was the best outcome. They couldn't change every bad thing in the past. Even for themselves they realized that they couldn't change Tasha's fate. Rather than risk something, as in your example, by keeping the Stone away from Ronan, they just have to accept that the flow of events plays out to the least worst end point. Yes there's no absolute guarantee it will but in the end they are thinking about the entirety of life even in those alternate timelines. This was the Ancient One's point to Bruce. The time periods they visited were as the team from the future were as they remembered them from the past, but who knows how they would play out without the Stones as important objects in the history that they knew if they weren't there? Trying to maintain the sanctity of events more or less was why they had to return the stones and the hammer.

Now in fact we may be getting a series that will deal with how altering the past to create these deviating timelines turns out. Loki's story, or let's say, Loki2's story post his escape with the cube might well be about the fallout of creating an alt-timeline.

I don't have any issue with any of that. I'm just saying the movie doesn't really make that case and because it doesn't, it's entirely understandable that people might get confused on some of these points and/or make different assumptions based on the same film. That doesn't mean they just weren't paying attention to the movie, it means the movie is not 100% consistent in its presentation and some people just wind up interpreting it differently because of that.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I don't have any issue with any of that. I'm just saying the movie doesn't really make that case and because it doesn't, it's entirely understandable that people might get confused on some of these points and/or make different assumptions based on the same film. That doesn't mean they just weren't paying attention to the movie, it means the movie is not 100% consistent in its presentation and some people just wind up interpreting it differently because of that.

But the movie rather explicitly does make that case. I don't see what you do where it doesn't spell out it's take on time travel and the ramifications of it. They spell out the way their time travel works, the creation of alternate timelines and why they need to return the stones to where they got them from. One might even say because it's on the complicated side that the movie comes to a dead halt for the express purpose of having exposition to keep the audience up to speed on the concepts being employed in the story. It's all there. I can't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.

 

[Bayne]

But the movie rather explicitly does make that case. I don't see what you do where it doesn't spell out it's take on time travel and the ramifications of it. They spell out the way their time travel works, the creation of alternate timelines and why they need to return the stones to where they got them from. One might even say because it's on the complicated side that the movie comes to a dead halt for the express purpose of having exposition to keep the audience up to speed on the concepts being employed in the story. It's all there. I can't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.

Where in the movie does it say everything is an alternate timeline regardless of whether a stone's been removed or not? I've seen the film multiple times and poured over the transcript. It's not in there.

Where in the movie does it say the stones have to be returned because trying to fix anything for other universes is irresponsible? Again, it's not in there.

What the movie says is that the stones have to be returned because the time stone can't be missed. What the movie says is that messing with stones causes alternate realities. That's what's actually in the script. You can infer more or less or slightly different depending on how you interpret different scenes, but all that stuff is not actually in the script.

 

[Flash525]

Gotta' love these timeline dynamics. Needless to say, if the time stone (per the ancient one) is the one stone that's truly needed, why bother returning the other ones? Return the time stone (for Thanos to later acquire) but that's about all he'll get then.

If we've also (now) got other timelines, what's their purpose beyond simply being there? Stark would now live in almost all of them? It's never explained (I don't think) how our heroes are travelling back to their true future either; if they're gone back, changed something, shouldn't they then return to the future from which they'd changed? Unless their suits and access to the quantum realm are literally synced into that big device in the Avengers lab.

Why also is the one timeline any more relevant than the others? Thanos seemingly loses in this one, but he's victorious elsewhere? Are our Avengers now inadvertently responsible for the deaths of billions, if not trillions, because they returned the stones and gave Thanos means to exact his plan?

 

[TheVileOne]

It's entirely possible the stones are not all powerful like they are in the comics. They appear to have limits of sorts, especially with the drawbacks that don't exist in the comics.

The MCU made sure to be vague about the powers and limits of the stones, both individually and together with the gauntlet.

So maybe Stark couldn't make himself immune to the stones. Maybe he could but didn't think of it in that high adrenaline moment.

As for the timelines and alternate universes, the timeline we've watched since Ironman in 2008 is still intact as we know it. Loki is out in some alternate timeline, and who knows what happened with the Dark World and beyond (tone into Disney+ to find out). Other things that don't fit into our timeline could be said to be branched off timelines.

Personally I like to think all of this time traveling and infinity stone usage still has repercussions on the "prime timeline". That's my headcanon for the Homecoming timeline mashup, as well as Vision's statement about Tony becoming Ironman in Civil War. Little "time boom" remnants, holes in time that are the result of this cosmic power. Maybe an in- universe reason not to time travel again?

The stones were definitely nerfed in the films.

What's far more problematic is the concept of what happens when you suddenly have several billion people reappearing on Earth five years later?

Think about it. If removing half of all life on a planet was near catastrophic and devastating, then putting them all back in an instant would be EQUALLY catastrophic.

 

[Flash525]

Think about it. If removing half of all life on a planet was near catastrophic and devastating, then putting them all back in an instant would be EQUALLY catastrophic.

We saw in Far From Home that people reappeared where they'd disappeared too; that's going to cause all sorts of problems in itself.

• People randomly appearing in the street, half way crossing the road.
• Sailors and Cruise Ship staff appearing in the middle of the ocean.
• Pilots and Cabin Crew reappearing several hundred feet above ground where their plane used to be.
• Submarine Crew, unless Namor saves them all..
• Any astronauts in the space station.

...the list is endless really, but these things don't remotely get explained. I guess they'd be acceptable losses? In that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the few deaths would be worth the action for the action in itself would restore a good percentage of what was lost.

Doesn't also take into account losses because of losses either; lets say a aeroplane carrying holiday makers lost it's two pilots in the snap, the plane ultimately would have crashed killing all those passengers. If the pilots are then undusted, their passengers remain dead. There's bound to be some guilt there on their part, even though they were helpless to do anything about it.

As much as I enjoyed Infinity War and Endgame, it's details like this that could've done with exploring.