‘Avengers: Endgame’ Surpasses Its Source Material
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has always adapted the comic books its films are based upon fairly loosely. This has never necessarily been a bad thing — the main continuity of Marvel Comics exist within a multiverse, allowing the films to comfortably exist in a separate earth and do whatever they want.
Of course, these films would have the power to do so anyway, but by signifying that the movies exist within the established multiverse, Disney gets to have its cake and eat it, too, by creating new stories that are — technically, by the thinnest connection— canon with the comics.
This freedom to recreate big moments and toy with fan expectations has lead to some really fun moments (think: “Planet Hulk” existing as a subplot in a Thor movie, the Sokovia Accords in place of The Superhuman Registration Act in Captain America: Civil War), but it has also backfired spectacularly (think: Iron Man 3’s Mandarin reveal, which was so derided by the comic book fanbase that Marvel quasi-retconned it almost immediately in a short film, and Kevin Feige as recently as this week said they’d return to the character).
All of these adaptation quirks have cemented the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s existence as something completely worthwhile. What do I mean by that? Well, think of Watchmen or, dare I say, the Harry Potter movies — these are adaptations so beholden to their source material that they offer nothing new. In the case of Watchmen, you have an aesthetically identical product that somehow misses the point of the graphic novel it’s adapting; for the Harry Potter movies, you have a rather cookie cutter method of adaptation that clips whole subplots and characters from the books and ultimately fails to really justify its existence beyond seeing the same story play out in a different medium, without being nearly as good as its source material.
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has a firm grasp on the characters its adapting, and remains faithful to the spirit of the comic books as opposed to their plots. Many fans were upset when Ultron was created by Tony Stark in Avengers: Age of Ultron, as opposed to Hank Pym. But the core essence of Ultron remained: his father issues were transposed onto Stark, which made more sense for the audience at the time anyway. Creative adaptation choices like this justify this franchise’s existence. We’re not just seeing the same the story beats play out, but we’re getting new stories with the same characters.
This focus on characterization has become the franchise’s greatest strength. The story beats across all 22 of these films can be overtly familiar, as mystical objects such as the Infinity Stones serve as poorly defined MacGuffins for much of the series. But it’s not really the plot that fans of these movies are lining up for anymore, it’s the characters. In 2008, Marvel cemented this universe as being character driven with its first movie, Iron Man. That character focus has defined the franchise ever since.
It’s that sense of character that makes Avengers: Endgame so monumental. It’s also what separates Endgame from the rest of these movies in a big way: Endgame is the movie that declares the Marvel Cinematic Universe as something better than its source material.
Comic books are cyclical by nature. These superheroic characters have been around for seventy years, and they have to exist in a time vacuum. Characters like Iron Man and the Punisher, who’s origins are tied to a specific war, have had their origins changed countless time to reflect whatever war has been most recent. Characters die and are resurrected within years, sometimes months. Whole universes are destroyed and rebuilt. Lines that cannot be uncrossed are repeatedly done so.
All of this circular storytelling is a necessary part of the business: you cannot retire Spider-Man, he’s Marvel’s money printing machine. You can’t permanently kill Captain America. Bruce Banner will always be the Hulk.
Herein lies the greatest problem with superhero comic books: no change is significant, no growth is permanent, no stakes are real. Bruce Banner should have been retired from the universe after “World War Hulk,” which offered a possible and affecting conclusion for his character. Spider-Man should not have had his marriage to Mary Jane erased. Doctor Doom should not have returned to villainy after his wonderful arc in “Secret Wars.” The list goes on.
Eleven years after it began, the Marvel Cinematic Universe offers something its source material simply cannot: an actual ending. Tony Stark’s death in Endgame is permanent. Natasha’s death is permanent. Captain America’s retirement is permanent. Thanos’s demise is permanent. Endgame sets up new storytelling possibilities for the future like the best comic book crossovers do, but it also genuinely concludes several storylines.
By giving real conclusions to the arcs of Iron Man, Black Widow, Captain America, and Thanos, Avengers: Endgame surpasses its source material to become something greater. The Marvel Cinematic Universe proves its a universe with with real stakes, with real change, with real growth. The finality that it brings to its years long arcs proves that the franchise isn’t just a retread of the decades of comic books it’s based on, going above and beyond simply justifying its existence.
Fans having been seeking this kind of closure in comics for years. But it’s too much to ask Marvel Comics to follow suit — realistically, they can’t. Now, since the Marvel Cinematic Universe is here, they don’t have to. Marvel can have the best of both worlds when it comes to storytelling, and fans can, too.
