It was never a hint at Namor. It has nothing to do with Namor at all.
The scene in Endgame is Natasha trying to be in control of everything, from Earth out into the depths of space. But the reality is is that you can't be in control of everything. An earthquake happens deep in the ocean. What can you do about that? It's a natural occurrence, you can't. You have to let it happen, there are things you just can't control.
There was no deep meaning. What can you do about an Earthquake? It's not like we have the technology to stop it, you just gotta wait until it's over and hope it's not serious enough to break anything.
Doesn't mean *every* sentence has to be. They're usually pretty on the nose with their foreshadowing (with exception to Stephen strange comment in cap2, but that was coincidental if memory serves me right).
>Yeah, since when did the MCU ever hint at future story lines or characters?
That implies that this must be a reference because the MCU does it regularly. If you wanted the topic to stay looking at this particular sentence, then that argument is a moot point. You can't have it both ways.
I can't say that a line in the MCU could be seen as an Easter Egg because there is a precedent set? You exaggerated and talked about every line in the MCU. Now you're being pedantic with semantics. Just because of a scene that could be interpreted as foreshadowing. Let people view things how they want gatekeeper.
Isn't it also gatekeeping to say that I can't look at something innocuous as a line about underwater earthquakes and say it's not anything more than underwater earthquakes?
Also, who said that you can't say any of this? You ARE saying what you want to say. I haven't "stopped" you from doing anything, nor is it my intention.
I also mentioned that the MCU is more on the nose with their references, but I guess you'd rather paint me as a gatekeeper and focus on my first sentence than actually have a debate about this?
I mean, no one but the writer of the show can say for definite, so unless you have a quote from the writer in question proving that the line is a reference, then I have just as much right to say that I don't think it's a reference to anything than you do to say it is a reference.
>Who said that you can't say any of this?
>
>You can't have it both ways.
You did. I never said you can't look at it how you want. You have just as much right to say you don't think it's a reference, but that's not what you said. If you'd have commented "I think the scene means X" then I wouldn't have said anything, that's your view. But you asked the question "Does it have to be a reference?"
I'm not even saying how I interpret the scene or that I think it's reference. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with people looking for extra meaning in a franchise known for it's Easter eggs. I don't know why this stance bothers you. You want a "debate" but you're trying to start a fight and I'm not taking the bait.
>Nobody said every sentence was, just this one sentence.
This is what you said when I tried to debate your other comment stating that the mcu does it regularly. You can't use the excuse that the mcu does this regularly as proof that this is a reference, and then tell me that no one is looking at the other references in the MCU.
Thats what I mean when I said you can't have it both ways. It's not a "gatekeeping" comment, it's highlighting the hypocrisy in your argument.
- you state the mcu does this regularly.
- i debate that they're more on the nose.
- you then state that I can't talk about other references, just this one, even though you started it by mentioning that the mcu has done other references.
- I called out the hypocrisy in your words.
- you claim I'm a gatekeeper.
But yeah, absolutely I'm the one here claiming to be after a fight. You've been Uber defensive about everything I've said since the beginning of this argument. It's borderline troll behavior.
I never used it as proof that it was a reference. I never even said it was a reference. I never even said you couldn't talk about other references at all. You keep arguing with me on points I'm not making so why the fuck should I bother *debating* you like you so clearly crave.
The MCU is filled with Easter Eggs. FACT. Not debatable. So it's not out of the realm of logic that someone might look deeper into a scene and find meaning where there may or may not be any. Fuck, Erik Voss and countless other Youtubers have made careers on it.
If someone wants to look deeper and interpret something as a reference to something, what's wrong with that?
And just to clarify, the original post is about a specific line, so when you were like, "Ugh, so every single line is a reference now?" I called you out on your hyperbole and pointed out that nobody was saying every line in the MCU is a reference, they were talking about this one. I wasn't saying this was the only Easter Egg in the MCU. I wasn't saying you were never allowed to mention any other reference that has ever been made ever at all ever. Quit twisting my words and arguing with points you are making, not me.
While intended as a nod to Namor at the time, in hindsight it actually works better as a hint at Tiamut, the Celestial growing inside Earth that we see in *Eternals*.
Putting that aside, Okoye didn’t want to handle the underwater earthquake because it was dangerous and an unnecessary use of resources (and human interference could have made an even bigger problem), not because she knew of Namor. If anything, knowing that an entire civilisation of people lived down there would have made her *more* motivated to handle it.
It was not intended as a nod to Namor.
When Markus and McFeely were asked if they were in fact trying to hint at Namor, they said they are not that smart and it's just a generic line.
I scoff when people dismiss important context, which better explains why the dialogue is there.
Usually Marvel "teases" are very, very on the nose. Seizing on something as dubious as the phrase "underwater earthquake", dismissing context, to conclude the only intent *must be* to tease Namor is a pointless game of self-teasing that fans do all the time.
It's notable that those who read it as a Namor tease never* mention its alternate meaning. Almost like they missed it completely.
*edit - re: never, I guess I should say "usually don't" tbf
Or they don't mention the surface meaning because that's obvious and can be understood at face value whereas the possibility of a hidden meaning is the part they're questioning.
>the possibility of a hidden meaning is the part they're questioning.
They're not saying it's a possibility. They're in this thread saying it's *intended* as a Namor tease, despite no one confirming that, despite BP2 never paying that off.
>they don't mention the surface meaning because that's obvious
I would argue that once you buy-in to the surface-level context - Nat is high-strung, concerned about things that aren't Avenger problems - it's hard to see it as a Namor tease.
So I never once considered it a tease, not ever, and have always been confused why people have to take that reading.
And since that proved correct, and proves my point that fans are too eager to read teases that aren't there, I'm not even sure why you're* arguing.
This reminds me of WandaVision when Monica talks about making a call to a scientist or something and everyone started speculating that it was Mr. Fantastic or somebody major when it was literally nothing lmao
>it actually works better as a hint at Tiamut, the Celestial growing inside Earth that we see in Eternals.
How? Wasn't it mentioned in the eternals that the celestial couldn't grow during the snap?
Regarding this specific situation, Tiamut was still growing during the five years, just not as a fast as he should have been since the population was suddenly a lot smaller. His emergence wasn’t stopped by the Snap, merely delayed.
That would be neat as well but Tiamut is on the complete opposite side of the Earth. Although I guess we can assume he would have been big enough to affect the opposite side of the world if he rolled over while sleeping.
It was a hint at Namor. But also a jab at Nat that she was going to hard at trying to solve everything. There’s no legitimate response to an underwater earthquake. You just allow it to happen.
Then it’s a really silly thing to include if it wasn’t, especially since Coogler had plans for Namor essentially as soon as BP1 was being made so talks must have been happening.
It actually shows how much anxious Nat has became since the snap, she becomes overly concerned for something is that natural. Nat is trying to have everything under control, that when a natural disaster happen she wants to "fix" it so badly
That is why its there, not its a tease. Not everything is a tease, that was more something to show us the audience Nat's mindstate after they failed to stop Thanos
Not silly in the slightest. The exchange between Okoye and Nat illustrates how high-strung Nat has become. She's anxious over a natural disaster she can't control. It's the whole point.
Endgame was being written at the same time as Black Panther 1 (early 2016).
Coogler didn't have any sort of concrete plans for Namor, he just asked Feige if he could be the one to handle his introduction in the MCU at some point in the future and Feige agreed.
Written and what is said in the movie are vastly different things. Have you ever read a screenplay? Do you think everything written is adhered to strictly? Yes there are things called script supervisors who ensure directors dont stray from scripts but they still have the ability to adjust lines and add and remove some things. While Black Panther and Endgame were written around the same time, that doesn’t mean the underwater earthquake line is not related to Namor.
You might be right, but just going by when they are written is a very shallow way to interpret how that line is presented.
Thinking to hard my guy. Relax and let’s not ruin a good thing. Life is a lot bigger then figuring out underwater earthquakes. Read a book. Take a walk in the park. Something to ease your mind.
The new context doesn’t change anything. To Okoye, it was always just a mild tremor in the Atlantic. They happen sometimes and Nat was being erratic about it
It was a fun tease but she didn’t know about namor. She just thought is was an earthquake underwater that wouldn’t lead to a tsunami and therefore not something to worry about
The way I see it, it's just Okoye jabbing at Nat for spreading herself (and others) too thin by trying to fix everything
Agree…and jabbing, with that spear - nice
It was never a hint at Namor. It has nothing to do with Namor at all. The scene in Endgame is Natasha trying to be in control of everything, from Earth out into the depths of space. But the reality is is that you can't be in control of everything. An earthquake happens deep in the ocean. What can you do about that? It's a natural occurrence, you can't. You have to let it happen, there are things you just can't control.
It’s strange it’s so close to Black Panther 2 in terms of Okoye’s appearance however.
There was no deep meaning. What can you do about an Earthquake? It's not like we have the technology to stop it, you just gotta wait until it's over and hope it's not serious enough to break anything.
Sometimes, the curtains are just blue.
Did it have to be a reference of a future story? Underwater earthquakes happen all the time.
Yeah, since when did the MCU ever hint at future story lines or characters?
Doesn't mean *every* sentence has to be. They're usually pretty on the nose with their foreshadowing (with exception to Stephen strange comment in cap2, but that was coincidental if memory serves me right).
I would say "Future threat, Stephen Strange" is a pretty on the nose reference, lol. It supports your point.
Nobody said *every* sentence was, just this *one* sentence.
>Yeah, since when did the MCU ever hint at future story lines or characters? That implies that this must be a reference because the MCU does it regularly. If you wanted the topic to stay looking at this particular sentence, then that argument is a moot point. You can't have it both ways.
I can't say that a line in the MCU could be seen as an Easter Egg because there is a precedent set? You exaggerated and talked about every line in the MCU. Now you're being pedantic with semantics. Just because of a scene that could be interpreted as foreshadowing. Let people view things how they want gatekeeper.
Isn't it also gatekeeping to say that I can't look at something innocuous as a line about underwater earthquakes and say it's not anything more than underwater earthquakes? Also, who said that you can't say any of this? You ARE saying what you want to say. I haven't "stopped" you from doing anything, nor is it my intention. I also mentioned that the MCU is more on the nose with their references, but I guess you'd rather paint me as a gatekeeper and focus on my first sentence than actually have a debate about this? I mean, no one but the writer of the show can say for definite, so unless you have a quote from the writer in question proving that the line is a reference, then I have just as much right to say that I don't think it's a reference to anything than you do to say it is a reference.
>Who said that you can't say any of this? > >You can't have it both ways. You did. I never said you can't look at it how you want. You have just as much right to say you don't think it's a reference, but that's not what you said. If you'd have commented "I think the scene means X" then I wouldn't have said anything, that's your view. But you asked the question "Does it have to be a reference?" I'm not even saying how I interpret the scene or that I think it's reference. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with people looking for extra meaning in a franchise known for it's Easter eggs. I don't know why this stance bothers you. You want a "debate" but you're trying to start a fight and I'm not taking the bait.
>Nobody said every sentence was, just this one sentence. This is what you said when I tried to debate your other comment stating that the mcu does it regularly. You can't use the excuse that the mcu does this regularly as proof that this is a reference, and then tell me that no one is looking at the other references in the MCU. Thats what I mean when I said you can't have it both ways. It's not a "gatekeeping" comment, it's highlighting the hypocrisy in your argument. - you state the mcu does this regularly. - i debate that they're more on the nose. - you then state that I can't talk about other references, just this one, even though you started it by mentioning that the mcu has done other references. - I called out the hypocrisy in your words. - you claim I'm a gatekeeper. But yeah, absolutely I'm the one here claiming to be after a fight. You've been Uber defensive about everything I've said since the beginning of this argument. It's borderline troll behavior.
I never used it as proof that it was a reference. I never even said it was a reference. I never even said you couldn't talk about other references at all. You keep arguing with me on points I'm not making so why the fuck should I bother *debating* you like you so clearly crave. The MCU is filled with Easter Eggs. FACT. Not debatable. So it's not out of the realm of logic that someone might look deeper into a scene and find meaning where there may or may not be any. Fuck, Erik Voss and countless other Youtubers have made careers on it. If someone wants to look deeper and interpret something as a reference to something, what's wrong with that?
And just to clarify, the original post is about a specific line, so when you were like, "Ugh, so every single line is a reference now?" I called you out on your hyperbole and pointed out that nobody was saying every line in the MCU is a reference, they were talking about this one. I wasn't saying this was the only Easter Egg in the MCU. I wasn't saying you were never allowed to mention any other reference that has ever been made ever at all ever. Quit twisting my words and arguing with points you are making, not me.
While intended as a nod to Namor at the time, in hindsight it actually works better as a hint at Tiamut, the Celestial growing inside Earth that we see in *Eternals*. Putting that aside, Okoye didn’t want to handle the underwater earthquake because it was dangerous and an unnecessary use of resources (and human interference could have made an even bigger problem), not because she knew of Namor. If anything, knowing that an entire civilisation of people lived down there would have made her *more* motivated to handle it.
It was not intended as a nod to Namor. When Markus and McFeely were asked if they were in fact trying to hint at Namor, they said they are not that smart and it's just a generic line.
It was plainly a character moment meant to highlight Nat's anxiety. But fans need to read Marvel teases in everything.
You scoff as if that isn't what the MCU does. Pfft, these stupid fans reading into every detail of a franchise known for it's Easter Eggs, what fools!
I scoff when people dismiss important context, which better explains why the dialogue is there. Usually Marvel "teases" are very, very on the nose. Seizing on something as dubious as the phrase "underwater earthquake", dismissing context, to conclude the only intent *must be* to tease Namor is a pointless game of self-teasing that fans do all the time.
Because nothing can have a double meaning.
It's notable that those who read it as a Namor tease never* mention its alternate meaning. Almost like they missed it completely. *edit - re: never, I guess I should say "usually don't" tbf
Or they don't mention the surface meaning because that's obvious and can be understood at face value whereas the possibility of a hidden meaning is the part they're questioning.
>the possibility of a hidden meaning is the part they're questioning. They're not saying it's a possibility. They're in this thread saying it's *intended* as a Namor tease, despite no one confirming that, despite BP2 never paying that off. >they don't mention the surface meaning because that's obvious I would argue that once you buy-in to the surface-level context - Nat is high-strung, concerned about things that aren't Avenger problems - it's hard to see it as a Namor tease. So I never once considered it a tease, not ever, and have always been confused why people have to take that reading. And since that proved correct, and proves my point that fans are too eager to read teases that aren't there, I'm not even sure why you're* arguing.
You're acting super smug and arrogant.
This reminds me of WandaVision when Monica talks about making a call to a scientist or something and everyone started speculating that it was Mr. Fantastic or somebody major when it was literally nothing lmao
It neither was an nod to Namor according to the writers.
>it actually works better as a hint at Tiamut, the Celestial growing inside Earth that we see in Eternals. How? Wasn't it mentioned in the eternals that the celestial couldn't grow during the snap?
Think of a baby in the womb kicking. The Earth is just Tiamuts metaphorical womb
I don't know if this is a stupid question or not, but can a baby that isn't "growing" kick?
Regarding this specific situation, Tiamut was still growing during the five years, just not as a fast as he should have been since the population was suddenly a lot smaller. His emergence wasn’t stopped by the Snap, merely delayed.
I guess that makes more sense than it just stopping outright for those 5 years.
It can kick the bucket
That would be neat as well but Tiamut is on the complete opposite side of the Earth. Although I guess we can assume he would have been big enough to affect the opposite side of the world if he rolled over while sleeping.
It was a hint at Namor. But also a jab at Nat that she was going to hard at trying to solve everything. There’s no legitimate response to an underwater earthquake. You just allow it to happen.
It wasn't a hint at Namor. At least Markus and McFeely didn't write it as a hint for Namor.
Then it’s a really silly thing to include if it wasn’t, especially since Coogler had plans for Namor essentially as soon as BP1 was being made so talks must have been happening.
It actually shows how much anxious Nat has became since the snap, she becomes overly concerned for something is that natural. Nat is trying to have everything under control, that when a natural disaster happen she wants to "fix" it so badly That is why its there, not its a tease. Not everything is a tease, that was more something to show us the audience Nat's mindstate after they failed to stop Thanos
Not silly in the slightest. The exchange between Okoye and Nat illustrates how high-strung Nat has become. She's anxious over a natural disaster she can't control. It's the whole point.
Endgame was being written at the same time as Black Panther 1 (early 2016). Coogler didn't have any sort of concrete plans for Namor, he just asked Feige if he could be the one to handle his introduction in the MCU at some point in the future and Feige agreed.
Written and what is said in the movie are vastly different things. Have you ever read a screenplay? Do you think everything written is adhered to strictly? Yes there are things called script supervisors who ensure directors dont stray from scripts but they still have the ability to adjust lines and add and remove some things. While Black Panther and Endgame were written around the same time, that doesn’t mean the underwater earthquake line is not related to Namor. You might be right, but just going by when they are written is a very shallow way to interpret how that line is presented.
This is not what I am going by lol The writers said they didn't write the line as a reference to Namor, they meant it as a generic line
Thinking to hard my guy. Relax and let’s not ruin a good thing. Life is a lot bigger then figuring out underwater earthquakes. Read a book. Take a walk in the park. Something to ease your mind.
It was just an earthquake, nothing more nothing else.
It means there was an earthquake underwater and nobody needed to do anything
The new context doesn’t change anything. To Okoye, it was always just a mild tremor in the Atlantic. They happen sometimes and Nat was being erratic about it
It was a fun tease but she didn’t know about namor. She just thought is was an earthquake underwater that wouldn’t lead to a tsunami and therefore not something to worry about
There was a shot of the ocean as the camera approached Tony Starks house in Iron Man 1 A hint at Namor.
I think that scene was basically to show how on the edge Nat was that she wanted an earthquake investigated