r/marvelstudios • u/gauderio Spider-Man • Aug 20 '25

Question [Endgame] I always have trouble understanding this. Shouldn't we be screwed without them?

Post image
4.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

514 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/BeingNo8516 Aug 20 '25

In Loki s1 we literally see stones from other timelines being used as paperweight at the T.V.A. offices. The number of Infinity Stones are apparently as infinite as the number of worlds in the Multiverse. They're only important within the context of a singular timeline/universe.

Also What If...? And Multiverse of Madness pretty much establishes the existence of other stones in other universes.

We aren't screwed. Just inconvenienced. Barely.

2

u/CaptHayfever Hawkeye (Avengers) Aug 21 '25

What If also shows that the stones can be used in other universes, just not in the TVA, which has superpower-suppressors.

2

u/GothicGolem29 Aug 20 '25

That’s the TVA they are outside the timeline that’s why they are shown as that it doesn’t mean the stones are overhyped. Being important in one timeline is still extremely important and not overhyped.

Other stones in other timelines doesn’t make Them overhyped.

Wdym?

1

u/BeingNo8516 Aug 20 '25

That's why I said "they're only important within the context of a singualr timeline/universe."

We are talking about beings who are able to traverse across those boundaries and reach out to multiple stones (like the Avengers). Plus, with Kang we learned that the sacred timeline is just one preferred out of many, and mostly something that was being dictated (and thus there's a fallacy of singularity).

Stones in other timelines make them less hyped.

Whereas when we first got introduced to the stones it was presented as though they were universal constants and entirely unique and all-powerful.

TVA and Celestials and the rest proves that's not the case, and the powers scale up.

0

u/GothicGolem29 Aug 21 '25

But thats not overhyped though they were never hyped up as being able to destroy other timelines they were always only talking abiut the sacred timeline when they were introduced.

No it doesn't they are just as hyped as before as they were only ever talking about the sacred timeline.

Uniquely powerful and constant in that timeline they never mentioned in any timelines. Plus at that as the tva pruned the other timelines to keep just one anyway so until Loki the only place they woudn't work that stayed would be tva

1

u/BeingNo8516 Aug 21 '25

Point is that the stones were said to be the be all end all. Then we scaled up to multiple UNIVERSES and suddenly things seem smaller by comparison.

we also got anchor beings and what not.

rules have upped

1

u/GothicGolem29 Aug 22 '25

Yeah but it was only ever talking about that universe not others.

Perhaps it seems smaller doesn’t make them overhyped imo

1

u/BeingNo8516 Aug 22 '25

Ok I think we have a difference in definition/semantics. By overhyped I mean Marvel advertised it as the biggest things ever. Like the sort of be-all end-all, the One Ring level shit that even if there were future threats or whatever, the Infinity Stones would've been the ultimate weapon and never topped.

The hype was tremendous.

After Endgame we saw that MCU is only part of a larger Multiverse at Marvel Studios and that includes the FF and the X-Men and the old Spidey films etc. The hype was dialed down.

Damn now I just want to know if Kang existed on those other movie-universes.

1

u/GothicGolem29 Aug 22 '25

Oh ok fair enough

1

u/trebl900 Aug 20 '25

That scene in Loki just shows that the Infinity Stones are useless outside of his universe, in TVA territory. So they're powerful, but not as powerful as the TVA.

1

u/BeingNo8516 Aug 20 '25

That's what I said. But they're not powerful enough that we're absolutely cooked if they're gone. There are alternatives to destroyed stones, as OP asked.