This kind of confuses me... Taking a stone from a timeline disrupts the said timeline right? While getting a person FROM a timeline seems no repercusion (E.G Loki vanishes with the Tesseract(Space stone), 2014 Thanos comes to present)

Why can't they just get a Tony Stark from the past, maybe before the snap? Or maybe alter the whole History (Make Captain Marvel snap the gauntlet rather than Tony, she held the gauntlet for some time right?)

Just so that Stark can have his family and the whole movie wont have to have a sad ending.

  • 6
    Out of universe: because that's not the message they wanted to portray and would have left the movie missing something in my opinion. In universe depends on who you ask from out of universe. Directors would say it is possible, writers probably wouldn't. May 14 '19 at 9:24
  • 1
    Holding the gauntlet isn't what damages you. Wearing the gauntlet is what damages you. Clint, IIRC, holds the fully-loaded Stark gauntlet for a good few minutes while fighting off the Outriders in the tunnel, and was perfectly fine, but would almost certainly have gone the same way as Tony if he'd actually put it on and used it.
    – F1Krazy
    May 14 '19 at 14:33

The narrative wouldn't have done that, because it has a much simpler option: a very strong hero like Captain Marvel, Thor or Hulk to grab the gauntlet and snap Tony back to health.

I suspect the level of damage the gauntlet deals to the wearer is proportionate to the size of the request, healing one person isn't a big "ask".

The problem is that anywhere you "heist" Stark from, that point in time is now going to be missing Tony Stark. And he was busy and was shaping history largely all that time.

You can't borrow him, use him for 20 years and return him to the moment you borrowed him, because he'd reappear 20 years older, and you'd notice. And borrowing him only for a short time, well, that might make sense in a future story.

Effectively the story "killed off" Tony to add gravitas to the movie. (and also because Robert Downey Jr. probably is at the end of his contract, and has lost interest in the character. He's a reputed actor who commands a lot of money; whereas at the time he was cast in Iron Man, he was "available cheap" due to scandal of his drinking/drugs. In part, Iron Man restored his reputation and value.)


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .