Movies are awesome

[Dominic]

thing about time travel they establish in this movie is

Which just makes things worse

Spoiler

if only in moral terms.

If the time-travel involves travelling to alternate timelines, then Captain America et al are essentially stealing from those time-lines. "Sorry alternatve timeline guys. We have a problem and will solve it by making sure you get something at least as bad."

The movie makes no attempt to have the time travel work with linear causality. But, inter-timeline theft.... Wow. The Avengers are assholes.

Spoiler

the Russo's explain that Cap had to make another jump, back his own universe, after he had lived his life with Peggy.

That is far too much to leave for the audience to assume. There should have been some kind of reasoning on screen to make this work, not a statement in an unconnected interview.

Spoiler

s the second Thanos and Gamorra that throw things off for me. Maybe when I get around to watching it a second time I'll piece things together.

The

Spoiler

alternate timeline stuff

gives the movie some weasel space on this.


There is also another problem with the movie's resolution.

Spoiler

5 years ago (screen time), Thanos wiped out half of the flora and fauna in the universe, including on Earth. Assume that Earth's human population was ~9b (based on real estimates).

Assuming that humanity did not catch a statistically unlikely break or burden, Thanos killed ~half of the human population. The population would have been reduced to ~4.5b (the global population of the mid-20th century). While live-stock and plants would have been similarly reduced, the demand on agriculture (and ecosystems as a whole) would have also been reduced.

In fact, ecosystems would benefit, as the amount of available land would have effectively doubled. There would be a genetically viable population. And, labor would be twice as valuable, even with technology making many jobs redundant. (Frankly, Thanos' plan is hardly the world thing one could do with the gauntlet.)

There would be some disruptions (beyond the obvious psychological impact for the survivors). But, things would actually work out pretty well in the long run. After 5 years, the world would probably have achieved a new degree of normal, with human commerce and agriculture having less of an impact on remaining wild-space. (Plants tend to regrow pretty quickly when left alone. Look at poorly kept yards or parks. Similarly, any species that managed to avoid a genetic dead-end would also recover nicely, having less conflict with reduced numbers of people.)

Then, after all that, imagine the population doubling in the space of a day. Infrastructure and food production would have to double capacity to match the added demand. Everybody would have to give up half of their backyard, because the available land would be cut in half. Everybody's standard of living would be reduced.

Put another way, undoing what Thanos did would actually make things worse.

[Sparky Prime]

Which just makes things worse

Spoiler

if only in moral terms.

If the time-travel involves travelling to alternate timelines, then Captain America et al are essentially stealing from those time-lines. "Sorry alternatve timeline guys. We have a problem and will solve it by making sure you get something at least as bad."

The movie makes no attempt to have the time travel work with linear causality. But, inter-timeline theft.... Wow. The Avengers are assholes.

No, you've got this all wrong.

Spoiler

This is a concern that the Ancient One brings up to Bruce Banner in the film when he goes to collect the Time Stone. And as I pointed out, Captain America goes back in time again at the end of the film to put the Infinity Stones back where they belong after they borrowed them. Replacing them at the exact moment they'd taken them from in history to prevent any branching in the timeline from the stone's absence.

That is far too much to leave for the audience to assume. There should have been some kind of reasoning on screen to make this work, not a statement in an unconnected interview.

I agree. And their explanation I don't really agree with as a viewer. But, Cap refuses to give some details when asked about it, and even Russo's said themselves, it'd be an interesting plot thread to explore some day. So it seems they may have intentionally left it open ended.

Spoiler

(Frankly, Thanos' plan is hardly the world thing one could do with the gauntlet.)

I'd have to disagree with that. I mean, sure, some worlds would be able to recover and survive. But others would be thrown into total chaos, and go extinct. We know Gamora's world was one such world that Thanos had wiped out half the population with his army and believed it became a paradise after he "saved" it, yet the Nova Corps database in GotG said Gamora is the only survivor, meaning her world couldn't recover.

And in the long term, it's really only a short term fix to overpopulation, as any surviving worlds would end up back where they were sooner or later.

Spoiler

Then, after all that, imagine the population doubling in the space of a day. Infrastructure and food production would have to double capacity to match the added demand. Everybody would have to give up half of their backyard, because the available land would be cut in half. Everybody's standard of living would be reduced.

Put another way, undoing what Thanos did would actually make things worse.

Spoiler

There'd certainly be some issues to work out, and just like with the snap, maybe not all worlds would be able to handle it. But I'd think it'd be easier to adjust back to the way things had been after 5 years, as opposed to suddenly loosing half the life on the planet. Food production certainly would be a problem for a little while. But everyone giving up half their backyard? What does that even mean? The survivors wouldn't need more land with less people to occupy it. And infrastructure? It's not like the houses and offices of the people that got snapped away went anywhere. Many buildings were simply left empty with out people to occupy them. Most seemed to congregate together in the larger cities. One scene even shows half the skyscrapers in Tokyo without lights to indicate they are empty, with people only occupying the buildings they could fill.

[Dominic]

But, Cap refuses to give some details when asked about it, and even Russo's said themselves, it'd be an interesting plot thread to explore some day. So it seems they may have intentionally left it open ended.

Not buying it. Chris Evans is leaving the franchise, which makes any follow-up unlikely.

And, given how aggressively the movies were seeded with sequel hooks, the fact that "EndGame" leaves this unaddressed on screen tells me that there is no real plan.

We know Gamora's world was one such world that Thanos had wiped out half the population with his army and believed it became a paradise after he "saved" it, yet the Nova Corps database in GotG said Gamora is the only survivor, meaning her world couldn't recover.

It depends on what killed her planet.

Maybe there was civil unrest after Thanos halved the population. Thanos would not be at fault for that. Or, there could have been some other, unrelated, event.

But, yes, some worlds or species would bottleneck, and go extinct.

And in the long term, it's really only a short term fix to overpopulation, as any surviving worlds would end up back where they were sooner or later.

That is a question of what each planet's sentient species decides to do. They could take steps to limit population growth afterwards. Or, they could repopulate, and cause the same problems as before.

Spoiler

But I'd think it'd be easier to adjust back to the way things had been after 5 years, as opposed to suddenly loosing half the life on the planet. Food production certainly would be a problem for a little while.

Distribution would be the bigger issue. The livestock and plants lost would be restored. But, processing and distributing them would be a problem, especially with twice as much demand.

Jobs would also be an issue. Modern countries have bloated labor markets as it is. (Appropriate that we are talking about this on the day Uber and Lyft drivers are striking.)

Spoiler

After 5 years, economies would have adjusted to new supply:demand. Doubling the population in a day would gut the labor market. And, where the hell are those people going to go? (Yes, yes, hold on, we will get to that.)

Spoiler

But everyone giving up half their backyard? What does that even mean? The survivors wouldn't need more land with less people to occupy it. And infrastructure? It's not like the houses and offices of the people that got snapped away went anywhere. Many buildings were simply left empty with out people to occupy them. Most seemed to congregate together in the larger cities. One scene even shows half the skyscrapers in Tokyo without lights to indicate they are empty, with people only occupying the buildings they could fill.

Where are the newly restored people (and every other species) going to go?

The example I read elsewhere used 'Frisco. But, Japan actually works better.

Spoiler

The idea that any land-poor country, especially an overbuilt hellhole like Japan would let that much space be derelict for more than a year or so is absurd, and shows an embarrassing degree of ignorance on the part of the film-makers.

One of Japan's biggest problems is a lack of space. And, depression seems to correlate with living in tiny apartments in over-dense cities. (Japan is one of the world's least happy countries.) Thanos would be the best thing to happen to Japan since post-war American aid.

There might be some initial reluctance or squeamishness. But, after a year or so, apartment sizes would double when landlords yanked out the walls between Tokyo's notoriously cubicle sized apartments. The luxury apartments of today would become the *standard* apartments of a world with an instantly halved population.

People who had backyards would get bigger yards, because the neighbors' house would get bull-dozed. It would be possible for an adult to live like a civilized person on a low-level job because land would be cheaper and labor more valuable.

Infrastructure is expensive to maintain. Even if a building were left standing empty (which might happen in isolated cases), and it were not picked clean by bandits, it would not likely be habitable after pipes or wiring deteriorated.

Even if some kind of post-disaster "herd" instinct drove people in to metropolitan areas after the snap, they would eventually drift back out. And, cities are much more tolerable when there is elbow room.

As it stands now, there are major cities in the west (London, NYC) that are considering draconian restrictions on when people can drive, or even own cars. This is, in part, a function of over-population and people wanting to maintain a civilized standard of living (including the bold idea of owning one's own car).

Doubling the population would destroy whatever economic system people had built over the course of the 5 years. It would make things worse than they were before Thanos, lowing everybody's standard of living.

[Sparky Prime]

Not buying it. Chris Evans is leaving the franchise, which makes any follow-up unlikely.

And, given how aggressively the movies were seeded with sequel hooks, the fact that "EndGame" leaves this unaddressed on screen tells me that there is no real plan.

Doesn't mean there aren't other avenues to explore that plotline, even without Chris Evans.

It depends on what killed her planet.

Maybe there was civil unrest after Thanos halved the population. Thanos would not be at fault for that. Or, there could have been some other, unrelated, event.

But, yes, some worlds or species would bottleneck, and go extinct.

Thanos would completely be at fault for any civil unrest after he halved the population. You can't just go to a planet, kill off half of them, say "I did you a favor", and then just leave with out ensuring that they'd be able to keep it together after that. And it'd be too much of a coincidence for there to be an "unrelated" event that wiped out the other half. Even if in the unlikely chance that there was, what if they could have survived if Thanos hadn't taken out half of them? It is still his responsibility.

That is a question of what each planet's sentient species decides to do. They could take steps to limit population growth afterwards. Or, they could repopulate, and cause the same problems as before.

That would assume those species knew why half the life on their planets just suddenly disappeared one day in the first place. You have to keep in mind, save for some space-faring races and those that directly conflicted with him, most of the universe wouldn't know who Thanos was, let alone what he was trying to do.

Where are the newly restored people (and every other species) going to go?

Back to their homes. Again, those houses didn't go anywhere. It's only the people that got dusted that were gone.

The idea that any land-poor country, especially an overbuilt hellhole like Japan would let that much space be derelict for more than a year or so is absurd, and shows an embarrassing degree of ignorance on the part of the film-makers.

I have to completely disagree with you. Again, you have to realize, most people would have no idea why half the population just suddenly disappeared. It'd take time for the survivors to realize those people probably aren't coming back. We see missing signs plastered all over the place and even after 5 years, people are still struggling to come to terms with it and move on. And then you have to consider it'd take time to plan and restructure major cities like that. 5 years really isn't that much time to do what you're suggesting all things considered. Some of those building are bound to remain derelict for a few years given the circumstances.

People who had backyards would get bigger yards, because the neighbors' house would get bull-dozed. It would be possible for an adult to live like a civilized person on a low-level job because land would be cheaper and labor more valuable.

Dom, you're literally talking about BILLIONS of houses and buildings here. It'd take decades to plan, restructure and redeveloped city like you're suggesting with all the work they'd have to do. And even if they got over the sudden loss relatively quickly, they might only just be starting work after 5 years.

Doubling the population would destroy whatever economic system people had built over the course of the 5 years. It would make things worse than they were before Thanos, lowing everybody's standard of living.

Again, I don't agree with that. Yes, there would some issues to work out, but I think it'd be easier for them to readjust back to the way things were, as opposed to just suddenly loosing half the population.

[JediTricks]

Glad you liked Ant Man & The Wasp, it's a lot of fun, and yeah, Evangeline Lilly deserved credit for being the first, she's a titular character there. Nobody gives the Ant Man movies much credit.

They should get more. I don't know that I expected much from them, not being all that familiar with the character, but maybe that's why I enjoyed them so much. It was good to see Scott Lang

Spoiler

end up being so important to the plot of Endgame

.

Yeah, it doesn't hurt to have newer characters take on these roles, and then have them matter.

I was discussing this with my daughter, and Captain Marvel is actually the fourth female-lead superhero film. Supergirl, Wonder Woman, and Ant-Man and the Wasp all preceded it. Take that, Brie Larson. I can't say I found Captain Marvel all that compelling a character either. The character seemed really full of herself in Endgame, and talked down to everyone.

You forgot Black Scorpion

Avengers: Endgame - 6.5/10 - big theatrical spectacle, overly long and complex, doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, good but not as good as Infinity War.

Agreed, it's a story that works more on the emotion it generates than a sound plot. That being said, it is very good and I think the filmmakers have earned that emotional payoff by building off of so many movies and off the great setup of Infinity War. This was the first Marvel movie I've gone to see in the theater, and overall it was worth it.

I need to see it again, but for me it didn't feel like a fair payoff to what IW set up, and I didn't really see the throughline to those other films at all. I suppose that's why I gave it a lower score.

I'm looking forward to seeing this at some point. DS9 is my 2nd favorite Trek overall after the original series. It's such a good show, and deserves more recognition than it often gets.

It's worth seeing for sure, although I'm not sure about going to the theater. I think it's coming out in mass release in the next 2 months.

I wouldn't say that the plot is unsound personally. The mechanics of how it all works are a little... complicated. But the movie addresses that by explaining

Spoiler

time travel

doesn't work like we've seen in so many other films.

Spoiler

Not to mention, the uncertainty of using the quantum realm as we are shown.

Now, there is at least one scene that would seem to disrupt it, but apparently the Russo's have an explanation for it (which would have been nice if that'd been in the movie, but then, Cap is vague on the details, so I don't see that it breaks the story either way).

The film beats you over the head with saying how it doesn't work like that, then recycles

Spoiler

Back to the Future

to explain it and basically cheat its way out.

From what I heard,the ending falls apart pretty quickly under minimal scrutiny, even without the poorly defined time travel.

Spoiler

The thing about time travel they establish in this movie is that they don't actually travel to the past of their own universe, they travel to the past of an alternate reality. Essentially this is done to avoid paradox's that we usually see in time travel movies (like Back to the Future) where changing the past affect their present/future. So anything they might inadvertently change while in the past (which they do) doesn't actually affect their own timeline. However, when Captain America returns the Infinity Stones to their proper realities in time, he decides to stay in the past to live out his life with Peggy Carter. He shows up as an old man and passes his shield to Falcon. So the question becomes, how is he an old man in this universe if he stayed in the past of an alternate reality? Apparently the Russo's explain that Cap had to make another jump, back his own universe, after he had lived his life with Peggy.

However, this still leaves some questions. We know Peggy was married to someone in the 'main' universe as well, although his identity was never revealed. I kinda think old man Cap is the Cap from another reality himself, where they'd done the same thing we saw in the 'main' universe. Only, in old man Cap's reality, his shield wasn't broken by Thanos during the fight.

Spoiler

Those don't really work, though, because what's the point of putting the stones back in the timeline if that timeline isn't the same one anymore? If time travel can work but you can't truly go back to your own time, then putting the stones back doesn't change anything for the timeline that had them removed.

I feel like they tried too hard to be clever on paper and got tripped up by missing the more practical matter, they're trying to have it both ways.

Also, it asks the question

Spoiler

"why did they build the time machine outdoors?"

The bottom line is they were hoping they could spend an hour hammering the audience into just going along for the ride, saying over and over that they were right and other takes on the subject were wrong, and then spent the next hour disproving their own point. Either you did go along with it and don't think about it in the moment, or you don't and it drags on your mind.

[Sparky Prime]

The film beats you over the head with saying how it doesn't work like that, then recycles

Spoiler

Back to the Future

to explain it and basically cheat its way out.

I don't see it recycles anything. The film doesn't actually explain how it happened,

Spoiler

old Cap

is just already there somehow. It doesn't preclude explanations by the rules the film established.

Spoiler

Those don't really work, though, because what's the point of putting the stones back in the timeline if that timeline isn't the same one anymore? If time travel can work but you can't truly go back to your own time, then putting the stones back doesn't change anything for the timeline that had them removed.

Spoiler

The Ancient One and Banner explains this in the film.
"The Infinity Stones create what you experience as the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits. Now, this may benefit your reality, but my new one, not so much. In this new branch reality, without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness, our world would be over-run and millions would suffer. Tell me, Doctor, can your science prevent all that?"

“No... but we can erase it. Once we’re done with the stones, we can return each one to its own timeline the moment it was taken so, chronologically, in that reality, it never left.”

They aren't traveling back to their own past here, they're in the past of another reality, which allows them to be able to return to that reality and restore the stones as if they never left.

Also, it asks the question

Spoiler

"why did they build the time machine outdoors?"

That seemed to be a much smaller, portable version, compared to the first one they'd used.

The bottom line is they were hoping they could spend an hour hammering the audience into just going along for the ride, saying over and over that they were right and other takes on the subject were wrong, and then spent the next hour disproving their own point. Either you did go along with it and don't think about it in the moment, or you don't and it drags on your mind.

I don't agree with that. Endgame provides us with a different interpretation than we're used to seeing in popular science fiction, and makes sure the audiences knows this given how things play out in this movie. And they don't disprove themselves, they just left one thing unexplained, which in itself does not mean that it contradicts anything, just that something else must have happened,

Spoiler

as we didn't see Cap's entire trip to return the stones, (which in itself could be interesting, like how he'd react to the Red Skull) but ultimately isn't necessary for this film

.

[Dominic]

The bottom line is they were hoping they could spend an hour hammering the audience into just going along for the ride, saying over and over that they were right and other takes on the subject were wrong, and then spent the next hour disproving their own point. Either you did go along with it and don't think about it in the moment, or you don't and it drags on your mind.

This is generally consistent with what I have read/heard elsewhere.

Spoiler

The idea of old Captain America being from another timeline is just asinine. At best, it is lazy writing to just assume the audience will figure that out, or that the audience will track down an interview about something that is not on screen to begin with.

Thanos would completely be at fault for any civil unrest after he halved the population.

Thanos would be responsible for the deaths he caused. But, he would not be responsible for decisions that people made afterwards. That responsibility is on them.

Back to their homes. Again, those houses didn't go anywhere. It's only the people that got dusted that were gone.

And, that is stupid. As stated above, it demonstrates an embarrassing degree of ignorance about how economics works. (Granted, it is consistent with what people think of comic or sci-fi fans. But, it is still embarrassing.)

Spoiler

Those houses would not be there after 5 years, especially in land poor areas. The population left after the snap would be at mid-20th century levels. America would probably be able to maintain a modern standard of living without immigration.

Again, you have to realize, most people would have no idea why half the population just suddenly disappeared. It'd take time for the survivors to realize those people probably aren't coming back. We see missing signs plastered all over the place and even after 5 years, people are still struggling to come to terms with it and move on.

It might take time for people to accept what happened, and recover emotionally. But, people would have to recognize that half the population was dead/gone. The effect would probably be similar to what happens after a large scale attack or disaster.

Look at post-WWII Europe, and how quickly it recovered. That involved replacing and repairing infrastructure. In the movie, the infrastructure would have been largely intact. The changes would be removing unused structures (simple demolition) or combining smaller apartment to make better apartments. Real estate developers and property owners would move pretty quickly on this.

Some cities might claim derelict properties. But, those homes would be turned in to park space, or sold to abutting residents. And, given how the rental market would have taken a hit, people would realistically opt for bigger yards. (And, even if the homes were maintained, somebody would be living in them...because people would have less need for roommates.)

The only question would be how the new space would be used, not if it would be used.

Dom, you're literally talking about BILLIONS of houses and buildings here. It'd take decades to plan, restructure and redeveloped city like you're suggesting with all the work they'd have to do. And even if they got over the sudden loss relatively quickly, they might only just be starting work after 5 years.

Demolition is fairly simple. The city center where I live is much changed from where it was only 3 years ago. The labor force would exist. The market demand would be there. There would be little need to work on water or power lines. It would be a question of removing derelict buildings, and opening up space.

Again, I don't agree with that. Yes, there would some issues to work out, but I think it'd be easier for them to readjust back to the way things were, as opposed to just suddenly loosing half the population.

I cannot even begin to say how wrong you are about this, nor can I begin to comprehend how you see the world.

Reducing the global population to mid-20th Century levels would be a benefit for the world. Doubling the population over-night, especially after giving people time to adjust would be a disaster, worse than halving the population. This is basic economics.

[Sparky Prime]

This is generally consistent with what I have read/heard elsewhere.

Spoiler

The idea of old Captain America being from another timeline is just asinine. At best, it is lazy writing to just assume the audience will figure that out, or that the audience will track down an interview about something that is not on screen to begin with.

From the new Spider-Man: Far From Home trailer and clips that was released this week...

Spoiler

Mysterio is established to be from another timeline as well. He explains the snap somehow ripped open a rift that brought him to this Earth (apparently the MCU like the comics is known as the 616 universe, while Mysterio claims to be from 338). Now given this is Mysterio we're talking about, he could be lying about the whole thing... Or he could be telling the truth, and this could be one way they could use explain how old Cap returned to this universe. Again, just because they didn't explain it in this movie doesn't mean it's lazy writing.

Thanos would be responsible for the deaths he caused. But, he would not be responsible for decisions that people made afterwards. That responsibility is on them.

You can't make a decision for somebody else (or in this case, entire planets) and then just tell them to sort it out. Anything that happens after is a direct result of what he did. That makes it his responsibility.

And, that is stupid. And, as I stated above, it demonstrates an embarrassing degree of ignorance about how economics works. (Granted, it is consistent with what people think of comic or sci-fi fans. But, it is still embarrassing.

Spoiler

Those houses would not be there after 5 years, especially in land poor areas. The population left after the snap would be at mid-20th century levels. America would probably be able to maintain a modern standard of living without immigration.

And again, you're underestimating just how long it'd take to completely come to terms with loosing HALF the population, and then not only plan what to do from there, but then all the actual work involved. Realistically, it would take them YEARS just to get started. Everything would still be exactly where it was after only 5 years.

It might take time for people to accept what happened, and recover emotionally. But, people would have to recognize that half the population was dead/gone. The effect would probably be similar to what happens after a large scale attack or disaster.

Look at post-WWII Europe, and how quickly it recovered. That involved replacing and repairing infrastructure. In the movie, the infrastructure would have been largely intact. The changes would be removing unused structures (simple demolition) or combining smaller apartment to make better apartments. Real estate developers and property owners would move pretty quickly on this.

Some cities might claim derelict properties. But, those homes would be turned in to park space, or sold to abutting residents. And, given how the rental market would have taken a hit, people would realistically opt for bigger yards. (And, even if the homes were maintained, somebody would be living in them...because people would have less need for roommates.)

The only question would be how the new space would be used, not if it would be used.

Yes, let's look at how quickly post-WWII Europe recovered. Let's see, the war ended in 1945 for Europe and they're still recovering from it to this day. So yeah, they've been making some steady progress after 74 years. I mean, sure, they might have cleared away the rubble relatively quickly, most of that being done by the 50s... Many bombed out buildings didn't get taken down until the 70's and 80's though. Some buildings are even still being restored after all this time (Dresden Frauenkirche in Germany for an example only just finished reconstruction in 2005). And to this day, they still find unexploded ordinance littered all over Europe (and from WWI as well).

What you're proposing would be an even bigger project. Again, we're talking BILLIONS of houses and buildings all around the globe. The infrastructure might be intact, but then, a lot of it could use updated/replaced.

Demolition is fairly simple. The city center where I live is much changed from where it was only 3 years ago. The labor force would exist. The market demand would be there. There would be little need to work on water or power lines. It would be a question of removing derelict buildings, and opening up space.

Again, BILLIONS of people are gone after the snap. You're not talking about simple demolition here with already planned plans, there would be millions of houses and buildings in EVERY city that are suddenly empty (or partly, given the snap was by no means evenly distributed), that had no plans on changing anything when the snap happened. It would take time for the city to figure out who was actually gone. It'd take time to plan what do do with those buildings. It'd take time to demolish things and rebuild.... To suggest that'd all be done in only a matter of 5 years is not possible. At best, they might only just be getting started.

I cannot even begin to say how wrong you are about this, nor can I begin to comprehend how you see the world.

Reducing the global population to mid-20th Century levels would be a benefit for the world. Doubling the population over-night, especially after giving people time to adjust would be a disaster, worse than halving the population. This is basic economics.

Frankly, I can say the exact same thing about you. You seem to have a much more cynical outlook on the world than I do. Reducing half the world's population might lead to some benefits, but that wouldn't happen overnight. You can't just ignore that would have plenty of difficulties of its own. Suddenly loosing half the population like that just as easily could throw the world into total chaos. I fully acknowledge bringing back the population wouldn't be without difficulties, but at least everything (after only 5 years) would still be in place to make that an easier transition. That you think they could make such radical changes in such a short amount of time... The logistics of what you're suggesting alone would be a nightmare to handled on such a small time table. Again, what you suggest would take decades to do.

[Shockwave]

If I magically disappeared and then one day magically reappeared 5 years later, I'm not going to expect that my house is still there waiting for me. The house itself, sure, but I guarantee someone else will be living in it and probably wouldn't take too kindly to me wanting it back all of a sudden. Same would go for my job and maybe even my soon to be wife.

[Sparky Prime]

If I magically disappeared and then one day magically reappeared 5 years later, I'm not going to expect that my house is still there waiting for me. The house itself, sure, but I guarantee someone else will be living in it and probably wouldn't take too kindly to me wanting it back all of a sudden. Same would go for my job and maybe even my soon to be wife.

Are you talking just you disappeared, or you along with half the population of the planet? If just you disappeared, then yeah, you'd be homeless and jobless when you came back after 5 years. But with half the population of the planet gone? That would change those circumstances dramatically. There'd be millions of empty houses. While I can imagine there might be a few people who move into a house that would essentially be abandoned, there simply wouldn't be enough people for all of the empty houses anymore. Most would remain empty. I'd expect most of those houses would be broken into and looted, but empty. Jobs would be much more complicated of a consideration. I'm sure there would be people that wouldn't get their jobs back, having had their job filled in the meantime due to their absence. But at the same time, some companies would be hurting with the diminished employment, with more open jobs than available people. Your soon to be wife... Assuming she survived the snap and you didn't? Maybe she'd move on in 5 years, maybe she wouldn't. I'm sure some people would, but as we saw the guy in the support group say, he'd only just started dating again, still unsure of being able to move on. You can't assume it would be so cut and dry given the unprecedented amount of the population just gone, under such mysterious means. So as I've already pointed out several times... I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems with half the population suddenly coming back after missing for 5 years. But I don't see the situation would be so dire as Dom is making it out to be.

And what Dom is suggesting goes well beyond any of that. He's saying you'd be forgotten about, your house torn down, and the land where it was would become your neighbors new luxury backyard in less than the 5 years, so that when you came back, everything you knew would be completely gone already. Never mind any reasonable reaction that'd happen before any such decisions would be made, or the sheer amount time it'd take to identify the billions of missing people, reorganizing the survivors and whatever else they need to ensure they don't all die.... And so on. I think demolishing houses to make bigger backyards would be the last thing on people's minds in this situation. Let alone that's easily decades worth of work he's suggesting to magically take place in under 5 years.